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.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 878
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Mihir » 20 Jan 2015 18:37

The Syrian Arab Air Force, Beware of its Wings

A fascinating look at the state of the SyAAF, its operations in the ongoing civil war, and the assistance from Russia that has kept its platforms flying.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Jan 2015 19:09

Northrop Developing 6th Gen Fighter Plans

LOS ANGELES — Northrop Grumman has stood up a team dedicated to developing a "sixth-generation" fighter, years before the Navy or Air Force intends to issue requests for information on potential replacements for current aircraft.

It's an aggressive move that Tom Vice, president of Northrop's aerospace division, hopes will pay off in a big way for his company.

"Northrop Grumman will compete for the next generation fighter," Vice flatly declared, noting that there is a program manager already leading a team of Northrop staffers on the program.

When asked whether he envisioned Northrop acting as a prime contractor on a future fighter, he added "of course."

Vice's comments were made during a trip to Northrop facilities in California, arranged and paid for by the company.

Both the Air Force and Navy have begun preliminary planning for what is referred to as next-generation air dominance or, more colloquially, "sixth-generation" fighters. After working together on the F-35 joint strike fighter, the two services are currently looking at procuring their own respective jets.

The Navy's programs is dubbed F/A-XX, while the Air Force's effort is known as F-X. In September, Col. Tom Coglitore, Air Superiority Core Function Team chief at Air Combat Command, told Defense News he wants to see Milestone A acquisition activity in early fiscal 2018.Vice indicated that Northrop is looking at a supersonic, tailless airplane design as a potential solution, something he noted no one has ever done before.

"You don't see any supersonic airplanes today without tails," Vice said. "Why? It's really hard. But if you think about new ways to do advanced computing, very high speed processing, new materials – that's why the research we do is so important, so we can build what could likely be the next-generation fighter in 20 years. It's going to require that kind of technology, because to build that airplane is going to be really, really hard."

He also hinted that making a system optionally manned would be relatively easy for the company.


While Vice may be confident in his program, outside analysts have questioned whether Northrop can survive long-term as a attack airframe manufacturer, especially if it loses out on the Air Force's long range strike-bomber program.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16487
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Jan 2015 22:29


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Jan 2015 02:44

Trio of Defense Giants Posture For Sixth-Gen Fighters: Amy Butler, AWIN Subscription


All three major U.S. defense contractors are posturing for the next, yet-to-be-defined air dominance fighters for the U.S. Navy and Air Force.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman each have formed teams to plan for these so-called sixth-generation fighter competitions, though actual developments — and real funds — are not likely to surface for years.

The fighters would replace the F/A-18E/F and F-22 and likely would be fielded no earlier than the 2030s. The Navy’s project is dubbed the F/A-XX, formerly referred to as the Next-Generation Air Dominance platform. The Air Force’s is named the F-X.

Northrop Grumman has already established a pair of teams, one for the Navy and one for the Air Force, to pursue the work, according to Tom Vice, president of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. They are organized under a single head for the next-generation fighters. He adds that the company intends to be a prime contractor on the project.

Likewise, Boeing has formed separate teams for the programs, says Deborah VanNierop, a spokeswoman for Boeing Phantom Works, the company’s advanced development shop.

Lockheed Martin, by contrast, has what spokeswoman Heather Kelso calls a "multi-business area team" exploring opportunities for the Air Force F-X and Navy F/A-XX.

All of the companies are holding details close, even the names of persons involved in the programs. Each declined to say who was leading their respective projects due to competition sensitivities.

A true path forward is unlikely for either project in the near term. In terms of industrial base resourcing, the companies are largely focused now on competing for work on the Air Force’s Long-Range Strike Bomber. Northrop, manufacturer of the B-2 more than 35 years ago, is competing against a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team. Though a downselect is expected in the spring, the Air Force is not planning to release details until next fall. This timing is likely to allow for a protest period, should the losing contractor request an audit of the source selection.

Once the bomber program is underway, industry will likely need more work to stay healthy. This is where the next-generation fighters will likely gain steam, according to one financial analyst.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 27 Jan 2015 00:02

A lawn dart is an all round widow maker, advanced versions are mass widow makers and need to be replaced. Second hand fighters are most dangerous.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 27 Jan 2015 01:05


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 27 Jan 2015 03:17

perhaps we need an ops thread to collect such gems:
"We had been flying there for six months and there had been virtually no wind at altitude the entire six months, then once we got to altitude the winds were about 60 to 80 knots [70 to 92 mph], which is not a big deal for short distances, but when you are flying 1,200 miles and you've got a two-hour drive, that creates a significant difference in your flight plan route."

The unexpected wind speeds added another five or 10 minutes, making it more challenging to meet the planned time on target.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... f7123502=1

About 200 miles from the Syrian border, the F-22s went to afterburner, accelerating to Mach 1.5, and started the climb up to 40,000 feet—the intended cruising altitude for the 15-minute flight into Syria.

"We were pulling the power back to try to keep the jet from accelerating past 1.5 because 1.5 was actually the sweet spot for us to hit the time on target exactly on time," said the pilot.

very good situational awareness"... He "wasn't convinced" that air defenses would stay dark, though, until the mission aircraft actually got to the target area and didn't see any air or surface threat become active.
..He noted that the GPS guided munitions hit only the right side of the building, where the command center was located. That area was completely destroyed.

They quickly determined that only two F-22s were needed for the B-1 escort follow-on mission, so the third and fourth jets headed back without the tanker.

two pilots learned the details of their new mission: Escort a B-1 to the western side of Syria so it can reattack some targets missed during the initial bombing campaign. The new target was the farthest point west so far for the pilot.

Deconfliction was not a problem for the F-22s, which were operating solely in an air-to-air capacity now, because they could climb higher than the other aircraft, but the B-1 had to worry about the other aircraft taking off.

As of Dec. 10, 2014, F-22s had flown less than 100 total combat sorties from their undisclosed operating base, including about a dozen strikes in which multiple weapons were employed, said Air Forces Central Command ..

In just over 12 hours, the geospatial analysts were able to put together 47 intelligence products. They were sent electronically to the combined air and space operations center downrange.

I'm talking about signals intelligence, geospatial intelligence, ground moving target indications—all the different types of ints that are out there, we layer them all together and we do analysis fusion and we provide a finished product."

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Jan 2015 07:47

^^ Posted this in the International Military thread. The undisclosed base is Al Dafra - an open secret.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 27 Jan 2015 08:14

oopsie!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 28 Jan 2015 22:51

New Photos: Chilled Lightning

by Amy Butler

F-35 skeptics might see these photos and declare with delight that the program is on ice. Not so, the Pentagon continues to throw its support behind the $400 billion project.

In advance of the U.S. Marine Corps' plans to declare initial operatioanl capability for its F-35B -- optimized for the Harrier replacement mission -- F-35 program officials have begun to test the single-engine, stealthy jet in extreme climates. BF-05, was ferried to Eglin AFB, Florida, last fall for the trials. The aircraft is in the McKinley Climatic Laboratory on the base, which is designed to simulate nearly every possible weather condition on Earth. The lab is designed to produce temperatures from -40 degrees to 120 degrees. The lab can also produce various conditions including rain, ice, fog, snow and varying humidity levels.

Here are some pictures of the testing from Lockheed Martin's Andy Wolfe.

Image

BF-05 is on an icing cloud test calibration fixture at the McKinley Climatic Lab (above).

Below are two pictures of BF-05 during icing cloud calibration runs.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Jan 2015 02:14

Deleted
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Jan 2015 02:27, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Jan 2015 02:18

A newX plane program is being conceived

The fiscal 2016 future years defense program (FYDP) slated to be released on Feb. 2 "reverses the decline in defense spending over the past five years and works to address the under-investment in new weapons by making targeted investments in those areas we deem to be the highest priority," Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said.

Earlier in the day, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall told a Senate panel that there is money in the next budget for the Air Force to begin work on its 6th generation fighter

"It will be a program that will be initially led by DARPA," Kendall said, "but it will involve the Navy and the Air Force as well. And the intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air dominance platforms, X-Plane programs, if you will."


Kendall Unveils Sixth Gen Fighter Project For 2016

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/kend ... -for-2016/

The United States will begin serious development of prototypes for so-called sixth generation fighters — successors to the F-35 and F-22 — for the Navy and the Air Force in the 2016 budget, says the head of Pentagon acquisition, Frank Kendall.

The Aviation Innovation Initiative is a new effort, not an agglomeration of existing DARPA programs, Kendall told me during a vote break at today’s hearing. He declined to say how much money the new initiative is getting, only calling it “significant.” I would assume that means between $150 million and $500 million or so for the first few years, given the fact they are developing airframe and engine prototypes. Developing several bleeding edge prototypes — which is what a DARPA effort like this would presumably target — could not be done for peanuts.

The main goals of this effort — aside from developing and proving technologies — is to preserve the defense industry design teams that are crucial to building aircraft (and who don’t have much work right now) reduce lead times and reduce program risk, Kendall told us.

For those who follow this in detail, Kendall has pushed hard for DARPA to do work to keep the design teams going both for airframes and for engines. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has also called for work to begin on a sixth generation fighter. The engine work has been known as AETD — Advanced Engine Technology Demonstrator. Kendall says that work “continues, not exactly as it was before, but it continues.”

The existing DARPA effort has been known as the Air Dominance Initiative. Eight DARPA program managers work with Air Force and Navy experts looking at networking and communications, control of the electromagnetic spectrum, sensors, what role space assets play and how manned and unmanned systems work together,


Also another bit on the recent Obama-Modi announcement:

Finally, Kendall offered a bit of detail about the aircraft carrier technology agreement India and America signed during President Obama’s visit. The deal included a wonderfully vague reference to sharing carrier technology so I asked Kendall about it during the vote break during today’s hearing.

First, he said he didn’t think he should share any details. Then he offered this: “India has aircraft carriers and they are interested. in some of the technology we are fielding. We are going to look at what we can possibly export,’ he said. I would bet that might include the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). An awful lot of the radar, other sensors, and command and control gear on the carrier would probably hit the arms export approval wall. But, given how close India and the US are getting, maybe I’m wrong

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Jan 2015 04:04

deleted
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Jan 2015 06:53, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Jan 2015 04:04

Northrop Teases New Bomber in New Ad

WASHINGTON — Subtlety, Thy Name Is Northrop.

Again.

Northrop Grumman has made no secret of its desire to land the Air Force's next-generation bomber program, known as the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B). With the service expected to downselect in late spring or early summer between Northrop and its competition, a team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, it appears the company is getting more serious about its public push for the program.

Below is a new ad from the company posted Thursday, which a spokesman said will debut nationally on Feb 2.


Image


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Jan 2015 06:52

it looks like the alien spaceship in 'independence day'

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Jan 2015 23:16

Singha wrote:it looks like the alien spaceship in 'independence day'



It is obviously a Computer generated thing and nothing even remotely similar to what they are likely to propose for obvious reasons. As per historic trends around 20-25% of the total expenditure on high end weapons system is incurred if a decision is made to keep them under wraps (more if you want to keep them under wraps operationally). So its highly unlikely that with all that being invested to keep it a secret, one of the competitors would be allowed to tease its designs in a commercial. We do however have a publicly released design for the now cancelled Next Generation Bomber, from around 2005-2008 from the Boeing-Lockheed team. Boeing and lockheed have again teamed up, but given that this design was released quite publicly after the program shifted in 2009 to the current LRS-B program with different requirements, it is extremely unlikely that the eventual Boeing and Lockheed design would be similar (otherwise they would have still kept it under wraps). The noise that was coming from the OEM's back then was ELO (extreme low observability) hinting that significant advances have been made in all aspect broadband stealth over either the B-2 or the F-22/YF23 and F-35 efforts. Some were even claiming that the leaders in those advances has been Boeing forcing Northrop (back then) to begin to hint out some of the B-2's secrets such as its use of engine thrust to augment yaw control (differential thrust) in high altitude extreme RCS preserving conditions/modes.

Anyways, here is one picture/model of what Boeing and Lockheed proposed.

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Feb 2015 11:22

The perils of operating an old helicopter,which we are also tragically seeing in the number of Chetaks crashing,and asininely,the MOD stopped the contest for the most urgently needed LUH for the IA.

Sea Dragon Down: The Human Cost of the Navy's Most Crash-Prone Chopper
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigati ... er-n281636

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 04 Feb 2015 11:39

Philip wrote:The perils of operating an old helicopter,which we are also tragically seeing in the number of Chetaks crashing,and asininely,the MOD stopped the contest for the most urgently needed LUH for the IA.


No it should have stopped the contest for the LUH. Maybe with a small batch on lease, purely as a bridge to HAL's LUH. Unfortunately, all that's been done is to switch the license-manufacturing project to the private sector.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 04 Feb 2015 13:08

You look at Ukraine's infrastructure showing up in videos and wonder, what are they upgrading airplanes with -- vacuum tube technology? East ukraine doesnt appear to have anything past 70s.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Feb 2015 14:36

Viv,what has happened? Another contest/evaluation for a make in India LUH,either the Russian whirlybird or the new talk of a Korean one. I agree,at least an import of around 40-60 LUHs should've been made as the demand for them is huge in the Himalyan borders. If we could buy the sub-standard AWs earlier,an order for v.urgently reqd. LUHs should've been made. The hundreds to follow made either by the pvt. or state sector.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Feb 2015 11:17

Russian Air Force And Navy To Receive 200 New Aircraft In 2015, More Than Most World Air Forces Have
By Christopher Harress @Charress c.harress@ibtimes.com on February 04 2015
http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-air-forc ... ve-1805100

A Modernized Su-35S Of The Russian Air Force

The Russian air force, navy and army will receive new aircraft in 2015.
Russia is proceeding with an ambitious plan to bolster its air force, at a time when its military aircraft are conducting more and more flights probing the air defenses of its neighbors and raising fears of a new Cold War. It will receive more than 200 new airplanes and helicopters this year, a staggeringly high number considering that most of the world's air forces have fewer warplanes than that in total. Russia will also introduce in service this year the most advanced version of its highly capable Flanker fighter jet.

The plans are an integral part of the Kremlin's intention to moderize its entire armed forces.

“Under the framework of Defense Procurement and Acquisition program, the air force and naval aviation will receive 126 new military aircraft and 88 helicopters," said defense minister Sergei Shoigu during a conference call on Tuesday, as reported by Russian news site Sputnik.

The defense minister made it clear that in 2015 the Russian air force’s modernization is a priority for the government. The minister said "the serviceability status (will incease) up to 67 percent," meaning that two out of three aircraft will be ready to fly at any one time. That is not an impressive number: for the U.S. Air Force, that rate was 78 percent in 2013.

Shoygu also announced that the Russian air force will begin using the Su-35s Flanker multirole fighter jet in 2015. The twin-engine, single-seat fighter jet is undergoing tests, and “this year the new aircraft should enter service,” Shoygu said during the conference call

The aircraft, which will cost $85 million to buy at export price -- far cheaper than Western counterparts -- is considered to be a 4++ generation fighter, just short of the fifth-generation fighters, of which the United States' F-22 Raptor is the only operational example. However, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 is in the final stages of becoming operational; the U.S. Marine Corps version should launch in December 2015. Russia’s Sukhoi T-50 and China’s Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31, also fifth-generation fighters -- defined by their use of stealth, or radar-evading features -- are all still in testing.

The modernization of the armed forces comes at a pivotal time for the Russian military, which is allegedly involved in assisting pro-Russian rebels in the East Ukraine war, claims NATO. Russia has denied the claim.

Shoigu also said last month that Russia will increase its military capabilities in Crimea, Kaliningrad and the Arctic region.


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128114
Greenert: Science, Technology Put Navy on Bow Wave of Innovation

By Claudette Roulo
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2015 – It wasn’t long ago that unmanned vehicles such as aerial drones were the stuff of science fiction, and now they’re turning up under the Christmas tree, Navy Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert said here today.

Delivering the keynote address at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo, Greenert, the chief of naval operations, warned of the erosion of the nation’s technological lead.

Until recently, satellite communications and imagery were accessible only to a very few, he said. Satellites were expensive and required infrared cameras, the admiral said. Now, the technology is available commercially, and it’s cheap, Greenert noted.

The result is that some of the United States’ long-standing technological advantages are starting to be challenged, he said.

The department recognizes this situation, the admiral said, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently called for innovations to support the department’s new offset strategy.

Science, Technology as Force Enablers

Science and technology serve as force enablers, Greenert said. Today’s innovations allow the Navy to set its course for tomorrow, he said, by enabling a bold, relevant and capable force.

The Navy’s research and development programs operate on two basic time scales, the admiral said. In the long term, scientists and engineers conduct basic research, Greenert said, while short-term programs are intended to “get wet quick,” to meet current war fighter needs.

These programs have a long history of delivering game-changing technology for the Navy, he said, noting examples such as quiet propulsion, GPS and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Future Weapons Systems

And the Navy will continue to rely on science and technology into the future, particularly as it looks to divest itself from gunpowder and rocket propellant, the admiral said.

Laser weapons systems and electromagnetic railguns are the future of naval weaponry, Greenert said. By moving away from volatile chemical propellants, he explained, ships can carry more ammunition, operate more safely and decrease their dependence on the logistical chain.

Both platforms can also shift the cost curve, the admiral said.

Laser weapons systems cost about $1.00 per shot to operate, he said, and following several months of testing aboard the USS Ponce, in December the weapon was authorized for self-defense.

While railguns are slightly more expensive to operate, Greenert acknowledged, at about $25,000 per round they are still significantly less expensive than the missiles they are intended to supplement or replace. With a range of more than 100 nautical miles, railguns have the potential to conduct precise naval surface fire support or land strikes.

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles

The Navy also seeks to improve the stamina of its unmanned underwater vehicles, the admiral said.

As the size of the submarine fleet decreases, opportunities and requirements for smarter, more reliable and more compact UUV’s will increase, he said.

The vehicles face threats not just from the enemy, Greenert noted, but from the operating environment. Advances in range, autonomy and endurance will translate to an increase in mission scope, the admiral added.

Lock Your Cyber Doors

Cyber security is Greenert’s biggest worry, he said. It is a key requirement for all systems and weapons, the admiral noted, and can’t just be bolted on after the fact.

Intellectual property theft means that the nation is hemorrhaging its best technology, he said, creating strategic vulnerabilities and giving adversaries years to develop countermeasures.

The Navy is counting on science and technology professionals to keep it on the bow wave of innovation, Greenert said. And not just in the digital realm, he added. There are unlimited opportunities to reuse or repurpose existing technology, the admiral said.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3585
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby kit » 06 Feb 2015 15:24

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uae-pulled-out-air-strikes-against-islamic-state-after-pilot-capture-us-officials-737085?utm_source=taboola


But UAE officials questioned whether US rescue teams would have been able to reach the pilot even if there had been more time, administration officials told the Times.

each to his own when the blow comes !!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2015 15:35

that climatic test chamber for the JSF looks really cool. a one time investment in CABS blr could buy or build such a chamber and avoid the repeated trips to goa, jodhpur, tezpur, leh to chalk up climatic tests for Tejas type progs like the recent -15C cold soak and engine start tests done over 3 consecutive days in Leh.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2015 15:37

there is a report today that US has moved csar assets to northern iraq in recent few days to better support its own operations.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Feb 2015 18:14

Singha wrote:that climatic test chamber for the JSF looks really cool. a one time investment in CABS blr could buy or build such a chamber and avoid the repeated trips to goa, jodhpur, tezpur, leh to chalk up climatic tests for Tejas type progs like the recent -15C cold soak and engine start tests done over 3 consecutive days in Leh.


Mckinley exists (historic reasons aside) in part because it stays busy thanks to both military and commercial traffic. The reason they prefer this over sending jets to Alaska, outside in Florida(outside) or in Nevada for various testing parameters is because they can collect a lot of data on a lot of testing parameters in the weeks to months the aircrafts spends at the facility. Its a process developed through decades of testing and validation programs for everything from space based systems to commercial airliners and everything in between. Of recent projects, both the 787 and the Airbus A350 were tested at Mckinley.

http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/mck.htm#essays






VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2265
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 07 Feb 2015 06:32

France and Egypt negotiating Rafale fighter jet deal

France is in advanced talks to sell Dassault Aviation-built Rafale fighter jets to Egypt for around 6 billion euros ($6.88 billion), Les Echos newspaper reported on Thursday.

Despite exclusive negotiations with India for the last three years, Dassault has still not found a foreign buyer for its multi-role jet, the Rafale, billed to be one of the most effective and sophisticated fighter jets in the world, but also one of the most expensive.

The business daily said the two countries were close to finalising a deal for 24 jets and a naval frigate worth 5 to 6 billion euros.

The deal could be financed by as much as 50 percent through a credit facility arranged by French credit insurer Coface .

A spokesman for Dassault declined to comment.

Paris and Cairo have enjoyed close economic ties in the past but turmoil in the north African state since president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in 2011 left Western governments wary of signing contracts, especially in the defence sector.

With the recent rise to power of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, ties have improved and both sides are concerned by the rise of militant groups in Libya and Egypt.

France secured its first major military contract in Egypt in about 20 years in 2014 with a 1 billion-euro ($1.35 billion) deal to sell four naval frigates.

Senior French officials have repeatedly travelled to Egypt over the last year and Sisi in November undertook a state visit to Paris, where discussions were held about replacing Egypt's fleet of 18 Dassault-made Mirage jets.

Egypt was the first foreign buyer of the Mirage in 1981.

Dassault is under increasing pressure to sell the jet overseas. The French government said last year it would slow the pace at which it takes delivery of Rafale jets, taking just 26 over the next five years instead of 11 a year.

A French delegation in January visited New Delhi to salvage an agreement to supply 126 Rafale fighters to the Indian Air Force which has hit a snag over the local assembly of the planes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2015 07:18


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2015 07:42

100lb is too small for any commercial or militarily useful project. more like university sats?

the launch concept already tested in the ASAT missile from F-15 three decades ago.

I would suggest why not remove the rotary launcher from one of the B1 bomb bays and use that to drop a heavier payload at 50,000ft?
a empty B1 should be able to reach Mach1.8 at those heights.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2015 08:55

The goal is not ASAT but to provide a microsat launch capability in that weight class. Of course they can work it up but that is not the domain of DARPA. The ASAT weapon was obviously decades ago, and I have a video of that posted here somewhere. Small micro-sats for space situational awareness is most likely what this thing is aiming for especially given the cost. Think of XSS-10 type and the NG versions of such concepts. Obviously low cost is also something it is trying to achieve and the goal is to make launching this class of satellites cheaper and easier to accommodate from a timeframe point of view. 100 lb is just for DARPAs demonstration and program goals, what other military or commercial effort spins off this maturation effort does not have to restrict itself into that payload (platform constraints would obviously dictate the upper limit). DARPA's job is to open up the door, the rest is alway up to the commercial or the military side to exploit.

According to DARPA:

“Small satellites in the ALASA payload class represent the fastest-growing segment of the space launch market, and DARPA expects this growth trend to continue as small satellites become increasingly more capable,” Burnside Clapp said. “The small-satellite community is excited about having dedicated launch opportunities, and there should be no difficulty finding useful payloads.”

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Release ... 02/05.aspx

Keep in mind that a cutting edge Small SIGNIT sat setup (ESSAIM) weighted around 260 Pounds more than a decade ago. Now fast forward to around 2020+ and you can see what a 100-200 pound Micro-Sat can potentially do if you can launch them quickly form anywhere around the world (from an aircraft) for under 1 Million dollars a pop.

I would suggest why not remove the rotary launcher from one of the B1 bomb bays and use that to drop a heavier payload at 50,000ft?
a empty B1 should be able to reach Mach1.8 at those heights.


For heavier stuff you have this ( A big brother to ALASA but with a program goal of 1000+ lb launch at around 5 Million $) -

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/15/ ... ace-plane/


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Feb 2015 11:09

CNO: Next-Generation Navy Fighter Might Not Need Stealth

The Chief of Naval Operations said the next-generation Navy fighter being developed to replace the F/A-18 may be less stealthy than expected, shedding a bit of new detail upon a topic not discussed much by Navy developers.

“You know that stealth may be over-rated,” Greenert said during a speed at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo, Washington D.C. “I don’t want to necessarily say that it’s over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

There has been some discussion among industry experts and analysts suggesting that state-of-the-art stealth technology may be less effective against increasingly modern, next-generation air defenses. Newer technologies for air defenses allow them to detect on multiple frequency bands, network to one another through faster processing speeds and track approaching aircraft at further and further distances.

The top Naval officer was referring to the ongoing conceptual effort called F/A-XX to begin conversations, plans and preparations for what a new, sixth-generation carrier-launched fighter might need to look like, Navy officials have told Military​.com.

One analyst said if Navy F/A-XX developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.”

Maximum connectivity would mean massively increased communications and sensor technology such as having an ability to achieve real-time connectivity with satellites, other aircraft and anything that could provide relevant battlefield information, said Richard Aboulafia, vice-president of analysis at the Teal Group, a Va.-based consultancy.

Greenert also said the new aircraft may also need to develop new weapons for future threats, according to a report by the U.S. Naval Institute.

“It has to have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air defenses,” Greenert added. “Today it’s radar but it might be something more in the future.”

Also, the next-generation F/A-XX aircraft may not need to travel at high speeds, the CNO added.

“I don’t think it’s going to be super-duper fast, because you can’t outrun missiles,” he said.

The new aircraft will also have the technological capability to be unmanned.

“The weight that we put on an aircraft due to the pilot is kind of extraordinary. You can take that off and put sensors on there instead,” Greenert explained.




brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2015 11:19

^ Context is extremely important here. This was said a few days after the budget was announced. A budget that would be fought for tooth and nail by the Republicans.

This is what is known about the USN's effort to develop a next generation fighter - The RFI was issued a couple of years ago and based on that a few designs were presented as is the usual custom. 2 of those designs were revealed by their respective teams. We have all seen those designs and they very much do emphasize stealth. What the CNO is saying here (reading between the lines) is that they need to tone down investment for NAVAIR in favor of other critical areas where there isn't any other service (such as the USAF or USMC) subsidizing massive research and development. What he is showing is, what his position is on the AOA for the FA-XX, where he may buy the lowest cost platform that need not have the biggest bang given his priorities for investment. This decision is not his to make. It would be made through the AOA, then a couple of more rounds of RFI and finally Milestone A (earlier milestone 1) and a formal RFP.

Speed is going to be iffy because unless the USN makes the investments like the USAF, they would have to trade off quite a bit to get a high mach 1.8- mach 2 fighter. It would most likely not be worth it for them. Better for them to trade off speed for loiter given the super hornet mission set. Also keep in mind, that stealth does not = invisibility or invincibility. This was made clear even by the USAF Chief when asked about High freq. radars (And the reporters continue to not do their home-work on how the USAF has been designing around VHF radars since the 70's). He said that Stealth is one aspect or capability used to break kill chains. Integrated avionics, speed, sensor-fusion, communications and weapons are another. Stealth ensures that the entire process of an IAD kill chain is disruptive while RCS by itself may only disrupt one or two elements, EMCON, Jamming, Speed, ability to discriminate threat and attack it at its weakest takes care of the other areas. You do not get extra brownie points if you kill a target on the ground or in the air and remain undetected throughout the engagement. You get points only for killing the target before it is able to bring its weapons on you. In fact if one can "forget" the nonsense that has been written in the mainstream media about stealth and how it works and goes to the 2 to 3 actually competent books written by subject matter experts then one can see first hand that since day-1, the entire purpose of these designs was to break "kill chains" and disrupt the targeting of aircraft by a very very advanced Soviet IAD build up (400 Billion Rubles invested in IAD at the hight of the cold war). The AIAA series books on the F-117 and ATF are a good starting point (They also have the best F-16 book in my mind). There is no reason to believe that having spent a few decades on finding the right balance and painstakingly developing advances in materials, computing and transitioning to ELO that they would ditch the lessons learnt and put all the eggs in just the stealth basket. Therfore, the USAF and the USN are in absolute agreement that RCS by itself is nothing and the real advantage is in the sum of the parts (RCS, EMCON, EW/EA ability, Sensor Fusion, IR signature, All aspect signature, speed etc).

Rest is pretty standard. All aspect stealth has accompanied offensive and defensive protection for over a decade now be it EA/EW or kinetic options. The F-35 takes this up a notch through integrating electronic warfare into the integrated avionics as a solution . The Navy resisted a stealthy Mini-B2 like platform for the UCLASS because they didn't want to take over that mission. I can see this happening in TacAir as well, although under the Air Sea Battle Concept (or whatever they call it now) I really do not see how they can run away from their own share and responsibility of defeating an A2AD threat. The USAF can turn around and say "FU, stop asking for that many carriers if you are going to rely on us to break the back of defenses before you come in with any sort of tempo". Its very real. If the Navy gets a Mini B-2 on a carrier, they COCOM would begin to use them for that mission, which the USN regards as the USAF's domain. Same thing for at the hard to do a2ad hunting mission that the F-22 and its successor is likely to perform in the 2030-2060 time-frame.

I wouldn't make much of this statement or anything else coming out of the Pentagon in the next couple of months till the budget negotiations settle in to their routine give and take. I'd also wait for the AOA to be formally completed. The FA-XX AOA has yet to go ahead full steam. For all we know they could continue to buy more F-35C's indefinitely if that is what the AOA suggests. Next Generation technologies would be very hard to get for the USN by itself. If they wait for the USAF to mature them, then that means waiting till post 2030 (USAF is in no rush) for mature technology to be made available at a price the USN could afford. This means extending the F-35C out into the future and buying more towards the latter half of the planned USN procurement run.

Interestingly the USN in its budget budget has requested 14 fewer F-35C's over 5 years and has stopped the procurement of either the F-18E/F or the EA-18G. It was thought that they would continue to buy EA-18G's into 2017 and perhaps even 2018 but they have decided against it. They have also decided to extend the IOC of the UCLASS from 2020 to 2023, owing to a department wide (pentagon) study on unmanned platforms and whether duplication is resulting in multiple platforms that do essentially the same thing.

The USN, despite high utilization has a relatively young fleet thanks to the F-18E/F and EA-18G's. They can afford to look away from tactical platforms until well after the sequestration has lifted. They need to preserve their essential programs such as Rail Guns, Ohio-Class replacement submarine, SM6 integration, NIFFC-CA, Lasers, AMDR Radars, and the Next Gen Jammer among a lot others. Even looking into the 2020s they have the Ohio Class replacement submarine program and the all important Burke Replacement program that would kick in towards the middle of the 2020's. Add to that the need to actually move Virgina procurement to 3 a year to somehow make up for the deficit that would be created because of the high sub-procurement rates in the 80's. All this level little money for tactical aviation be it Manned or Unmanned. So it is quite likely that the USN would let the USAF take the lead and make the investments upfront and then piggy back on them for their own needs in the second half of next decade.

The Last time the Navy issued a formal "document" to the various interested parties to begin the process for the FA-XX, the contractors responded with this:

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/conce ... ngs-fa-xx/

They have since tweaked it and would obviously offer multiple iterations for it at this stage. The ATF at the RFI stage had 7 suppliers with 19 different design submissions.

Lockheed Martin, submitted this:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/feat ... g-lockheed

Keep in Mind that the current effort is being led by DARPA, and the USN is only contributing a small sum (5 Million $). It has been left to DARPA to decide what is required for the next generation of aircraft, and based on what it decides on that it would request an X plane competition in the next 2 to 3 years.

The approach during the ATF and JAST/JSF program was for services to come together and form a joint requirement (The USAF and USMC did this brilliantly in the JAST while the USAF did a not so seller job on the ATF until perhaps the mid 80's). The approach this time is to have DARPA do this in partnership with the services (DARPA leads). DARPA is the best organization in the pentagon to go out and develop hard to reach technologies. The services do not judge the true time and cost to obtain capability as private project managers that come form private industry. These managers are almost exclusively drawn into DARPA.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Feb 2015 21:24, edited 1 time in total.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby arun » 07 Feb 2015 15:31

The first Poodle to make rank of Air Chief Marshal passes away.

The Poodle by name Foo Foo who was owned by Crown Prince of Thailand had earlier hit the news because of a leaked video of a celebration of his ie: the Poodle’s birthday where he is fed cake by a Topless G-String wearing Princess Srirasmi former (?) wife of Thailand's Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn.

Thai crown prince’s poodle, Air Chief Marshal Foo Foo, has been cremated

Check out the infamous Video of the Poodle Birthday bash mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the above linked article. Poodle makes entry around 18.30 and gets fed cake by the Topless G-String wearing wife of Thailand’s Crown Prince around the 18.45 mark:

thailand-crown-prince-dog-birthday.mpeg

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 08 Feb 2015 00:49

A shape morphing wing taking shape (marketing ...)



if they ever manage to progress on it so far that the conformal fuel tanks below can be actuated to another pair of wings while taking off substantially reducing the take off speeds needed on Aircraft Carrier's and back to the conformal position during flight, maybe they can get away without catapults

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Feb 2015 02:53

^^


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 09 Feb 2015 12:47

While we struggle to develop our own BT and are importing Pilatus PC-7s for the same,Russia is to also induct by 2016 its own BT for rookies who will later on graduate to the Yak-130.

http://www.janes.com/article/48435/yak- ... -in-autumn
Yak-152 trainer to make maiden flight 'in autumn'

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
28 January 2015

A model of the Yak-152, which is scheduled to enter service as Russia's basic trainer platform towards the end of 2016. Source: Paul Jackson

The Yakovlev Yak-152 basic trainer aircraft is expected to make its maiden flight "in autumn", state media announced on 27 January.

The tandem twin-seat, single piston-engined trainer is currently being assembled at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant in the far east of Russia, and the first flight will take place sometime in September to October, the TASS news agency reported.

According to the Russian Air Force's requirements, the Yak-152 will have a maximum speed of 162-173 kt (300-320 km/h; 186-199 mph); a service ceiling of 13,120 ft; a take-off distance of 300 m (985 ft); and a range of 756 n miles (1,400 km; 870 miles). The low-wing monoplane will also have a service life of up to 30,000 hours, or some 30 years.

Once fielded, it will serve as a primary flight trainer, before pilots graduate onto the Yak-130 'Mitten' advanced jet trainer, and then onto an operational fast jet.
.
ANALYSIS

The Yak-152 is essentially a modified version of the Yak-54 aerobatic and sports competition aircraft that was developed in the early 2000s to compete against the Sukhoi Su-49 for the Russian Air Force's basic trainer requirement

Although the Yak-152 won the competition, it failed to make it into production. In 2004 Yakovlev offered the aircraft to China as a replacement for its Hongdu CJ-6/PT-6. The Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) gave the go-ahead for development of a new aircraft 'based' on the Yak-152, with six prototypes understood to have been built. Although the aircraft was given a Chinese designation of L-7, it did not enter service.

Russia continued its interest in the Yak-152, and in March 2014 issued an open tender for development of Yak-152 (codenamed "Ptichka-VVS" [Little Bird-Air Force]) for military use. Irkut Corporation won the tender, and under the terms of the resulting contract must have the aircraft ready to enter service no later than 25 November 2016.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Feb 2015 19:57

the C130 has been modded into something called Harvest Hawk by us marines for providing air support.

the armament seems to be 8 hellfire missiles underwing ( 2 pylons)
and unknown number of raytheon Griffin missiles which use downward release tubes along the side of cabin like sonobuoys are dropped from LRMP planes.

there are targeting console onboard to guide the missiles and track target areas.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2015 20:29

^^


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 09 Feb 2015 21:19

I have no idea why they are pushing this. The C-130 is vulnerable to ground fire and manpads. Indeed, some them have been shot down in Iraq and Afghanistan. They get below 15,000-20,000 feet and they are dead meat flying over a hot zone.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Feb 2015 21:38

Probably just force protection against small fac suicide boats and pirate boats.

Agree its easy target for sam and all sam outrange hellfires.

It can fly much longer faster farther than a sh60 sent for same role

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Lisa » 10 Feb 2015 00:01

Some nice flying and unusual use of an afterburner,

http://vimeo.com/100670266

P.S. If wrong thread, please delete


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests