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.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 19 Mar 2015 18:59

Philip wrote:http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/


Sir , fantasy world :wink:
But the concept looks fantastic for sure

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5671
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vishvak » 19 Mar 2015 21:36

Sorry if posted earlier:
Licenced to loop
Aaron spent 12 months making modifications to the helicopter including strengthening the airframe, shifting its center of gravity to make it more maneuverable and modifying the fuel and oil system.

But of all the parts that make up the helicopter, Aaron says the most important is the piece of forged titanium that is the rotor head.
..
The solid titanium rotor head on the Bo105 is the heart of the "rigid rotor" system that allows Aaron to perform aerobatics. .. The main rotor of a helicopter is the most complex part of the aircraft. Most helicopters allow the main rotor blades to either flap up and down or pivot forward and back as they spin. Some allow the blades to do both. The Bo105 doesn't allow either.

"Between the rigid head and the composite rotor blades is the key to how this thing can do what it does," Aaron says.

See the pics too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Mar 2015 00:42

Why I used the word "hype" in some posts. Don't shoot the postman! Nevertheless,there is often the glint of gold in the pan along with the sand..


LOL..

Not shooting the postman but clearly pointing out the fact that the author offers an opinion but clearly doesn't even understand the very basic thing of the F-35's stealth features compared to either the F-22 or other VLO aircraft before it. Just google ' FiberMat'.

The S300/S400 are formidable systems no doubt. They would give the F-35 a very tough time for sure (As they would the PAKFA, J-20, J-31 or even the B-2 Bomber) but to compare threat with counter threat involves a very deep understanding of the technical capabilities of how these systems are designed to operate and how they are deployed. Unfortunately the author demonstrates neither through the article.

Edit - I noticed that AvWeek and other publications have not properly archived articles discussing the entire stealthy coatings process on the F-35. I'm posting some of the relevant info here

New, Classified Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Maintenance Costs
Amy Butler, Aviation Week May 2010

As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat.
Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators.


New LO Material Will Cut F-35 Costs, Says JSF Prime
Aviation Week, G Warwick and A Butler 2010

Lockheed officials are lifting the veil on a classified technology to bolster their claims that maintaining the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter will be less expensive than operators may anticipate.
The move to reveal its existence comes amid mounting criticism of the JSF because of huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Estimated life-cycle cost is just the latest point of contention.

The technology is a low-observability (LO) material called “fiber mat.”

Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration, says fiber mat is the “biggest technical breakthrough we’ve had on this program,” and it occurred around 2004. Fiber mat avoids the need for stealthy appliques and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, he says. “When you take the composite out of the mold after it has been through the autoclave and cured, the top surface is the fiber mat,” he says. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature.” This fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

Coatings on the Northrop Grumman B-2 and Lockheed Martin F-22, by contrast, require manpower-intensive care. Nicks in the coating can significantly compromise the aircraft’s low radar cross section. Repairs are costly and can reduce aircraft availability if maximum LO is needed for a mission.


Fiber mat features a “nondirectional weave, which is also important from an LO standpoint,” Burbage tells Aviation Week. There are “characteristics in the fiber itself that allow us not to have to put coatings on top of the airplane.” Before 2004, he says, the F-35 design called for appliques, which would have required more maintenance.

As the composite skin of the F-35 contains this layer of fiber mat, it can help carry structural loads and vary in thickness as demanded by the design, Burbage says. “We put the [fiber mat] into the composite mold first, and then we have the thickness-controlled composites on the skin,” he says. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, he says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%.

Lockheed Martin declines to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But disclosure of this new material comes as the company is arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators.



The author also says Man hours per flight hour and tries to portray it as if the F-35 (or any other aircraft) flies for one hour and then requires 9 hours or whatever the number may be. As most, aware in aerospace matters would know man-hours are the total maintain hours spent on the aircraft over the course of the year divided by the total flight hours flown. Lets say a minimum of 1000 maintain man hours are required for a fighter X. Lets say that fighter X flies 200 hours. It then needs 5 man hours per every flight hour flown. Now if the same figure flew 300 it may only need an additional 100-200 hours of maintenance given that 200 hours would cover the larger down-times. You can play these logistical numbers whichever way you like. The author completely fails to mention how much down-times the S400 system have, what MTBF is for its critical components and how long it takes to deploy etc. There is absolutely no effort to present ' apples to apples' numbers for the benefit of the readers.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Mar 2015 05:15, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Mar 2015 00:50

X Posting from the JSF thread -
Pentagon to build new variable-cycle engine for F-35 and other aircraft

The Pentagon's developmental sixth-generation jet engine featuring greater fuel efficiency and thrust than existing military engines is initially being built for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior agency official said on 17 March.
"There are a number of threshold platforms," Alan Shaffer, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, research, and engineering, told IHS Jane's at the Precision Strike Association's annual conference in Springfield, Virginia. "[This is] the one that we're going to build it around because we'll have the extra orange airplanes is JSF," he added, referring to test aircraft.
"But it would work for Long-Range [Strike] Bomber (LRS-B), it would work for the [Boeing] F/A-18 [Super Hornet], it would work for basically anything that requires a tactical, high-end turbine," he said regarding the Adaptive Engine Technology Program (AETP).


AETP is developing a military aircraft engine in the 20,000 lbf (89 kN) thrust class. Shaffer said the Pentagon wants the new power plant to achieve 35% better fuel efficiency than existing engines. This improvement in fuel efficiency over the F135 engine would provide the F-35A and the F-35C a range of over 1,600 miles and the F-35B a range of over 1,200 miles compared to the current 1,200 miles and 900 miles, respectively.
In contrast to fixed-cycle engines, sixth-generation technology features variable cycles, which alter the airflow and pressure ratios in the engine, enabling transition between fuel-efficient cruise modes and high thrust for high-speed and even supersonic flight during the same flight. Shaffer likened variable geometries to the changes in torgue created by a figure skater as she pulls her arms toward her body while spinning.
Shaffer said the Pentagon plans to "develop engines with two vendors, and by 2019 or maybe 2020 have the capability to enter directly into [engineering and manufacturing development]".
About a year ago, the Pentagon signaled a push toward completion of the AETP effort with a surprise request for an additional USD1.5 billion in funding for the work in its fiscal year 2015 budget request. This is the first time the Pentagon has acknowledged which aircraft it has in mind for the new power plant.
Shaffer said the DoD is aiming for a 35% improvement in fuel consumption efficiency over fifth-generation engines with AETP. He said that this metric is largely aimed at providing greater range to its aircraft as the US turns its attention toward the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.

COMMENT

It is widely expected that General Electric (GE) Aviation and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) will continue to be the two major players in the Pentagon's propulsion technology push. GE Aviation's projected timeline for developing its variable-cycle design to completion coincides well with the DoD's plans. Company officials have said that their engine could be production-ready in the 2022-24 timeframe. They have acknowledged spending upwards of USD1 billion on the effort in the decade since they offered the variable-cycle F120 to the Pentagon for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. They have claimed that variable-cycle technology alone cannot achieve the 35% fuel-burn improvement desired by the DoD. To achieve that metric, GE Aviation has invested in ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) for the engine's hot section, advanced aero designs in the compressor, and lightweight 3D-printed components, a list of components they claim is unique to GE Aviation's design.
Meanwhile, P&W has been building on its variable-cycle experience under a separate AETP contract. The company built the J58 engine that powered the USAF's Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird strategic reconnaissance aircraft in the 1960s, so it also has a long history of effort with the technology. The J58 was the first engine designed to operate for extended periods using its afterburner, and the first flight qualified at Mach 3 for the USAF.
P&W acknowledged that integration work for the F-35A is already part of the AETP programme but that it is also working on an F135 block upgrade strategy separately. "The AETP programme as currently laid out by the government includes significant work to integrate the engine on an F-35A," company spokesman Matthew Bates told IHS Jane's on 17 March. "In addition to that effort, P&W is uniquely positioned to leverage that technology into future upgrades of the F135 at lower risk and cost. We'll continue to assess opportunities to provide additional options to the government to provide greater flexibility, which is important in the current budget environment."


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Mar 2015 06:22

[youtube]kkkfE5yHejc&t=106[/youtube]

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2015 14:48

Philip wrote:Why I used the word "hype" in some posts. Don't shoot the postman! Nevertheless,there is often the glint of gold in the pan along with the sand...

For another futuristic hype/hope,read this.Ck the link for pics/videoclip of the superb concept of the proposed mega-transport.

http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/


Thats just a fan boy art some Popular Mechanics type the future is here !

The Future Transport PAK-TA official diagram from UAC is linked

http://img142.imagevenue.com/img.php?im ... _346lo.jpg

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1728
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Zynda » 23 Mar 2015 16:53

A longish but good read from a former USAF pilot who has flown F-15, F-16 & MiG-29s. A few typos in the article and he has issued some statements correcting his stand on F-35 in the comments section.

How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Mar 2015 03:13

USAF receives first production QF-16 drone

The first production Boeing QF-16 optionally manned target drone has been delivered to the US Air Force (USAF), the service announced on 20 March.

Aircraft QF-007 arrived at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida on 11 March, ahead of being pressed into service by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron (ATS).
Boeing has delivered six pre-production QF-16s and is under contract to deliver 13 low-rate initial production (LRIP) platforms, of which QF-007 is the first. The LRIP drones should all be with the USAF by 9 October.
In all, the USAF expects to receive 126 QF-16s to replace the BAE Systems QF-4, the last of which was delivered in November 2013. The new drone is being introduced because QF-4 numbers are running low and the unmanned McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is no longer truly representative of the air-to-air threats USAF pilots are likely to encounter on future operations.
The QF-16 will be able to represent threats in the class of the MiG-29 'Fulcrum' and Sukhoi Su-27 'Flanker'.

Comment

Although the USAF currently has a requirement for the QF-16 to be used for training purposes (either as an unmanned target or as a manned 'red air' asset), Boeing recently touted the possibility of fielding it as an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) in its own right.
The proposal, put forward in May 2014, would see the aircraft equipped with improved datalinks and other systems to give it a fully fledged combat capability.
The leading benefit of such a QF-16 UCAV would be its likely ability to operate in contested airspace, unlike current-generation systems such as the Reaper.
However, the speed of the F-16 comes at the expense of range and endurance, in comparison with Reaper-class unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), calling into question the utility of the QF-16 for such a role (especially as unmanned aerial refuelling is still very much in its infancy).
It is also hard to gauge the USAF's precise advantages from a QF-16 UCAV, which would offer little manpower savings. The aircraft would still have to be flown, albeit by a ground-based pilot, and an unmanned F-16 would cost the same as a manned F-16 to operate.
To date, there has been no word from the USAF on possible levels of interest, but with the service set to retire its F-16s over the coming years as the F-35 comes online, there will be plenty of airframes ripe for conversion.


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 25 Mar 2015 05:20

Where do we diskuss the mass widow making by TFTA commercial aircraft? People are declining to fly A321 et al.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 25 Mar 2015 06:45

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Alps.html

Gotta give it to the Brishits, because, according to them : "These kind of problems are not common in 'western operated' aircraft' ". Something wrong when a brown pilot in cabin... onleeee. Also A321 is totally safe.

If this was a crash by a Russian origin jet, then they would be saying something like "they are safe, but we do not know how many of these would occur in the future", or some snarky thing like that.

Once a Brishit, always a Brishit.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 26 Mar 2015 05:02

Air asia dropps in the sea.
MH370 disappears completely.
Germanwings glides into a mountain, pilot locked out?

Add to it Air france in the other ocean
US airways in the hudson, and
MH17with no protection and greedy air route.

At some point these thousands of individuals lost have to count. The air services, structure, safety, training, maintenance were all impacted by global economic crisis. The air travel regime today is unsafe. 6000 old aircraft, some built in the 80s are taking 100s of lives at one time.

The excuses are no different than tobacco, or guns -- the manufacturers feel they are safe.

I am not talking about a Harrison ford, or a military helicopter off florida, or two helicopters in brazil. Those are small scale failures.

This is systemic. In the zeal to reduce air travel to third class unreserved indian rail, everything from air control to plane maintenance has been sacrificed. And this cold war era technology is unforgiving. This is not a 787 catching ifre, or an A380 blowing an engine up. This is entire craft breaking up into tiny little fragments,strewn in the sea or mountainside like dew droplets too small to be analyzed for anything meaningful.

The holy grail of vpice/data recorders tells us nothing. About maintenance, about training,about pilot stress. About the whole system being in such a shoddy state where the TFTA airlines -- the Lufthansa, the Air Feance, the Us Airways (now American) can guarantee if a plane that takes off will actually land.

And hull losses aprt, the sentiment is telling when pilots/staff refuse to fly a class of aircraft. Cheap imports from china may be to blame for the airbus disaster, it sources much from china. Fatigue could be setting in sooner, yet may not be a factor in this crash. Pilot and staff issues are well known, pilots have slept, air crew used emergency shoots to jump off airplanes.

No, a fundamental shift in the paradigm of analysis needs to be brought in. It is not just the shiny finished product that can be trusted. Airbus and Boeing must open their entire design, production, sourcing,and maintenance operations if they arw to retain nay confidence in their devices.

The stresses on civilian craft are nothing compared to military craft. When civilian craft start falling out of the sky, what gremlins must still be hiding in military wares?

Insurance companies must be wondering.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2015 05:14

Note how quickly 3 presidents
Flew to the site in support. No adverse thoughts
In local media will be tolerated.

They look after their corporates.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Mar 2015 06:31

Lockheed Martin Acquires High-Speed Wind Tunnel, Plans Upgrades

DALLAS, March 25, 2015 – Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] has purchased a wind tunnel that is one of only two of its kind in the United States, and is planning key improvements to the facility.
Since 1958, Lockheed Martin and its heritage companies have used the High Speed Wind Tunnel (HSWT) in Grand Prairie, Texas, for subsonic, transonic and supersonic research-and-development testing. Although the company is the long-time operator of the HSWT, it has leased the facility from Triumph Aerostructures. The purchase will enable Lockheed Martin to invest in upgrades and manage scheduling, including testing by other companies and government agencies.
“The High Speed Wind Tunnel in Grand Prairie is an aerospace engineering treasure, serving as a proving ground for hundreds of flight vehicles designed over the last six decades for everything from space exploration to national defense,” said HSWT manager Mike McWithey. “We made this purchase to ensure that development legacy extends well into the future.”
The HSWT and a facility in Missouri are the only two polysonic (subsonic-transonic-supersonic), adjustable Mach-number wind tunnels in the U.S.


Image

A RATTLRS cruise-missile inlet undergoes testing at the High Speed Wind Tunnel at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Grand Prairie. Lockheed Martin recently purchased the facility and plans numerous upgrades.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2015 06:39

If pilot goes for break one cabin crew is supposed to be inside until his return. Just common sense sop.always
Two people inside so one can open door

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2015 10:11

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germ ... story.html

simplest theory is tfta airline was flouting the rules and left the co pilot alone in the cockpit. being a gradual descent most likely he passed out from a stroke and was walk and unlock the door.

there is supposed to be a keypad also ... wonder why that was not used....maybe ppl had forgotten its number or did not strike them as so serious.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 26 Mar 2015 17:47

Nope. Tney are floating aloha snackbar theory now -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/ ... U020150326

edit -- if you are inside, you can deadbolt, and you can disable outside entry via code. There were 9 minutes. The pilot should have taken an axe to the forward cabin to gain entry when it became clear ze copilot was wanting his raisins. May be he had nothing handy, may be he just got scared. 10 minutes is a long long time.

edit -- time for removing pilots and control altogether from all planes! Everything is a drone.

nawabs
BRFite
Posts: 1637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby nawabs » 26 Mar 2015 18:03

Emergency unlocking of cockpit door in airbus - but still allows a rogue pilot to overcome it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x2kn0ph

nawabs
BRFite
Posts: 1637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby nawabs » 26 Mar 2015 18:06

And i certainly don't want drone planes as it allows for whole new level of problems including hacking. The only thing possible is some sort of irreversible/unblockable overriding mechanism from a ground station.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 27 Mar 2015 03:15

If you have controls (remember MH370 cargo cabinet hacking) someone will misuse them. If you dont, may be someone will disable remote controls.

Aloha snackbar is out of the cage. Stop flying altogether?

edit -- It is a weird world. When there is an incident where two pilots go nuts (who says MH370 wasnt it already), the sole defense facade is gone. Two people are not really safer than one person if one of them is determined to do what they want (in a previous incident, I think two pilots fought for control). The level of irrationality is going to be very high. They already tackle any passangers acting out at the slightest excuse. Now the crew will be watching each other with suspicion too (they do already, but this might increaSe it to paranoia).

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Mar 2015 09:53

The nut pilot could use the metal fork and knife of business/first class dining plate and go after the neck and eyes of the good pilot, killing him silently and leaving him strapped to seat.

Boy am i glad indigo does not feature metal cutlery. Flying to goa in a month in full dhoti shiber mode.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Mar 2015 10:05

Are there doomsday cults and lsd societies in germany...people who see winged banshees speak to them and guide them?

With no apparent terror link it could be love disappointment , anger against employer or just doomsday cultism.

member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_28911 » 28 Mar 2015 12:38

The U.S. Air Force and Navy rescued two Saudi pilots Friday after they ejected from their F-15 fighter over the Gulf of Aden during combat operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Saudi jet apparently suffered some mechanical problem :?: :roll: forcing the pilots to eject. A U.S. Air Force Pave Hawk special operations helicopter and crew were dispatched from Djibouti to rescue the Saudi pilots.

Although their conditions are unknown, they were reported to be ambulatory. The Saudi jet and the two pilots went down in international waters. The rescue operation was coordinated by the USS Sterett, a guided-missile destroyer.

The entire operation took two hours. Saudi Arabia Thursday announced it bombed military installations in Yemen to weaken the Shiite rebels who chased the president out of the country.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2015 22:19

KAI named as preferred KFX bidder

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has been named as preferred bidder in the USD8 billion programme to complete development of the Korean Fighter Experimental (KFX) aircraft.

South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced the decision following a steering committee meeting chaired by Defence Minister Han Min-koo on 30 March.
DAPA added at the meeting that it had also approved a plan to upgrade existing Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) air-defence missiles as well as procured PAC-3 systems to enhance the country's anti-ballistic missile capabilities. Raytheon has been selected to upgrade the PAC-2 missiles, while Lockheed Martin is expected to provide the PAC-3s.
The announcement about the missiles follows the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency's notification in November about a possible sale of 136 PAC-3s to South Korea in a programme estimated to cost USD1.405 billion.
In relation to the KFX, DAPA said KAI had been selected to enter negotiations to undertake the development programme ahead of rival airline Korean Air. In bidding for the KFX programme, KAI has partnered with Lockheed Martin while Korean Air has teamed with Airbus.
"After reviewing their development plan, ability and bid price by the evaluation team comprised of government officials and experts, we have selected KAI as the preferred bidder," DAPA said. It added that it plans to make a final selection on the KFX developer during the first half of 2015 following negotiations with KAI that will be focused on "price and technologies".
KAI and Korean Air, which undertakes military programmes through its Aerospace division, submitted their respective bids for the KFX programme in February. An earlier tender was aborted by DAPA when only one company, KAI, submitted a bid. South Korea's defence procurement rules dictate that at least two companies must bid for contracts.
KAI was, however, always considered favourite to win the programme. It had previously partnered with Korea's Agency for Defense Development in the early development phase of the KFX, and has also previously collaborated with Lockheed Martin on the development of the T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer aircraft and its light fighter variant, the FA-50.

COMMENT

The KFX development programme runs from 2015-25 and is intended to develop a future combat aircraft to replace the Republic of Korea Air Force's (RoKAF) ageing McDonnell Douglas F-4 and Northrop F-5 fighters. It is envisaged that the KFX will be a single-seat, twin-engine, multirole aircraft. KAI officials have previously said they expect South Korea's requirement to stretch to about 250 aircraft, with further exports of about 350 platforms envisioned. This number includes platforms intended to enter service with Indonesia as the IFXL. Seoul and Jakarta signed a joint engineering and development agreement in October 2014 under which South Korea will pay 80% of the costs and Indonesia the remaining 20%.
In developing the aircraft, Lockheed Martin is expected to offer significant design and technological assistance, with some of the work to be undertaken through defence offset attached to South Korea's programme to procure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The fact that the F-35, like the proposed KFX, features low-observable 'stealth' technologies is likely to be factor in KAI and Lockheed Martin's selection as preferred bidder.
A Lockheed Martin spokesman told IHS Jane's in September 2014 that this commitment would include "technical documentation, design expertise, and development investments. Specifically, Lockheed Martin will provide several hundred man-years of engineering expertise to assist Korea in the KFX design and development."
He added: "Lockheed Martin will also provide several hundred-thousand pages of fighter aircraft technical documentation derived from existing Lockheed Martin programmes."



Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7986
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 30 Mar 2015 23:03

Shreeman wrote:If you have controls (remember MH370 cargo cabinet hacking) someone will misuse them. If you dont, may be someone will disable remote controls.

Aloha snackbar is out of the cage. Stop flying altogether?

edit -- It is a weird world. When there is an incident where two pilots go nuts (who says MH370 wasnt it already), the sole defense facade is gone. Two people are not really safer than one person if one of them is determined to do what they want (in a previous incident, I think two pilots fought for control). The level of irrationality is going to be very high. They already tackle any passangers acting out at the slightest excuse. Now the crew will be watching each other with suspicion too (they do already, but this might increaSe it to paranoia).



There are over 100,000 commercial aviation flights a day world wide. Since 2014 to present (15 months), we've seen a 12 commercial aviation accidents, some of them with terrible loss of life. In the same time period in 1999/2000 there were 19 commercial aviation accidents. Flying today is safer than it was 15 years ago or at anytime in the past.

List of Commercial Aviation Accidents

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 31 Mar 2015 05:17

Singha wrote:Boy am i glad indigo does not feature metal cutlery. Flying to goa in a month in full dhoti shiber mode.

You shouldn't worry - you would have paid an arm and a leg anyway for the meal - just to see the cutlery :D

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1640
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sid » 31 Mar 2015 06:06

In cargo flight 705, suicidal flight engineer tried to kill both pilots. By only luck both pilots survived. Happened 20 years ago.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_ ... Flight_705

Getting paranoid in such situations will only hold us back. There are always freaks out there.

Because of that asshole shoe bomber now everyone have to remove their shoes during baggage claims. Whats next, fly naked in flights?

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 31 Mar 2015 12:35

Not sure if posted earlier.
Good Read :
USAF Eyes New Era Of Close Air Support
U.S. Air Force’s campaign to reinvent CAS

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-ey ... =article_1

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 06:07

100 Gb/s RF Backbone

DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals for developing a 100 Gb/s airborne RF communications link capable of distances exceeding 100 km and 200 km for air-to-ground and air-to-air, respectively, within a single radio frequency channel. The proposed program, 100G, seeks innovative approaches for using high-order modulation together with spatial multiplexing to achieve those goals by attaining spectral efficiencies greater than 20 bits-per-second-per hertz.


Summary -

The prototype 100G system developed and tested in Phases 2 and 3 will include an airborne and a ground node. The airborne node SWaP will be compatible with high-altitude unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), as specified in Table 2 of Section 1.11. The ground node will be designed to allow installation and operation at a forward operating base. The 100G airborne and ground systems each require the integration of spatial multiplexing and high-order modulation capabilities; pointing, acquisition, and tracking (PAT); autonomous node discovery and link formation; link reliability mechanisms for reliable data exchange; and network interfaces.
The 100G prototype will operate in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands, using high-order modulation and spatial multiplexing. Use of the millimeter-wave frequencies enables high signal power gain from compact apertures to overcome modest weather impairments on the signal. It also enables the system to take advantage of spatial multiplexing due to the relationship between wavelength and Rayleigh range [See Appendix 4]. High-order modulation further increases spectral efficiency, potentially enabling a 5 b/s/Hz signal in the 5 GHz channel bandwidths to attain 25 Gb/s between each pair of transmit and receive apertures. Thus a 100G prototype with two (2) transmit and two (2) receive apertures, with each aperture transmitting or receiving two orthogonally polarized signals, would create four (4) independent streams and attain a spectral efficiency of 20 b/s/Hz.
System operation and the range of potential operating environments drive much of the requisite system capabilities. In particular, the system must be able to adapt to channel capacity changes resulting from aircraft orientation changes, sudden signal attenuation, and atmospheric scintillation effects. Aircraft maneuvers (e.g., flat or banked turns) will cause aperture blockages and changes in correlation among the spatially multiplexed signals at the airborne and ground nodes. Furthermore, changes in weather conditions affect channel capacity and scintillation near the ground station could cause significant received signal power fluctuations. These phenomena will cause channel effects that may be predictable at times (e.g., aperture array aspect changes during steady flight) but unpredictable at others (e.g., transmission through a localized rain storm or scintillation). Finally, the system must be able to operate at reduced data rates and extended link ranges where a 100 Gb/s link is beyond the system design.
These operational factors similarly influence the design of the spatial multiplexing algorithms, modem, and network interface. The spatial multiplexing algorithms must autonomously adapt to changes in signal strength, signal correlation, and number of available apertures to achieve optimal channel capacity given the link conditions. The modem must be able to support a 100 Gb/s data rate—not including any coding overhead needed to achieve a bit error rate of 10-8 —at the objective ranges while also supporting variable data rates based on link conditions. Finally, the 100G system must be robust against link disruptions and compatible with airborne networking protocols.
While the 100G program is focused on developing data link technologies rather than airborne networking technologies, it is still important that the prototype provide a reliable link that is compatible with airborne networking protocols. Link reliability mechanisms need to ensure that the link can adapt to the impediments described previously. The system must also provide or support network reliability protocols that allow intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) payloads or hosted networks to adapt traffic flows to prevailing link conditions. It is important that the 100G system incorporate or demonstrate mechanisms (e.g., outage prediction and detection, local queuing, retransmission, and flow control) to allow ISR payloads and networking protocols to adapt to rapid changes in link conditions.


Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 08:02

vasu raya wrote:Brar saab maybe you can pen your thoughts on LO/VLO stuff in some article in BR Monitor and also about the direction technology within US aviation is taking, funding issues aside.

Here are a couple of scenarios for the unmanned trainer,

1) Not sure if Choppers have 'MALD support' so if they need escort to mask their RCS, an UAV or unmanned trainer putting out a higher RCS and matching their speeds is useful. The primary threat of MANPADs would be redirected towards this escort. if CMDS is integrated with the UAV or the trainer it increases its own survival. In addition if Luneburg lenses were integrated then the RCS could be 'dialed' with the platform's original RCS at the lower end and all the way to a Mi-26 or a Chinook at the higher end. A low RCS UAV to start with makes much sense in that respect and even Panchi (wheeled version of Nishant) with a matching endurance to a chopper would be a good fit.

2) Afghan air force currently only has Mi-17's and any fixed wing aircraft are denied to them, a start could be made here by providing trainers to them. The difference is instructors (second seat) could be remote while the trainee is in the cockpit, how different is it from flying a Predator?


I'll put something together..Its going to need some time, lots of references and some historic background. I'll try to put some together, but at the moment I am more interested in putting a better perspective on the sort of garbage being reported on Stealth vs Counter Stealth capability, especially when this is a topic fairly "well" discussed in the academic side of the development. Stealth by no means is an all or nothing capability and no designer has ever treated as such and doesn't plan to either be it those designers working in Asia, Europe, or the US. All publications like AvWeek need to do is give a one page article to one of the senior persons at the Old Crows or a comparable international organization (if one exists), and they'll also comprehensively put the Stealth vs EW debate (that is not a debate at all to those that are better informed) to rest or in proper context. But they do not do it, they rely on using reporters to also act as analysts even when the world is full of plenty of people who are now retired that have done extensive analysis at the highest level, whether that is capability analysis or red-force analysis.

If one were to actually study the VHF-Stealth debate, or integrated IAD vs stealth debate one would realize that the USAF (the one organization in the US that is portrayed as PRO_STEALTH while the USN is the good cop with STEALTH_LESS IMPORTANT punchline) itself has published academic work including thesis publications from no less then Col. ranked officers that have described the challenges for VLO aircraft such as the F-22 against those threats. The only problem is that these media articles are to busy trying to hide this fact and claim some sort of "analytical" superiority and some even quite blatantly call the collective wisdom "out". You do not openly publish or allow free public access to literature work under your control that gives that level of info without having the comfort level to deal with that threat or at least the openness to speak about it. Like I said, stealth, VLO/LO alone is not going to deal with the very wide IAD threat. It is however one very very important (the most important according to its designers) component of how that is achieved and its just not once "School of thought" that thinks so...Stealth has become the primary design feature in each and every Next Generation project out there. From Ships, to Fighters. From Bombers to ISR platforms.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2015 17:36

I think the good news recently was that the USAF was to continue with A-10 ops/upgrades.You need a tough heavily armoured tankbuster to survive in the current era of anti-air weaponry available with ground forces.

Some news from Japan,its own stealth fighter.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0407000126

Japan to test fly F-3 stealth fighter this summer

Staff Reporter 2015-04-07 17:22 (GMT+8)
A prototype of Japan's F-3 stealth fighter jet. (Internet photo)

The highly anticipated F-3, Japan's first domestically-made stealth jet, is aiming to conduct test flights this summer, reports the PLA Daily, a China-based media outlet for the People's Liberation Army.

If the tests are successful, the F-3 will represent a breakthrough for Japan in terms of stealth capabilities and high-powered engine technology, the report said. The advanced fifth-generation fighter, which originates from Japan's advanced technology demonstrator-experimental (ATD-X) program, has been designed to deliver superior performance in the four major quality indicators of stealth, supersonic cruise capability, maneuverability and integrated avionics systems.

In terms of stealth technology, the F-3's exterior is said to contain absorbing materials that can reduce radar reflection. Apart from evading radar detection, the aircraft also aims to eliminate visible light signals, electronic signals, heat and noise in order to minimize detectability.

The cruise capability of the F-3 will rely on its 15-ton-level high-powered engine co-developed by Japan's IHI Corporation and the Technical Research and Development Institute of the country's Ministry of Defense. The engine will reportedly feature XF5-1 low-bypass turbofan technology and composite ceramic materials highly resistant to heat.

Ordinarily, fighter jets need to make a compromise between stealth and maneuverability, but the F-3's design is said to be able to resolve the conflict. The jet has been designed to be light and multi-purpose, with diamond-shaped wings with no empennage. It has also borrowed advantageous designs from other American fighter jets, with an intake ramp similar to that of the X-32 and a Y-shaped tail that resembles the YF-23.

The F-3's avionics system integrates a high-performance active phased array radar, electronic warfare systems and multi-function RF sensors, with fiber cables to enable high mobility control and improved radar technology to expand the detection area and distance.

Despite its impressive design, the F-3 still faces many practical obstacles before it can become a reality, the PLA Daily said. Researchers are still exploring engine capabilities and need to figure out problems such as compressors and burners for such a high-powered engine. The fact that engines in the older F-2, which are less powerful than those in the F-3, have malfunctioned during flights, with reports of strong vibrations during high speeds, demonstrates that Japan's engine technology is not sufficiently mature, the PLA Daily added.

The aircraft's avionics system is also problematic because it is split into software and hardware, and Japan's lack of experience dealing with complex air flows could make the system vulnerable to poor weather conditions. The hydraulics system is also believed to be a concern for a stealth jet designed to be so agile.

Additionally, Japan's fighter materials technology has reached a bottleneck. The US F-15, for instance, has a titanium proportion as high as 26.5%, but it is not practical for Japan to simply copy the Americans as the former is completely reliant on imports for such raw materials.

The development of the F-3 carries significant strategic meaning for Japan, the PLA Daily said. On the one hand, the aircraft is viewed upon as a return to form for Japan's aviation industry and represents a show of strength against China, especially given Tokyo's efforts to lift its constitutional prohibition against collective self-defense. On the other, a successful F-3 program shows that Japan can stand on its own in developing a superior fighter. Japan has been over-reliant on the US in developing fighter jets in the past, rendering its own technologies lagging. America's guarded attitude towards Japan has led to the US suspending cooperation on multiple occasions, so the F-3 could end up being a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Apr 2015 18:13

I think the good news recently was that the USAF was to continue with A-10 ops/upgrades.You need a tough heavily armoured tankbuster to survive in the current era of anti-air weaponry available with ground forces


The CICU upgrades were never in question. The USAF still holds the position that under the BCA caps the A-10 would be phased out by 2019. The Suite 8 contracts would still be required to keep it performing its missions till 2019. The A-10 phase_out plan has absolutely nothing to do with the CAS mission but everything to do with the BCA and what the COCOMS want. The COCOMS want greater ISR orbits, better tactical aircraft against upcoming threats and CAS aircraft, especially low_end CAS is way down their priority list. The CSAF designs an air force based on the demands he/she gets from the COCOMS. If there is a demand for 500 Low end CAS platforms then he needs a cheap, quick A/X. Otherwise, he formulates requirements and plans based on what he receives as "mission demand" from the forces globally deployed and makes up the capability lost from other areas (F-16's, B-1's, AC130's, F-15E's, and eventually (block 3F and block 4) the F-35A's).

If there are no BCA caps, needs that are much lower would be accommodated and you would had perhaps another decade of A-10 operations beyond 2019. In the presence of CAPS the USAF has to pick and choose as to what it funds and so do the COCOMS in terms of what they ask for. At the moment they are asking for ISR as their number 1 priority and a fleet replacement of aging USAF fighters to maintain high sortie rates around the world. As published in the CSAF's sworn testimony in Congress, the workhorse CAS platform for the USAF is not the A-10 but the F-16.

The utmost important thing for the ACC to do is (and they are doing it at the moment) is to look at CAS as a mission and not an aircraft. The same applies for the Next generation of fighter technologies. CAS much like air-dominance is a mission and not an aircraft.

This guy played a role in evolving A-10 tactics back in the day -

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... ement.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2015 02:25

It’s Still All About the Stealth

Despite comments from naval aviation leaders in recent months that stealth has become irrelevant, it remains the key ingredient in new combat aircraft design, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday. “Stealth has not gone by the wayside. The idea that stealth is somehow dead is just wrong,” he told defense reporters at a Washington, D.C., breakfast. While he allowed that an enemy may be able to develop a radar that could detect a stealth aircraft at long-range, “stealth is about breaking kill chains.” While an acquisition radar “may be able to see you ... when they try to transition that track to a tracking radar, it fades and they can’t actually do any targeting, or they launch a weapon and somewhere during the weapon flight [it] ... loses track, because of some aspect of your stealth characteristics,” he said. “As long as we have that capability, stealth is a good thing. And, we’ll continue to develop it.” Welsh added that, “The good news is, we’re getting much better at this. We understand the technology better, ... how the pieces of stealth interact, ... how it affects threat systems, ... our own systems, ... how to communicate better, ... operate better, and maintain stealth, and ... deliver weapons ... All that stuff is getting better and better and better.” Moreover, there is “no comparison between the stealth capabilities of the F-35 and … the F-117.” The difference is like “night and day. It’s a new world. And that will continue.”


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... %202015/It’s-Still-All-About-the-Stealth.aspx

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Apr 2015 05:55

SpaceX just released some gorgeous 4K rocket launch footage http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2015/4/9/8 ... ch-footage

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Apr 2015 12:01

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0412000071

China's new early warning aircraft can track 60 targets

Staff Reporter 2015-04-12 12:31 (GMT+8)
A Chinese KJ-500 early warning aircraft. (Internet photo)

China's new KJ-500 early warning aircraft, designed by Shaanxi Aircraft Corporation, is capable of tracking about 60 aircraft within a range of 470 kilometers, according to the Washington-based Strategy Page.

With a round radar dome on the top of the fuselage, the KJ-500 looks more like a US early warning aircraft replica. It is distinguished by a smaller frame and a design based on the Y-9 four-engine turboprop aircraft.

The KJ-500 will eventually replace the People's Liberation Army Air Force's 11 KJ-200, carried by the smaller Y-8 aircraft with a long box-like radar.

In addition to the aircraft under Chinese service, three export versions of the KJ-200, known as the ZDK-03, have been provided to the Pakistan Air Force.

The development of Chinese early warning aircraft began in the 1990s when the United States stopped Israel from selling the Phalcon, developed with American technology, to China. Around the same time, Beijing purchased four Russian-built A-50 early warning aircraft, developed based on Il-76 cargo plane, and converted them to equip radar systems similar to the KJ-200. China is not satisfied with the technology yet, but claims that it has a better phased array radar system than Phalcon.


PS A-10/CAS.If its the "mission" not the aircraft,then at what affordable cost do you perform the mission? With a bomb truck or sports car?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2015 17:00

PS A-10/CAS.If its the "mission" not the aircraft,then at what affordable cost do you perform the mission? With a bomb truck or sports car?


Its not about using a bomb truck or a sports car. In fact, it was never about this. If you look at the current state of usage, over the last 10-15 years the work horse has been the F-16, and an ever growing percentage of CAS missions are now being performed by Non traditional CAS platforms such as the bomber fleet. Then you have the AC-130's that have also done well. And of course the A-10.

The problem comes with cost and the BCA. The A-10 costs 15-20K, a good 25-30% cheaper than the F-35A, granted but under the BCA (budget control act) the A-10 is actually holding back funds for the F-35A induction that would force the USAF to rely on contractor support because they do not have the maintainer force without retiring the A-10 by 2019 to train and be ready to enter the F35 enterprise as it advances. So you may save a bit of money by using the A10 vs an F-16 in a pure operational cost notionally in 2018, but you will loose money because you do not have the required logistical capability for the F-35A fleet.

Ideally you want the A-10 for that 10% of the CAS missions where it does the best job compared to every thing else. You'd want the F-16 and ultimately the F-35A for the majority of the missions that the fast jet does in CAS and you want to constantly improve your bomber and AC-130's to do the there bit. But one does not live in an ideal world. Under the budget control act the USAF is forced to make choices, and what they did was plan a phase out of the A-10 that would be complete by 2019 and that would allow them to properly recapitalize the bulk of their fighter fleet.

In 2019, the A-10 mission replacement is the F-16 and F-15E armed with the SDBII. The F-35A acquires its full CAS capability in 2021 so it is never about the A-10 vs F-35 in 2019, but the A-10 vs F-16. You have programs in place such as the SDBII, advanced PGM programs, and advanced JTAC targeting programs run by DARPA that will give you a different tactical CAS capability 5, 10 and 15 years down the road. You adjust based on what you have, and what you are investing in in terms of what you intend to have.

I'll post comments from two pilots (who have flown F-16's and A-10's) from the discussion regarding the A-10 and other CAS platforms -

I guess only Gator and MD and I have flown CAS. And over 75% of my combat missions were CAS or LZ prep or escort.

What a wonderful world if we could keep perfect, point-design aircraft for every enemy capability and desired national interests that require the use of force. Need SgtMac and his philosophy huh?

If you can find my 1974 letter to AvWeek that got me in serious trouble, it was the point that the Warthog would be great ( with 1960's OFTS avionics like we had in the Sluf) for CAS and CSAR, but not viable for interdiction. At the time we had the 'vaark and the Sluf and the Double Ugly for interdiction. I also questioned survivability in the future scenarios. I will guarantee the Warthog would been slaughtered over Hanoi in 1972 when I had my few mission there. We survived because we could hit within 25 - 30 meters from 8,000 feet release and be at 400 - 500 + knots. Jamming and such helped, but one pass, haul a$$ was the way to go.

So back in 1974 we were developing a neat jet to replace the Sluf and F-100 and F-4 ( name of this website). The 'vaark was being phased out except for the Spark Vaark and the ones SAC had. The A-10 had been selected for production but we still had a stoopid flyoff with the Sluf ( my boss was there developing the "rules" and said the whole thing was a sham). USAF had sold the thing as a jet-powered A-1. No electronics, just a WW2 gunsight, big gun, armored cockpit and slow!!! Sheesh. The A-7D/E avionics could have been added for prolly a million bucks right outta the store. But NOOOOOOoooo...... we had sold it to Congress as the uber-attack plane and did not need all the fancy electronics and such.

The guys I knew in the A-9 and A-10 flyoff had not flown the A-7D ( not quite fielded, but close). They would have DEMANDED a subset of the A-7D system, especially the INS and NAVWD computer. They already had a HUD. Doppler? Nope. Cosmic ground map radar - nope. Radar altimiter - prolly. Projected map - yep. Aux radio - maybe. The INS, computer and A-7D HUD at the time came in well under $1 million. You could have had a literal "plug and play" weapon system with almost zero development and such. But then ( 1974)a lotta high ranking USAF folks would have to beg, and Congress would ask why they had not asked for this in the beginning. And they likely would have gotten it, as the Sluf was already doomed by the new "air combat fighter" and it was already being transferred to the Guard and Reserve ( Hell, my first student in 1973 was from the ABQ Taco outfit and the next was from the Swampfox outfit in Carolina. We were already getting assignments to the new Guard and Reserve outfits checking out in the jet).

Many of us from The Beach went to the Hog, and my squad was the first operational Hog outfit and flew in The Storm. I escaped by volunteering for duty at Air University and then politic for a Viper in 2 or 3 years - made it, too, first squad in the world. Heh heh.

The CAS missions that I flew 40 years ago are rare today ( the one from the video I posted). Ones I have seen lately are in urban environments or the bad guys are a mile away and you nail them with a LGB or JDAM. There may be a day when we see something like Viet Nam or even the Storm, but that does not justify zillions of bucks and limited capability to do anythng else with the jet.

The premier air combat mission of USAF and the USN and even the USMC is to prevent the enema from dong CAS versus our friendly forces. After that, we can use the capabilities of our own planes to help the grunts. And we should not forget the embedded helos that both the USMC and Army have. We simply cannot have a strategy that depends upon airpower to come to the rescue on a regular basis.

Sorry to rant, so will step down.


And another

Agree Gums, and this was proven in Desert Storm when A-10s were sent on interdiction sorties past the FEBA to go hunt mobile Scud missiles that Saddam was lobbing into Israel. They were pulled back from this duty by General Horner due to damage and losses they were taking; interdiction just not being a viable mission for Hogs for the survivability purposes you mention. CAS and CSAR? Sure. Especially CSAR. CAS, it's just one of many tools in the toolbox now, and excels at specific duties in specific situations. Otherwise, nowdays.....with all it's upgrades in the past 10 years......the A-10 is little more than a 300 knot F-16 technology-wise.

It's funny, the latest I keep hearing from many of the current A-10 guys is how the gun is such a primary weapon. Granted, in my day we shot the gun on every range sortie, but still our primary anti-armor weapon was the AGM-65. Always was. The biggest focus points for us was the AGM-65, due to the complexity in employing it.....you had to be good at discerning targets in the TV screen and knowing what limitations and gotcha's there were for both the EO as well as the IR versions. I can remember days when the sun was setting and it was thermal crossover. The EO Mav would be useless as there wasn't enough light to see anything in the EO picture, and the IR Mav would be useless due to the thermal cross. Both Mav's being carried being unable to use for about a 1-2 hour period of time. Second focus for us was low level CBU diving deliveries, such as 10 pop, due to the severe number of mils required, nearly at the bottom of the HUD.....banana that pass by a few degrees, or make slow/shallow errors, and you'll never get a HUD solution prior to passing release altitude and the very-close-to-it abort altitude. Gun was practiced, but as it was boresighted at 41 mils, it was point and shoot; unlike bombing where you had to work the bomb triangle correctly, therefore it was relatively easy.



http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... start=1305

Another thing to keep in mind was that the USAF and the USMC looked long and hard towards the end of the 90's and beyond about what does CAS in the future. The answer was the F-35 because A) you could not afford an A/X fighter that replaced the A-10, and B ) the IADS, MANPADS and other denial capability would make the low and slow mission for CAS too risky. That decision was taken and never really contested by any party because it was a sensible thing to do. Fast forward to today, under the BCA they are forced to think about shaving a decade or so off the A-10 's life. Even if the A-10 survives, the mission is still GONE 10 years from now unless someone magically finds a few dozen Billion dollars to develop an A/X that the USAF does not want.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2015 17:36

If the a10 has a lot of life left India could use 100 if us wants to dump them.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1640
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Sid » 13 Apr 2015 18:20

Singha wrote:If the a10 has a lot of life left India could use 100 if us wants to dump them.


If they want to dump it, they will dump it in Porkistan so that they can fight regiments and armored units operated by Talibunnies. That too for free!! free!!!! free!!!!!!

They usually take a dump on our face since we are their "strategic partners".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2015 19:18

If they want to dump it, they will dump it in Porkistan so that they can fight regiments and armored units operated by Talibunnies. That too for free!! free!!!! free!!!!!!


In case the USAF plans are approved by Congress, the A-10s are likely to be mothballed and kept for the long term. They are then likely to be scrapped in the mid to late 2020's.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2015 20:03

even for OIF I believe some A10s were pulled out of mothballs and sent into action. prep started months before the whole sham was launched in various depots and boneyards.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 13 Apr 2015 20:42

Packeestan doesn't need A-10's. What they lust for is SDBs. They already have JDAMs and sniper pods for their F-16s. Who needs a freaking A-10? Not Packeestan.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests