International Aerospace Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Aug 2014 22:16

Not really the Mig-31 can fly faster than PAK-FA and can sustain those speeds for long and it also carries the longest range AAM


In return the Mig-31 can also be detected by a modern AESA and sensor fusion much further away than the PAKFA (regardless of whether it is emitting or not).

AAM's are limited by the network and the detection range for your FCR. You can have a 100nm AAM but if you cannot detect and effectivly target a PAKFA or F-22 from 100nm the range is useless.

so if GBR comes into the picture then Mig-31 can excute the long range interception of the target much better not to mention at M 2.8 the kinemetics afforded to AAM would be much much higher


The problem comes from the fact that the shrinking effect on GBR's that a VLO fleet provides. We are not talking about 1 f-22 or 1 pakfa..We are talking about a force of a few dozen, equipped with a few dozen bombers, UCAVs and what not with a barrage of LO Stand off cruise missiles from legacy aircrafts some 400-500nm away. The more the GBR envelopes are shrunk the more the interceptor has to rely on its own SA to carry the day. The PAKFA is much better here since it can fly silently using its LPD sensors and get close in for a kill. Even with the radar turned off the Mig-31 has a huge RCS that it will present to the attacking force.

I would suggest you read Yefim Gordon book on Mig-31 and why an Interceptor is good at certain role than a general purpose multirole fighter or an air superiority fighter


And I would suggest you try to analyze what effect an All stealth attacking fleet has on the modern intercept mission. The underlying assumptions that made the Mig-31 or other interceptors work earlier do not hold true given the change in dynamics. Either you develop a VLO interceptor (again arguable utility) or you develop a capable Air to Air fighter with a good supersonic range, Vast amounts of SA gathering ability, a good loiter time (TOS) and VLO design so that it can operate freely outside of enemy attack envelopes.

Similarly, a YF-12 upgraded with modern sensors is useless to fend off attacking PAKFA's , PAKDA's and future russian UCAV's. It will provide limited utility unless somehow it is wrapped in a VLO design (where flying fast is counter productive). TOS will trump speed for detecting and successfully fending off large attacking VLO fleets.

The PAK-FA can never be an interceptor reason why the Russians are working on a follow on interceptor although it wont be a dedicated interceptor we know it now in Mig-31 but more like for Aerospace Defence


When it comes out (if it does) it will look a lot different than the Mig-31. The mission itself has changed and therefore platforms must adapt.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 24 Aug 2014 22:31

brar_w wrote:In return the Mig-31 can also be detected by a modern AESA and sensor fusion much further away than the PAKFA (regardless of whether it is emitting or not).


Even if it does you still need a matching FCR and AAM to fire at the target , Mig-31 has the radar range and the LRAAM that can do the job , it can get better if they can get a Ga/A or a Ga/N radar.

AAM's are limited by the network and the detection range for your FCR. You can have a 100nm AAM but if you cannot detect and effectivly target a PAKFA or F-22 from 100nm the range is useless.


Why do you assume that you cant detect it , PAK-FA or F-22 can get detected by VHF Radar on which stealth has no effect or the L band radar which can detect LO target further than X band sensor.

You can always launch AAM in entire silent mode by off board targetting and then cue it using onboard radar of aircraft.

so if GBR comes into the picture then Mig-31 can excute the long range interception of the target much better not to mention at M 2.8 the kinemetics afforded to AAM would be much much higher


.
.The problem comes from the fact that the shrinking effect on GBR's that a VLO fleet provides. We are not talking about 1 f-22 or 1 pakfa


Shrinking even compared to 60 , 70's IADS becuase that was the VLO Aircraft has faced so far.

Most modern GBR have kept up with LO development and use of IADS incorporating BiStatic , HF , L Band radar means that shrinking effect is not as shrinking as it is made out to be.

The effect of VLO today is highly over rated because they have never faced any modern sensors or an integrated IADS , ESM or EW system of contemporary generation.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Aug 2014 22:33

Not really the Mig-31 can fly faster than PAK-FA and can sustain those speeds for long and it also carries the longest range AAM


That should not last for too long.

There is a huge effort underway - all over - to miniaturize, to build smaller without losing effect. Just a matter of time.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Aug 2014 22:50

Even if it does you still need a matching FCR and AAM to fire at the target


Not really since the brute force radar dies down quite a bit when pitted against a VLO target using LPI sensors and a potent EW suite. SA required for a kill will come not from the FCR but from the SA provided through the sensor fusion. The shift in targeting that Sensor fusion provides has drastically changed with time. Currently one has secondary sensors capable of locating a threat with enough accuracy to launch a weapon and the sensor fusion processor does not care from where the info is coming when it tells the missile where to go.

Mig-31 has the radar range and the LRAAM that can do the job


Radar range is useless if you are going to emit that will only add to the possible ways you can be detected from long distances and the brute radar range performance looses significance when pitted against the PAKFA that has integrated sensors and modern EW suite all rolled into a VLO airframe. Same applies to the Long range weapons. A 100nm missile is useless if you cannot detect, and effectivly target a VLO aircraft from 100nm.

it can get better if they can get a Ga/A or a Ga/N radar


Better against legacy targets for sure (more reliable and longer ranged radar and possibility to add more modes) yet unless you are willing to provide infinite radiating power you will NOT be able to lower the detection advantage enjoyed by the stealthy fighter that itself has very highly capable active and passive (more importantly fully fused) sensors. The classic thinking does not apply here since the radar range equation overwhelmingly favors the VLO aircraft when it goes up against non VLO aircraft.

Why do you assume that you cant detect it , PAK-FA or F-22 can get detected by VHF Radar on which stealth has no effect or the L band radar which can detect LO target further than X band sensor


Modern stealth aircraft are optimized for a much wider range of frequencies yet still largely optimized around the X band. Yet, the VHF radars would be dealt with aircraft that are more optimized for broadband stealth, and L band sensors are available to PAKFA and F-22/F-35 for IFF interrogation (They are not FCR). There is no cloak that the Mig-31 processes that will magically render it invisible to the F-22/F-35/PAKFA/J-20 like targets from long ranges while these targets themselves have VLO characteristics.

Shrinking even compared to 60 , 70's IADS becuase that was the VLO Aircraft has faced so far


So the PAKFA will only shrink 60's and 70's SAM envelopes? Not that of a Patriot 3 MSE system? or a AN/TPY2?

Most modern GBR have kept up with LO development and use of IADS incorporating BiStatic , HF , L Band radar means that shrinking effect is not as shrinking as it is made out to be


Really. How shrinking is it then? Do you think the Russians, americans and the chinese would not have tested their designs against a broad range of frequencies and threat emitters? What has changed in Stealth and LOW RCS designs since the F-117 first flew some 30+ years ago? or the B-2 some 25 years ago?

What are all those L band, UHF, VHF radars sitting at radar test ranges doing over which every stealth aircraft has to fly and have its performance verified?

The effect of VLO today is highly over rated because they have never faced any modern sensors or an integrated IADS , ESM or EW system of contemporary generation


I can take this argument and flip it around - " The Mig-31 is highly overrated since it has not faced any modern sensors or integrated Air force equipped with the latest avionics, EW, and modern weaponry".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Aug 2014 01:13

Finally the RFI has been made public for the AETP program. The Variable cycle programs currently for this requirement have been the ATF program (YF-120 engine), ADVENT program (General electric & Rolls Royce), P&W self funded SVV program, AETD program (Pratt & Whitney and General Electric) and now the RFI has been issued for the AETP (Adaptive Engine Transition Program) for a 45,000K thrust class Variable cycle/adaptive engine with the current down select (most likely 2 competitors will be down selected from 3) taking place next year with the EMD phase kicking off in 2019. The program would be completed by 2019, and ready for a program to absorb it post that. Seems like the engine will be much ahead of the rest of the Next generation fighter pretty much in line with what happened with the ATF and JSF programs in the recent past.

This is a Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS). The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center's Propulsion Directorate (AFLCMC/LP) anticipates issuing a solicitation for the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) in FY15, to design, develop, fabricate, and test a complete flight-weight centerline, 45,000lb thrust-class adaptive engine suitable for further development and ultimate installation into combat aircraft. Adaptive engine technology is currently undergoing component level demonstration under the US Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Engine Technology Demonstration (AETD) program. AETP will further mature these adaptive engine technologies and reduce risks in preparation for a competitive, follow-on Engineering & Manufacturing Development program.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 26 Aug 2014 04:40

Reuters: Experimental US Hypersonic Weapon Explodes During Flight Test
A hypersonic weapon being developed by the U.S. military was destroyed four seconds after its launch from a test range in Alaska early on Monday after controllers detected a problem with the system, the Pentagon said.

The weapon is part of a program to create a missile that will destroy targets anywhere on Earth within an hour of getting data and permission to launch.

The mission was aborted to ensure public safety, and no one was injured in the incident, which occurred shortly after 4 a.m. EDT at the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, said Maureen Schumann, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Defense Department.

"We had to terminate," Schumann said. "The weapon exploded during takeoff and fell back down in the range complex," she added.

The incident caused an undetermined amount of damage to the launch facility, Schumann said.

It was a setback for the U.S. program, which some analysts see as countering the growing development of ballistic missiles by Iran and North Korea but others say is part of an arms race with China, which tested a hypersonic system in January.

Riki Ellison, founder of the nonprofit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said he did not think Monday's failure would lead to the program's termination. "This is such an important mission and there is promise in this technology," he said.

He said officials aborted the mission after detecting a fault in the computers.

Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said the technology was best suited for use against smaller, less-developed countries with missiles.

"The United States has never assumed that these ... are going to be systems that you can use against a power like China by themselves," he said. "For a country like Iran or North Korea, they could be a very significant deterrent."


James Acton, a defense analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Pentagon had never been clear about the mission for the weapon, with some viewing it as an effective tool against terrorists and others seeing it as a counter to China or Iran and North Korea.

While hypersonic weapons are unlikely to be fielded for a decade, Acton said the fact that Washington and Beijing were both testing the weapons indicated there was a real potential for an arms race.

"I believe the U.S. program is significantly more sophisticated than the Chinese program," he said.

The weapon, known as the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, was developed by Sandia National Laboratory and the U.S. Army.

Schumann said it included a glide body mounted on a three-stage, solid-propellant booster system known as STARS, for Strategic Target System.

In a previous test in November 2011, the craft had successfully flown from Hawaii to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, she said. On Monday, it was supposed to fly from Alaska to the Kwajalein Atoll.

Acton said no conclusions could be drawn about the weapon based on Monday's accident because the launcher detonated before the glide vehicle could be deployed.


(Reporting by Andrea Shalal and David Alexander; Editing by David Storey and Leslie Adler)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Aug 2014 07:48

First Missile fired at QF-16 (unmanned) - Video inside

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2 ... 26_14.page

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Aug 2014 16:28

Navy’s Next Fighter Likely to Feature Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence will likely feature prominently onboard the Pentagon’s next-generation successors to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

“AI is going to be huge,” said one U.S. Navy official familiar with the service’s F/A-XX effort to replace the Super Hornet starting around 2030.

Further, while there are significant differences between the U.S. Air Force’s vision for its F-X air superiority fighter and the Navy’s F/A-XX, the two services agree on some fundamental aspects about what characteristics the jet will need to share.

“I think we all agree that we have to work on PNT [Positioning, Navigation and Timing], comms, big data movement between both services,” the official said.

It is unclear how advanced technology like artificial intelligence might help a tactical fighter accomplish its mission. But it is possible that the AI would be a decision aid to the pilot in a way similar in concept to how advanced sensor fusion onboard jets like the F-22 and Lockheed Martin F-35 work now.

However, the visions for both the Navy and Air Force are technologically ambitious and there are differences between the services that still need to be resolved.

On Aug. 27, Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command (ACC), hosted an “innovation summit” called Air Superiority: 2030 and Beyond at Moffett Field, California, near San Francisco.

The idea behind the summit was to come up with new ideas on how to conduct the air superiority mission.

Both the Navy and the Air Force are hoping to engage the technology industry in Silicon Valley to help overcome the technological challenges for their sixth-generation fighter efforts.

Meanwhile — even though the F/A-XX initial capabilities document (ICD) is caught in the Pentagon’s bureaucracy — the Navy is proceeding full-steam ahead with preparation work for an analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the new fighter.

The AoA for F/A-XX is expected to start sometime in 2015.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Aug 2014 23:30


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 01 Sep 2014 02:58

Lockheed Martin ESAVE concept

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 01 Sep 2014 04:11

Abd the original MCA:

Image

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Sep 2014 06:04

^^These were the days when Sayan Majumdar had written that "we should induct MCA till 2015".....

http://www.indiadefence.com/MCA.htm

MCA FOR THE NAVY

| An IDC Analysis with inputs by Sayan Majumdar|



New Delhi, 24 May 2004

India's Air Defence System (ADS) is in the final stages of ordering and so the time is right to contemplate the design for our future stealth medium combat aircraft (MCA) –– possibly a naval strike-fighter to operate from the aircraft-carriers.

Media reports indicate that the concept studies on a twin-engine MCA were undertaken for induction around the year 2015. It is likely to be a stealth strike-fighter optimised for the air-to-surface role. Reportedly the only components common with Tejas the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) will be part of the wing, the Kaveri engine, and an array of proven systems and subsystems.

The proven LCA delta wing gives good performance and its aerodynamics are now well understood to justify retention, however a higher wing loading has been preferred. The fly-by-wire (FBW) controls in combination with a delta platform have certain advantages, especially in terms of high fuel storage, increased manoeuvrability, less control surfaces and low radar cross section (RCS). The instability which occurs during low-altitude penetration with significant payloads are minimised, thus the crew does not come under undue strain during long-range missions. The MCA will additionally use a radar-absorbent material (RAM) coating to reduce RCS.

The MCA will have a Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of about 18 tons. With the emphasis on stealth, the MCA will have two small, outward-canted fins and the Kaveri engines will be without afterburners to minimise IR (Infra-Red) signature. For partial compensation for lack of afterburners, the Kaveri engines on MCA will have a slightly higher dry thrust than the LCA engine. These engines will also have thrust-vectoring (TV) nozzles for manoeuvring. Thrust-vectoring engines may prove to be invaluable to MCA. Apart from letting it use shorter airstrips for landing and take-off, TV engines will prove to be of immense value in dodging incoming enemy beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles (AAMs) at extreme ranges.

A super-cruise capability of supersonically sustained flying without use of afterburners is not being sought for the MCA. But super-cruise capability is critical to compound the tracking problems of enemy ground-based defences. Moreover super-cruise capability will by default increase the range of air-to-ground and air-to-air ordnances permitting more stand-off distance to ensure survival of the MCA platform. This aspect is useful since MCA may have to fulfill risky SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) missions and have to destroy enemy high-value thus well-protected military, commercial and industrial assets. A decent ranged ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile), perhaps a further development of Indo-Russian BrahMos should be a top priority. MCA should be a twin-seat design for optimum distribution of pilot-workload during critical and psychologically demanding missions.

Also for stealth reasons, external conformal fuel tanks will be mounted above the wings, as is being considered for the LCA. Conformal fuel tanks increase mission range to a considerable degree while the MCA will be free to manoeuvre to the full. Stores will be carried externally, however, possibly conformally under the wing and fuselage, and will therefore increase RCS until released. This aspect is less than ideal and provision should be made for internal weapon bays to carry weaponry in missions that demand extreme stealth attributes. Additional stores should be semi-recessed under fuselage either in conformal style or laterally.

It is too early and speculative to go to details regarding avionics. An ASEA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar will be obligatory. ASEA beams are difficult to detect while they can detect hostile emissions and neutralise them with their jamming transmitter. For passive navigation and attack high-quality Forward-Looking Infra Red (FLIR) and Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) will be necessary. Combination of ASEA radar, IRST and FLIR will ensure that MCA will remain aware of potential air-threats even while firmly focused on air-to-ground missions.

The EW (Electronic Warfare) suite should contain in addition to standard RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) and chaff/flare dispensers, towed decoys and directed-energy weapons to snap the guidance of incoming AAMs. With wide choice of guidance methods for future AAMs like active-radar, infra-red, imaging infra-red and passive homing, drastic countermeasures become obligatory.

As a bold step the MCA may be designed from outset as a naval strike-fighter with reinforced airframe and undercarriage and “arrestor-hook”. The thrust-vectoring engines by default will permit shorter take-off and landing-approach speeds. It will provide our Naval Air Arm the flexible Nuclear-delivery platforms if situation demands. MCA will in addition be able to make instantaneous post-attack assessment and may be recalled or redirected to a different target even while it is enroute to its targets. In an “all-out” nuclear scenario usually the naval stealth SSBN (Submarines, Ballistic missile armed, Nuclear powered) and Nuclear strike-fighters from mobile aircraft-carriers hold the key to massive punishing retaliation. Land-based versions of naval-MCA could also be developed with relative ease.

History points out that it is difficult for land-based fighters to adapt to a maritime role, but naval fighters can easily be adapted for land based applications. This trend continues and United States F-4 Phantom and French Rafale are glaring examples. If all goes well, the LCA and the MCA, along with the indigenously developed advanced light helicopter (ALH) Dhruv, is to put India on the map as a major aerospace manufacturing nation. It should also silence a section of media that repeatedly negatively criticize our defence research scientists and professionals.

Indigenous capability and self-reliance has many-fold benefits. A solid foundation on our own capability can be set up. Sanctions do have only a marginal effect and can be ignored. Interestingly foreign collaborations are easy to attract if strong indigenous capability is built up as resources can be shared.

Those who negatively criticize our indigenous capability and production are either ignorant or choose to ignore the fact that after USA, India has the largest pool of scientists and qualified technical brains and personnel in the world. The United States does not suffer from such illusions. The projected transfer of “dual-use” high technology between United States and India in fields of peaceful nuclear research and space exploration through “glide path” program, indicates the deep American respect for Indian human resources, technical ability and knowledge absorption.

It is natural to harbour trust and reliance on branches of our Armed Forces along with our defence research scientists and personnel. For their part the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and associate organisations should enter into reciprocal joint-development of military hardware and software with established overseas consortiums for speedy delivery of items to our defence services.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Sep 2014 23:14

US Air Force presses ahead with next-gen fighter, bomber engines

The US Air Force is moving ahead with plans to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet engine based on technological improvements achieved through an ongoing effort to produce a power plant for a future long-range bomber.

In a request for information released 19 August, the air force said it plans to release a final request for proposals for the adaptive engine transfer programme (AETP) in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, “notionally December 2014.”

AETP is aimed at finding mature engine technologies that will feed into an engineering and manufacturing development program, according to Pentagon documents. The eventual goal is to design, build and test a 45,000lb-thrust-class fighter engine “suitable for further development and ultimate installation into combat aircraft.”

The programme is a direct follow-on to the Air Force Research Laboratory’s adaptive versatile engine technology (ADVENT) programme. General Electric and Rolls-Royce North America developed engines that meet the 25 percent efficiency metric under ADVENT.

GE currently has a full ADVENT engine in testing that is designed for a “bomber application,” says spokesman Matt Benvie. Northrop and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team are expected to compete for the LRS-B contract that will be awarded in spring 2015.

GE and Pratt & Whitney in 2012 scored contracts under the follow-on adaptive engine technology development (AETD) programme. AETD will produce a fighter engine core based on ADVENT technologies by 2016 that incorporates ceramic matrix composite material to improve heat tolerance and acceleration.

AETP will further mature the core’s heat tolerance and mate the core with an adaptive fan. The effort will conclude with a full-engine test either on a ground test bed, aboard a Lockheed Martin F-35 or in an “unnamed flight test application,” Benvie says.

“We are doing work as if AETD leads directly into AETP,” he says. “We’re maturing and incorporating more and more of these higher-temperature capability technologies so you can drive more power and fuel efficiency.”

Adaptive engines incorporate three airflow pathways through the jet engine to increase fuel-burn efficiency without increasing its diameter and therefore the size and design of the fighter. Current engines take in air in two ways: through the core and “bypass” air that creates efficient thrust by flowing around it. The larger the intake, the more efficiently thrust is generated. But fighter jet engines are limited in size because an increase in intake diameter has third order effects on the aircraft’s drag, radar signatures and other attributes.

At cruising speeds, the third air intake pathway is used to increase the amount of bypass air around the engine’s core, which boosts propulsive efficiency. It can also be directed through the core to increase the total volume of air intake, which increases the exhaust jet velocity.

Pentagon scientists have estimated the engine technology could increase fuel efficiency by 25% to 30%.

In its fiscal year 2015 budget submission, the air force requested a $1 billion investment over the next five years in next-generation engine technology development. AETP is scheduled to last through 2019.

But the service’s proposed budget ignores the likelihood that sequestration-level budget cuts will again go into effect in fiscal year 2016. Unless lawmakers either repeal sequestration prior to fiscal 2016 or enact relief measures, the law automatically will excise about $600 billion from the Pentagon’s budget over the following five years.

An April Defense Department report bluntly states that the adaptive engine program would be “eliminated” by such reductions.

Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Leo.Davidson » 03 Sep 2014 05:21

NRao wrote:Abd the original MCA:

Image


This should be a joke, given that LCA is still on operational after how many decades?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Sep 2014 05:30

That "joke", as it is being proven, was way ahead of it's time. Besides, it was a concept design, the real one has seen a few changes. The design was not the problem.

On lca and decades, two, going on an irreplaceable three. Normal for air crafts. Nothing to be ashamed of. Of course, things could have been better, but ............

Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Leo.Davidson » 04 Sep 2014 06:38

Yeah it is a joke, you know why. because it is a freak'n TAILLESS plane. Do you know how much shit went into developing the B-2 bomber, the software, etc. And HAL without any successful home designed & built high speed fighter jet and without significant hand-holding for other tasks, plans to develop the most difficult type of plane.
That is enough to make all the sane people jump off the cliff.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4754
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby srai » 04 Sep 2014 07:12

^^^

With that kind of attitude, India would never have developed the "4th-Gen" LCA. It did take 30-years from inception to IOC but they made it happen. Many designs are explored whether practical or not. The original MCA concept was based on leveraging the LCA design. AMCA has only recently (2 years or so) begun its official detailed design phase. It is typical for an official detailed design phase to last for 7 years. Expect to see major/minor changes along the way.
Last edited by srai on 04 Sep 2014 07:18, edited 1 time in total.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 04 Sep 2014 07:16

^How dare SDREs envision something before the TFTAs have already done it? It has to be a joke, otherwise TFTAs are not that tight a$$ed anymore.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby KiranM » 04 Sep 2014 12:28

George Welch, any idea if Abrams have been LAPES'ed or air dropped in any way from C17? Trawling the net I have come across Germans claiming that they have tried LAPES with Leopard1.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 08 Sep 2014 05:25

How about a nuclear powered ramjet to deliver nuke bombs?

watch the 1959 video in this article. Awesome, I had no idea when I was a kid that all this was going on. Needless to say I was a Popular Science and a Popular Mechanics freak and they never wrote anything about it. My dad worked on the Atlas ICBM silos in Texas so I tried to keep up with stuff.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-sl ... a6066850af

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 20 Sep 2014 17:08


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Sep 2014 03:00

We have a tendency to order-more of the stuff that works, without thinking of the options those orders may impact.

Here is a recent example of it:

Old work stations (Joint Star):

Image

New workstations (one example being looked at):

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 21 Sep 2014 03:10

the risk of detonation within launch zone is always a concern for WMDs, and the technology has advanced for what proximity parameters and thresholds are required to trigger the primary, which will also include sensors from various devices - baro, alti, distance, yadi yada.. and suddenly all those design goes vapor ware by putting a nuke powered delivery system.

but then, if you are so mad to destroy yourself... make it so!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Oct 2014 19:11

Basic Trainer for RuAF Under Development Yak-152 ( use translator )

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1027925.html


Yak-152 - a combat trainer aircraft to improve flight training cadets and pilots the Air Force combat units. Maximum speed in level flight of the Yak-152 will be 300-320 kilometers per hour, the ceiling - 4000 meters, length of the runway - 300 meters, range - 1,400 kilometers. Normal take-off weight - 1320 kg. Resource Yak-152 should be at least 10,000 hours and 30,000 landings. On the new TCB cadets of military schools, as well as be able to master the system DOSAAF piloting technique and the basics of navigation, aerobatics, formation flights. According to experts, on-board equipment will work in adverse weather conditions. The Yak-152 is installed ejection system SKS-94M.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 18 Oct 2014 23:56

so, what was the mission on x-37b?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Oct 2014 23:57

SaiK wrote:so, what was the mission on x-37b?


Other then the generic explanation given, it is largely classified.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-ai ... 1647902456

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 19 Oct 2014 05:28

my guess is reusable satellite system for mil purposes.
- from nuke detection, launch and comms.
- deep observations, and high-depth scans even under the oceans - identify subs, etc. [that would be too much tech]
- ..space is the limit for guessing

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 20 Oct 2014 02:46

The carrying capacity of the X-37B is rather small, the size of a pickup truck bed. That's about 5 x 6.5 feet. that means only miniature satellites. My guess is single purpose, ad hoc sats, testing for various situations. the plane itself can make up to an 18 degree orbital shift once in established orbit and still have enough fuel to deorbit to its designated ground base. it is prolly used for hot spot ad hoc monitoring of some sort using the latest and greatest geekoid ideas.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Oct 2014 04:20


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Oct 2014 20:37



member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 22 Oct 2014 07:15

Embraer unveils new KC-390 military transport

http://news.yahoo.com/brazils-embraer-u ... 57751.html

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8266
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Indranil » 22 Oct 2014 22:56

A big round of applause to Embraer from my side.

Meanwhile in India, we have been on the drawing board for over a decade and don't seem to be getting out of it anytime soon. We should also thank the Russians for accelerating our pace with an existing design!

P.S> The Preliminary Design Phase (PDP) was signed on 12-Oct-2012 and the work was supposed to be finished in 10 months, following which work on the Detail Design Phase (DDP) should have started. It is October 2014....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Oct 2014 07:29

Air Force Avoids New-Start Ban, Launches 6th-Gen Fighter, Next-Gen JSTARS

The Air Force is launching high-priority, new-start modernization programs this fall after winning approval from Congress to begin a sixth-generation fighter aircraft program and the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System replacement effort with fiscal year 2014 funds, sidestepping a statutory ban on new projects mandated by the stopgap spending bill funding the government through Dec. 11. The service, which originally planned to begin these programs in FY-15, this summer requested permission from lawmakers to reprogram prior-year funds in order to avoid schedule delays for its Next-Generation Air Dominance program and Next-Generation JSTARS program -- requests granted by all four defense committees, the Pentagon disclosed on Oct. 16.

Under the continuing resolution funding the federal government from Oct. 1 to Dec. 11, the Pentagon may not launch any new programs or expand the scope of existing programs beyond levels funded in FY-14. That restriction would have stalled these two aircraft-modernization efforts which both planned to commence using FY-15 funding. However, the Air Force's wish found favor this summer with lawmakers who tend to frown upon Pentagon requests to launch new starts in reprogramming actions.

While the Air Force in July sought $7 million in reprogrammed FY-14 funds to jump-start its $15 million FY-15 budget request for the next-gen fighter project, Congress granted a mere $1 million, a token sum that also authorized the service to formally being the program and avoids a nine- to 12-month delay to the fledgling program.

"Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) is a pre-Material Development Decision program that recently received new start approval with the FY14 reprogramming request," Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick told Inside the Air Force in an Oct. 23 statement. "While the Air Force did not receive the full funding request, planned efforts will begin with FY14 funding and continue with FY15 funding."

The new program plans to initiate an analysis of alternatives for a new fighter in FY-16 and launch a program of record in FY-18, Gulick said, a schedule that is consistent with the plan the Air Force outlined in its FY-15 budget request.

The Air Force's work on a new fighter will be coordinated with the Navy's exploration of a follow-on aircraft for the F/A-18. The two services have been directed to conduct a joint analysis of alternatives to explore their respective requirements.

"The Air Force and the Navy are establishing a Joint Integrated Product Team to develop a Joint Study Plan that will provide directive guidance for the accomplishment of the Joint AoA," Gulick told ITAF. "The intention of the Joint AoA is to leverage the Air Force and Navy AoA study methodologies for technology development commonality," he added.


Congress also granted the Air Force a reprogramming request key to one of its top-five modernization goals: a new program to replace the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System. The $5 million authorized for the effort will allow the analysis of alternatives begun with FY-13 funding to proceed "uninterrupted" into FY-15.

The FY-14 funding "will be used for activities to proceed" to a materiel development decision with the Pentagon's acquisition executive, according to Gulick. "Once the MDD is approved, the funding will support the award of multiple Technology Maturity Risk Reduction contracts in FY-15," he added


Just let me put the low $ amounts into context. The R&D account for future technology development for potential "fighter developments" is through separate channels. For example, AETD and AETP programs will be funded (the former is currently underway and the latter will begin as soon as the former concludes) through the propulsion allocations to the various stakeholder agencies. Similarly, associated development of directed energy weapons, and other electronic components and sensor development is ongoing through other programs. What this grant (1 million) does is allow for the service to issue an RFI and conduct an official Analysis of alternatives. There won't be any money allocated to any technology verification, development or maturation. That will continue through the usual route until the service embarks on a dedicated program through a dedicated office. This is all SOP.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Oct 2014 00:15

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... ne-mission
Secret space plane's mission remains mystery outside US military
Is the classified US air force project an attempt to steal satellites, like a James Bond villain? Maybe not, but clues exist

Alan Yuhas
theguardian.com, Sunday 26 October 2014 19.21 GMT

The air force says the X-37B performs ‘risk reduction, experimentation and development’.

“Secret space plane” is a phrase that sidles comfortably alongside “undersea lair” and “diamond laser” as an apparent invention of spy movies and science fiction. But like both those things, secret space planes exist.

Beyond the fact of their existence, however, the US military keeps quiet about its pair of planes – and says even less about what one was doing for two years in orbit before landing in California last week.

Silence from the US air force, however, does not discourage an educated guess or idle speculation, the latter of which tends to flourish especially when something is stamped “classified” and just came back from outer space.

The plane, called the X-37B, resembles a miniature of Nasa’s classic space shuttles: it is 9.5ft tall, just over 29ft long, and has a wingspan an inch shy of 15ft. The lightweight, partially solar-powered and largely robotic X-37B’s mission was last officially described in 2010, when the air force said its objectives were to test “reusable technologies” and “operating experiments”, listing avionics, thermal protection and other equipment for space flight.

The mystery of the plane centers around the purpose of an interior cavity, about the size of a truck bed and much too cozy for a human to live in for 674 days, the duration of its latest mission. The main theories suggest that the plane carries sensors and spy equipment, satellites or even weaponry.

But space bombing is unlikely, even though the Pentagon has funded plans for a vehicle spacecraft that could hit targets anywhere in the world within 90 minutes. That program involves a vehicle that flies lower than the X-37B, which would have to shift its orbital plane to fly over a target – using precious fuel to engage its thrusters. The sheer cost of the program would make it an unwieldy and overly expensive weapon for a military that already considers the global reach of its bases and navy a point of pride.

A more imaginative theory is that the X-37B could capture other nations’ satellites and spacecraft, a la a certain James Bond movie, or at least interfere with them by way of equipment on board. But the mechanics of having to manuever the plane run into fuel and cost problems again; it is also neither agile nor stealthy. In fact, X-37B is sometimes visible from the ground – amateur satellite spotters have tracked it for years. In clear conditions at the right latitude, it would look like a star moving across the sky.

Unlikely.

More importantly, the space plane’s purpose would not be very secret if it happened to fly by at the moment a Russian satellite disappeared or lost contact. If the geopolitical foes of a You Only Live Twice had a hunch about culprits, real Chinese and Russian analysts would too (criminal masterminds with a thing for cats notwithstanding).

Even spying on China’s relatively new space station makes little sense, although the orbits of station and plane occasionally coincided. As space journalist and analyst Jim Oberg told the BBC: “They are in orbits which cross the equator about 90 degrees apart. They crisscross each others’ paths at thousands of meters per second. Any observation from one to the other is impossible.”

One analyst did tell a science site he thought one bonus of X-37B’s mission could be “to give the Chinese a brain cootie”.

Others, like Brian Weeden, a former air force officer and current technical adviser to the Secure World Foundation, think X-37B’s mission is to test reconnaissance and spy sensors, particularly how they hold up against radiation and other hazards of orbit. Weeden has watched X-37B for years and told Space that at its inclination its sensors could only see a relatively narrow range of latitudes: Iraq, Iran, south-east Asia, Pakistan and parts of Africa and Latin America.

Moreover, because the plane is reusable, its sensors and spy gear could be reconfigured on return to Earth, and what maneuverability it does have makes it more versatile (and cheaper) than a traditional satellite. It’s conceivable too that X-37B could even deploy and test its own satellites.

Finally, the Daily Beast and New York Times have over the years managed to get a few air force and industry officials to slip details. “Sources familiar with the program” told the former that the plane is “designed to carry experimental payloads of sensors – like various high-tech cameras … electronic sensors and ground-mapping radars”.

A few years ago the Times managed to get an air force official to admit “its ultimate goal [is] to aid terrestrial war fighters” in a support role.

But until a FOIA request strikes gold or the Pentagon feels like fessing up, we won’t have many precise answers about X-37B’s mission. And with a bigger and badder X-37C in development at Boeing’s Phantom Works division, designed for as many as six astronauts and able to dock with space stations, questions about the US military’s plans for outer space won’t disappear anytime soon.

Let’s hope the masterminds behind such plans don’t have a pool of piranhas and volcano bases in mind too.

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 28 Oct 2014 04:57

Brazil selects and signed for SAAB Gripen
http://defense-update.com/20141027_grip ... E7fKPnF9-c

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JTull » 29 Oct 2014 03:12

Antares rocket carrying Cygnus spacecraft to ISS has just exploded at takeoff over the launchpad.

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 29 Oct 2014 03:14

JTull wrote:Antares rocket carrying Cygnus spacecraft to ISS has just exploded at takeoff over the launchpad.

Yes I was watching it live--- was a shocker----

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JTull » 29 Oct 2014 03:22

Prithwiraj, viewing it on Sky?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16890
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Oct 2014 03:38

The windowless plane set for take-off in a decade

Dunno. How do I shut that window to get a litlle shut eye?

Image


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests