International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Singha » 28 May 2015 13:14

and thats why PGS an any other conventional icbm speed-range-trajectory weapon makes for a unstable equilibrium from the stable one that exists now.

Euros will not be happy to know, they will be flattened first because some gamer dude back in US pressed the wrong buttons.

this may also imply my wet dream of Shaura ULSAM to take out flying large targets upto 1000km away may never happen.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2015 18:17

and how are the chinese and russians going to react when they see missiles with a 30min transit time bearing down on all their ICBM sites?
they won't sit around waiting for 1st strike to attrit their assets...they will launch on warning if the inbounds are sufficiently large in number


As I said in some sense that decision was taken by the Chinese themselves when they sought to counter US regional A2AD (CVN or air bases in the region) through the use of non-nuclear Ballistic Missiles like the DF-21. How is the USN and US Army to distinguish as to whether the barrage of Ballistic missiles coming its way at Guam, Diego Garcia or towards a CVN are nuclear or conventional? And if the Chinese can legitimately use these weapons why can't the US Army? Thats the pandora's box such thing opens and if it has been opened there is a school of thought that claims that you also capitalize on it. I feel the compromise would be that the pentagon will develop PGS, test it, understand it strategically but not field it as a weapons system to avoid such controversy. Conventional Hypersonic Cruise Missiles are being developed at a very fast pace to follow on from the X-51 Waverider work and those will be produced in large numbers. HTV-2 like systems might get the go ahead while I feel that the Army's ballistic missiles (conventional) may be something not seen through its course. Also keep in mind, the issues with "confusion" when it comes to determining nuclear or conventional intentions is something that comes up when you deploy the weapon and is therefore a function of your strategic deployment, your concept of operation and a host of other things. It shouldn't in my opinion stop you from developing the capability and even fielding it in limited amounts. China isn't going to deal with the confusion issue by canceling the DF21 and scrapping all the missiles its built up, it will most likely do so at a tactical level on how it deploys the weapon. its in there interest to mitigate the confusion element, for any such confusion is likely to set off a nuclear holocaust for both parties concerned.

http://realcleardefense.com/docs/Report ... Strike.pdf

BTW, China is also working on a hypersonic boost glide weapon, saw an ONI brief on it somewhere in a presentation. Will have to look it up though.

Two programs are currently underway in the Non-Classified Domain for the USAF, one is the HSSW where boeing and Lockheed are actively working on a 500-600nm Mach 5 Mach 6 weapon for the bomber fleet (and external carriage on the F-35) and the Boost Glide Hypersonic Weapon for the Bomber fleet. Lockheed was awarded a contract this month to continue work on the second program. Pictures courtesy secretprojects

Image

Image

Image

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 May 2015 18:35

I think now US is far ahead in Boost Glide Program and Scramjet Hypersonic Missile , Russia and China will have a lot of catch up to do not to mention us where we are barely started.

That B-2 launching BGW is very interesting concept , I suspect the warhead is Nuclear

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2015 18:36

That B-2 launching BGW is very interesting concept , I suspect the warhead is Nuclear


No, conventional.

A bit dated but some nice info - http://aviationweek.com/awin/darpa-refo ... l-missions

Since the article was written (2013) both the TBG weapon and the HSSW have cleared funding and are mentioned in the Five year forward looking budget document. The HSSW is a joint $800 Million dollar project between DARPA, AFRL and the USAF while the TBG is a DARPA project for now. The goal with the HSSW is to have a fully developed technology demonstrator weapon by 2019 enabling the USAF to launch a weapons program based on it, while the TBG is looking at something a decade or so out.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 May 2015 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 28 May 2015 18:43

what is being implied is that putinji does not trust his own inspection and verification efforts of US nuclear sites as provided by treaty.

putinji does not trust his own 24x7 satellite coverage of US nuclear sites.

because he does not trust his own monitoring efforts he will indiscriminately(europe) launch his nuclear forces upon what he personally considers sufficient provocation.

and, he thinks this will dissuade the US from technical development of its conventional forces.
Last edited by TSJones on 28 May 2015 18:52, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 May 2015 18:50

The point is any missile that is seen toward the trajectory moving towards Russia or CSTO countries at hypersonic speed , While US may have good intention to hit terrorist inside Russia or CIS countries that are time sensitive but these missiles dont carry white flag with them.

That would immediately raise an alarm from all the Warning systems and would put every body on hot seat , its not like Putinji would launch a full nuclear strike against US but it would be very tensed times with eyes glued to the Trajectory and Dead Hand Activated.

Its all about perception and intention and that can change over night.

Even Russian are working now on PGS and I am sure NORAD would be on full alert if its sees an hypersonic missile getting close to it and all of them glued to screen and POTUS informed.

here a nice write up on PGS with prespective http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/10/04 ... ar-forces#

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2015 18:56

The point is any missile that is seen toward the trajectory moving towards Russia or CSTO countries at hypersonic speed , While US may have good intention to keep terrorist inside Russia or CIS countries that are time sensitive but these missiles dont carry white flag with them


Sure that issue comes when you use the missile in the Russian context no? I don't think the need_driver for such a TBG weapon is Russia, it is the Pacific threat that has already made that decision i.e. already fields a number of Conventional Ballistic Missile threats and is also working on conventional glide weapons in the hypersonic domain. In the long term the USN and the USAF (along with the Marines) are going to have 60-65% of their assets deployed to support PACOM and that is what drives future weapons development more than anything else. Russia can and will develop hypersonic threats of its own, both Ballistic and cruise missiles and that is also something known and talked about in strategic circles. In fact, the current THAAD-ER proposals getting mentions in the 2016 budget documents is something they put in there assuming that there would be a hypersonic threat of significance in the 2020+ time frame for which they want to get to work in the next couple of years.

The Carnegie article is nice but again a couple of years old. The decision to go ahead with the development has been taken by the Obama Administration. Again from secretprojets a nice collection of all development activity in the 2015 budget and what is in the 2016 budget.

Raytheon has been awarded a $20,489,714 cost-plus-fixed-fee funding for the Hypersonic Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) missile program.

The TBG program is for the development and demonstration of technologies to enable air-launched tactical range hypersonic boost glide systems. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity.

The Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program is a Joint DARPA / Air Force effort that will develop and demonstrate technologies to enable air-launched tactical range hypersonic boost glide systems, including a flight demonstration of a vehicle that is traceable to an operationally relevant weapon that can be launched from current platforms. The program will also consider traceability to, and ideally compatibility, with the Navy Vertical Launch System (VLS). The metrics associated with this objective include total range, time of flight, payload, accuracy, and impact velocity. The program will address the system and technology issues required to enable development of a hypersonic boost glide system considering

(1) vehicle concepts possessing the required aerodynamic and aero-thermal performance, controllability and robustness for a wide operational envelope,
(2) the system attributes and subsystems required to be effective in relevant operational environments, and
(3) approaches to reducing cost and improving affordability for both the demonstration system and future operational systems. TBG capabilities are planned for transition to the Air Force and the Navy.

FY 2014 Accomplishments:
- Completed trade space analysis for tactical range hypersonic boost glide systems.
- Began development of TBG Concept of Operations (ConOps).
- Began development of TBG Operational System (OS) conceptual designs and system capabilities. - Completed a baseline operational analysis of the Government Reference Vehicle (GRV).
- Began operational analysis of the TBG performers operational systems.
- Began booster range and energy management study.
- Began aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic GRV risk reduction testing.

FY 2015 Plans:
- Complete TBG ConOps, Operational System conceptual design reviews and system capability documentation. - Complete operational analysis of the performer TBG operational systems.
- Complete operational analysis of evolved GRV.
- Complete TBG Demonstration System conceptual design and systems requirements reviews.
- Complete initial Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs).
- Complete initial Risk Management Plan (RMP).
- Select booster and launch platforms.
- Conduct initial test range and range safety coordination.
- Begin Phase I aerodynamic and aerothermal concept testing.
- Begin development of first generation aero databases.
- Complete aerodynamic and aerothermal GRV risk reduction testing.
- Complete booster range and energy management study.

FY 2016 Plans:
- Select TBG demonstration test range.
- Develop initial flight test plan.
- Complete Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR).
- Complete first generation aero databases.
- Continue risk reduction and qualification testing.
- Begin TBG concept refinement testing.

Hypersonic technology could be seen as a follow-on to stealth, Lewis said. Even if an aircraft has that kind of technology, it doesn’t mean it is invisible, he said. Adversaries are growing better at spotting stealthy aircraft, he said. Speed might compensate for that, he said. “If I can fly really fast, it makes it harder to act against me. It doesn’t make it impossible. But it makes it harder.”

Top Air Force leaders are indicating that they want to move hypersonic technology to the next level. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and Secretary Deborah Lee James in the document “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future,” said hypersonic development was number one on the service’s list of top five technology priorities. “It’s about altitude and it’s about speed,” Masiello said Sept. 16. “It’s just plain physics in terms of missiles [not] being able to intercept a cruise missile going at Mach 5-plus up at 50,000 to 60,000 feet. That gives you the survivability aspect of it.”

The Air Force has teamed with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on two new hypersonic programs. There is a cruise missile called HAWC, the hypersonic air-breathing weapons concept. The other is called tactical boost glide, which will accelerate an aircraft to Mach 5 plus speeds, then let it glide to its target. “We’re going to have demonstrations within the next five years on both of those,” Masiello said. A fully reusable, combat-ready hypersonic aircraft may be in the Air Force fleet by the 2040s, he predicted. Similarly, space planes could deliver payloads in minutes. The reusable space plane concept has been proposed many times over the years, and received a new lease on life when DARPA awarded three contracts to Boeing, Masten Space Systems and Northrop Grumman to study the idea of a two-stage launch system that could rapidly place 3,000 to 5,000 pounds into orbit. The Air Force has never given up on that idea, as evidenced by the new DARPA initiative, Lewis said. DARPA experimental spaceplane (XS-1) program envisions a reusable aircraft that could be launched from a mobile platform, and return 10 times within 10 days. It would employ a reusable first stage that would fly to Mach 10 at a suborbital altitude. At that point, one or more expendable upper stages would separate and deploy a satellite into low-Earth orbit.


To mitigate risk of confusion of escalation you tinker around your CONOPS, or not deploy it in any threatening numbers or at all. That is a decision the next POTUS will have to take. You can develop something, do a few demonstrations and verify you have the capability but not field it unless something similar is in the works by the threat. That is one way to mitigate the risk. But in the Pacific context, the answer is quite easy. The single biggest threat to US air bases in the region including the CVN is that from Conventional Ballistic Missiles. The threat in that context has made the choices for them.

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby SaiK » 29 May 2015 05:37

Image
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/pia19405/parach ... ht-mission
The wind tunnel is 80 feet (24 meters) tall and 120 feet (37 meters) wide. It is part of the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex, operated by the Arnold Engineering Development Center of the U.S. Air Force.

IAF may please note

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 29 May 2015 10:39

^Yep, they have noted. They will surely demand DRDO go test over there. :D

For them to have one of their own, they should get off their fighter jock mentality and be ready to respect and engage with the SDRE scientists.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 May 2015 22:06



The article is all over the place with its facts. HELLADS is not a scaled "down" version of LAWS, but a scaled up version if that. It is essentially a totally different program with different technology. LAWS is a simple 30KW system, while HELLADS is a 150KW system. Generation 1 hellads just arrived for testing and they are in the process of finishing development of gen.3 system that is compatible with aircraft of all shapes and size. Gen. 1 Hellads which begins testing in a few weeks has a standard beam control very similar to LAWS, while Gen 3 HELLADS has an aero specific beam control that is being tested by an industry funded team working with the University of Michigan. Candidates for demonstration include Avenger Drone, V-22 Osprey, AC-130, and C-17. Long term candidates include fighter aircraft as well and that should happen early next decade (aircraft).

CHAMP finished testing more than a year ago and the technology is packaged so that it re-uses the surplus demilitarized ALCM's. The USAF wants it on a JASSM-ER to make it more deployable. It has been tested, developed but not deployed and is likely to remain in that state for a few more years.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 30 May 2015 23:55

Chinese astronaut wants to go to the ISS.....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/asia/chin ... -mckenzie/

but US congress critters not big on that idea....

IMHO, might as well let them. they've already stolen everything on the internet. what harm could it do?

the commercial flights start in 2017-18. Might as well let them chip in some moolah.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2015 00:15

You have to be retarded not to cooperate in civil space efforts. Some retards in the congress even want to limit cooperation with the russians when its the best thing that has happened in a lot many ways. Even during the cold war there was some degree of civil cooperation.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 31 May 2015 01:12

yes the RD-180 was good deal even with all the middlemen chicanery that was created to sell it to NASA.

also the Russkis gave us some time to develop commercial launches. Highly valuable.




docking space on the ISS is about to get complicated and scarce....

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/ ... -vehicles/

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3518
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 02 Jun 2015 22:06

Tu-160 overhaul factory:

Image

what a beaut

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 03 Jun 2015 22:05

Russian space program in crisis?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/europe/ru ... index.html

Yeah, they've got some problems to fix but as usual, this is being blow way out of proportion by the media, just as they have done to NASA and also to the JSF program.

The Russians will fix what is wrong with their program. They have to, it is an integral part of their national pride. They will do what ever it takes. Will they step up to the level of NASA as they aspire? No, I don't think so. They haven't even begun to think about BEO missions w/o NASA participation. And NASA (read that as US Congress Critters) is not enthusiastic about Russia being in the critical path on any mission.

NASA itself is having some problems with missions for their new giant, yet to built, SLS rocket. But talk is now in circulation on manned CIS lunar missions perhaps with the establishment of a CIS lunar space station in prep for the ultimate goal of Mars. This of course infuriates the Mars Direct fan boyz who think CIS lunar would be a been there, done that, delay of game tactic. But in my view there are serious questions of long term viability of life support systems, radiation shielding, as well as logistical support for any Mars mission. So CIS lunar missions may be a good intermediate step.

Meanwhile a CT-100 manned launch has been officially ordered from Boeing by NASA. To happen in 2017 or there abouts.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Jun 2015 08:02

Exclusive: Vietnam eyes Western warplanes, patrol aircraft to counter China

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Vietnam is in talks with European and U.S. contractors to buy fighter jets, maritime patrol planes and unarmed drones, sources said, as it looks to beef up its aerial defenses in the face of China's growing assertiveness in disputed waters.

The battle-hardened country has already taken possession of three Russian-built Kilo-attack submarines and has three more on order as part of a $2.6 billion deal agreed in 2009. Upgrading its air force would give Vietnam one of the most potent militaries in Southeast Asia.

The previously unreported aircraft discussions have involved Swedish defense contractor Saab SAABb.ST, European consortium Eurofighter, the defense wing of Airbus Group AIR.PA and U.S. firms Lockheed Martin Corp LMT.N and Boeing BA.N, said industry sources with direct knowledge of the talks.

Defense contractors had made multiple visits to Vietnam in recent months although no deals were imminent, said the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. Some of the sources characterized the talks as ongoing.

One Western defense contractor said Hanoi wanted to modernize its air force by replacing more than 100 ageing Russian MiG-21 fighters while reducing its reliance on Moscow for weapons for its roughly 480,000-strong military.

Vietnam has ordered about a dozen more Russian Sukhoi Su-30 front-line fighters to supplement a fleet of older Su-27s and Su-30s.

"We had indications they want to reduce their dependence on Russia. Their growing friendship with America and Europe will help them to do that," said the defense contractor.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, during a visit to Vietnam on Sunday, pledged $18 million to help Hanoi buy U.S. patrol boats. But any deal with Lockheed or Boeing would likely be the most significant involving a U.S. firm since Washington started easing a long-time embargo on the sale of lethal weapons to Vietnam in October.

The Vietnamese Foreign Ministry said it had forwarded questions from Reuters about the aircraft discussions to the appropriate authorities.

Boeing said in an email it believed it had capabilities in "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms that may meet Vietnam's modernization needs". It gave no specifics.

Lockheed and Saab declined to comment. Eurofighter and Airbus did not respond to a request for comment.

CHINESE OIL RIG

While communist parties rule both Vietnam and China and annual trade has risen to nearly $60 billion, Vietnam has long been wary of China, especially over Beijing's claims to most of the South China Sea.

China's placement of an oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam for more than two months last year infuriated Vietnam and underscored the coastal country's need to upgrade its maritime patrol capabilities in particular.

Vietnam's military budget is a state secret, although data collated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) put defense spending at $3.4 billion in 2013, more than double the amount a decade ago.

Experts say actual spending could be much higher given the hardware acquired over recent years.

Among the aircraft under discussion with Vietnam were Saab's Gripen E fourth-generation fighter jet as well as the Saab 340 or 2000 twin-engine turboprops fitted with maritime patrol and airborne early warning systems, said a source with direct knowledge of those talks.

Vietnam had held talks over the Typhoon warplane made by Eurofighter as well as the F/A-50 light fighter jointly developed by Korea Aerospace Industries 047810.KS and Lockheed, separate sources said.

Lockheed had discussed its Sea Hercules, the maritime patrol version of its C-130 transport plane.

Meanwhile, an additional source said Boeing wanted to sell its maritime surveillance aircraft program, which involves putting state-of-the-art P-8 Poseidon plane surveillance technology, although not anti-submarine capabilities, on a business jet.

Vietnam had also looked at unarmed surveillance drones made by Western and Asian contractors.

VIETNAM WAR LEGACY

Vietnam has already started moving slowly away from Russia in recent years, buying Canadian Twin Otter amphibious planes and Airbus Defence CASA C-212 maritime patrol aircraft for its coastguard and Airbus C-295 transport planes.

Airbus Defence had been in talks to offer maritime patrol and airborne early warning systems on the C-295, a source said.

In addition, Airbus Helicopters had been in preliminary talks with the Vietnamese military.

Despite increasingly warm ties with Washington, some experts said the legacy of the Vietnam War might make Hanoi wary about buying too much U.S. weaponry, possibly giving Sweden an edge.

"There is no ideological bias (in Vietnam) with Sweden," said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Asia.

"The Gripen E will be a cost-effective option. Saab can offer a package that includes maritime patrol and airborne early warning aircraft."

However, one U.S. source familiar with Vietnam's goals said Hanoi saw Washington as a more reliable partner should tension with China escalate.

"Vietnam is interested in building a much closer relationship with the United States, but they also don't want to anger China," said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

"They're looking for a balanced, phased, or step-by-step approach.'

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 06 Jun 2015 10:18

Meet Adeline, Airbus’ Answer To SpaceX Reusability


http://spacenews.com/meet-adeline-airbu ... ex-rocket/

this is one of those "we'll have to wait and see" things.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Jun 2015 10:25

ULA also revealed reusable rocket plans with the Vulcan a few months ago although their plans are significantly different

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ul ... et-family/

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 06 Jun 2015 13:46

brar_w wrote:ULA also revealed reusable rocket plans with the Vulcan a few months ago although their plans are significantly different

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ul ... et-family/


Many consider ULA (a hybrid of LockMart and Boeing) to be in a fight for its very existence. SpaceX has horned in on ULA's military launch business and it is way more cheaper than ULA. ULA may not survive if they don't come up with a decent solution. In my view Congress and the USAF can't ignore the cost difference for more than a few years. Bezos may wind up buying them out. Neither LockMart nor Boeing seems inclined to get into the low cost classical rocket launch business. DARPA developments excluded.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Bade » 06 Jun 2015 17:42

Meanwhile the copycat is busy at work..the whole article is worth a read as it gives a short history of STOVL development for newbies like me..
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/05/go-ahead-china-copy-our-crappiest-warplane.html
Which is probably why China’s J-10 warplane looks a lot like Israel’s Lavi prototype and why the J-11 is identical to Russia’s Su-27. And why the communist state’s Z-10 attack helicopter is packed with French-designed components. Now China is working on a new warplane clone—a hovering “jump jet” that can take off from and land on small warships or tiny island airstrips.

The early renderings of the J-18 short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) fighter bear a striking resemblance to America’s own F-35B stealth jump jet. And while the U.S. government loudly complains about China’s data theft and even occasionally prosecutes Chinese spies, in the case of the J-18, the joke’s on Beijing.

Because the F-35B is a dog of a warplane—too complex, too heavy, too slow and sluggish to survive in battle, and so eye-wateringly expensive that the Pentagon is flirting with financial insolvency as it struggles to buy enough copies of the jet to fill out its depleted flying squadrons.

The R&D for the F-35 could set taxpayers back $400 billion. Beyond that, each copy of the plane costs no less than $150 million—and the Pentagon wants 420 F-35Bs plus another 2,000 F-35As and F-35Cs, which take off and land normally. Government auditors estimate that developing, buying, and flying all 2,500 F-35s could cost more than a trillion dollars over the next 50 years.

In cloning the F-35B, China risks committing military-industrial suicide. Go ahead, Beijing—copy our crappiest warplane. If the United States with its $600 billion annual defense budget can barely afford the F-35B, then China—which spends a comparatively paltry $130 billion a year—can’t afford it at all, and could suffer irreparable self-harm in attempting a technological copy-and-paste.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 06 Jun 2015 17:47

the Pentagon is flirting with financial insolvency as it struggles to buy enough copies of the jet to fill out its depleted flying squadrons.


:D :)

It's not the Pentagon, it's *congress*. and the cost of the program is spread out over a number of years. it's not all one lump sum.

'sides, as I've said before, it's not the only iron in the fire. there are other a/c planning for development.
Last edited by TSJones on 06 Jun 2015 18:11, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Jun 2015 18:09

TSJones wrote:
brar_w wrote:ULA also revealed reusable rocket plans with the Vulcan a few months ago although their plans are significantly different

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ul ... et-family/


Many consider ULA (a hybrid of LockMart and Boeing) to be in a fight for its very existence. SpaceX has horned in on ULA's military launch business and it is way more cheaper than ULA. ULA may not survive if they don't come up with a decent solution. In my view Congress and the USAF can't ignore the cost difference for more than a few years. Bezos may wind up buying them out. Neither LockMart nor Boeing seems inclined to get into the low cost classical rocket launch business. DARPA developments excluded.


Space X has no doubt ruffled a few feathers, but ULA still has a huge advantages technically. Their cost is also a function of the "assured access" that they have to provide for that cost. Where Space X fell from its mighty horse was when Musk began suggesting that ULA and SX be split in responsibilities with the Falcon family getting the lower end of the market and ULA doing the SLS. That would have given each a monopoly in the respective launch category and would have essentially created a situation that Musk had been fighting to reverse (MONOPOLY) for so many years :)

Meanwhile the copycat is busy at work..the whole article is worth a read as it gives a short history of STOVL development for newbies like me..


Learning from AXE is like learning about the Rafale from Karan Thapar. I would suggest you rather go straight to the source (The Father of JSF's STOVL) if you are interested in really learning about it


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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 07 Jun 2015 15:55

Good read

The Secret History of SEAL Team 6: Quiet Killings and Blurred Lines

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/world ... .html?_r=0

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3059
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Kanson » 08 Jun 2015 09:38

viewtopic.php?p=1850623#p1850623
brar_w wrote:
kanson wrote:GE is targeting these efforts with one eye on F-35 program as well.


GE isn't targeting anything in particular, they bid for and secured the rights to participate in the ADVENT program along the RR and they built the core t the specific demanded by AFRL.


viewtopic.php?p=1851990#p1851990
brar_w wrote:
kanson wrote:McCormick, General Manager, Military Engines, GE disagrees with you on this.



The Engine choice for the ADVENT does not and did not rest with GE. They were expected to design technologies only. Even if GE wanted to, there is absolutely no engine to get out of ADVENT since its A) Not even a complete engine, and B ) is a technology development program. It does not lead to anything, it simply accomplishes its objectives and the program transitions into AETD where both GE and P&W are developing a further engine..This program is currently ongoing. Once AETD concludes, the VAATE effort again transitions into the AETP which is a 45K thrust engine.


I'm here quoted McCormick NOT to comment on ADVENT but how they are planning to develop engine for JSF/F-35 through VAATE. And that is why I said he disagrees with you. There are comments from McCormick to that effect.

Neither anyone disagree with what AETP is. But through AETP what leverage (including political) that both GE and Pratt & Whitney planning to have in F-35. Often quoted figure that GE will attempt for the pie is 2020. If you have more insights on this very much willing to hear. Many thanks.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Jun 2015 18:57

I'm here quoted McCormick NOT to comment on ADVENT but how they are planning to develop engine for JSF/F-35 through VAATE. And that is why I said he disagrees with you. There are comments from McCormick to that effect.


And to that I have already said what I claimed. They can internally try to look into the F-35, and F-22 replacement market for what its worth. Tis does not mean there is an engine replacement planned anything soon. At the moment they are concentrating on developing technologies that can win them the upcoming GEWIII..there is nothing that suggests that there is going to be money found to spend 5-10 Billion (probably much more since you need 3 engine variants) dollars to develop a VAATE based clean sheet engine for the F-35 apart from GE wishful thinking. At best the F135 will be funded with incremental improvements just as is happening now (P&W contracted by the USN). The F-35MLU is decades away, the thing goes operational this year only.

Neither anyone disagree with what AETP is. But through AETP what leverage (including political) that both GE and Pratt & Whitney planning to have in F-35. Often quoted figure that GE will attempt for the pie is 2020. If you have more insights on this very much willing to hear. Many thanks


Ahh..I get it now. Both GE and P&W did an open media day and blasted away what they feel should happen and what they wish would happen. That is far from reality given the dynamics at play with the JPO. SO take those articles with a spoonful of salt. Rest assured the SINGLE LARGEST R&D program in the USAF research is the VAATE, but the current focus is on using the AETP to clear a firm transition plan to enter an EMD phase for a new engine for 6th generation fighters. Do keep in mind that an EMD phase lasts upwards of a decade at times and each and every dollar spent on that EMD engine will be a dollar taken away from an F-35 re-engine program. To get to that, there has to be first a requirement and second a need. Neither exists at the moment and it will not exist for all practical purposes till the F-35 MLU which will most likely follow 6th generation design plans.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Jun 2015 07:21

Rus has grounded its Tu95 fleet following a engine fire during takeoff of one bird.

in other news they say will produce 50 new Tu160 blackjack

but starting 2023 only

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby SaiK » 10 Jun 2015 18:25



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Jun 2015 03:44

From the Armored Vehicles thread -

Philip wrote:Post Cold War and after the Camp David agreement,Egypt bought mainly from the US and western countries,eschewing Russian eqpt. In any case after the collapse of the USSR,all countries that relied upon Soviet eqpt. found spares,support,etc. difficult as the Soviets had spread out there def. industry across the republics.

The main attraction for buying Soviet.Russian eqpt. has been the price factor. Very robust eqpt. with good performance,equal or almost equal to western systems but at much lower prices. In the case of the case of MKIs,arguably better than western fighters barring the F-22. The T-14/Armata does look expensive though. It isn't going to be easy to procure in large numbers like T-72s,etc.,for most nations barring the Russians who are requipping their armour with the Armata family. It could cost perhaps 25%-35% more than a T-90,given its larger size and added features. That is going to be a drawback to large-scale exports as was possible with the T72/90s.



@ Phillip, there is nothing analogous to the Su-30MKI in the Eagle family. The USAF had a plan to get a 70% ATF and that was studied and would have been the result of a highly modified Eagle but that was dropped in favor of the ATF as the studies and development advanced. The F-22 and the Su-30MKI first flew around the same time. The F-15C/D advanced development was never ever pursued other than using the Eagle to test some of the technologies for the ATF (Short take off, and thrust vectoring performance etc). The Strike eagle family morphed into a long range strike fighter design with a high airframe life requirement (16,000 hours), lots of pods, weapons payload flexibility etc and air to air was secondary. Even now, the F-15E squadrons which are some of the best in the USAF (the USAF's best squadron for this year was an F-15E out of the UK) don't really practice WVR but fly with mostly AMRAAM's and bombs. I don't think they even have the JHMCS as a routine on the USAF Beagles.

Even the F-15SE and SA are built around modern air to ground and multi-role air to air mission profiles. You have a very large AESA operational on the F-15 fleets since the early 2000's, and now you have another operational (the Apg-82 radar is the third AESA for the F-15), the F-15 finally gets FBW, and a digital Electronic warfare suite (which even the USAF doesn't have yet for the fleet, although export customers do) and have a very large selection of US and now NATO PGM's. The F-15 E and its advanced variants are now UAI compatible so you can strap on an AASM and integrate that within weeks since its the first french UAI compatible weapon. However all these upgrades, changes are to make the F-15E family the best possible strike fighter possible, in line with the sort of missions it will perform. Most would still prefer the F-15C over even the most advanced E's for pure air to air. If Boeing or the USAF had invested to make the F-15C a better air to air fighter, they would have been unlikely to sell so many Eagles that they have sold since the threat driver for most of those customers was a need to do long range, precision strike and air to air was secondary (South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Singapore).

Outside of India's budget, technical capability and overall relationships with western suppliers there are a not many customers that can pull of an MKI i.e. integrate the best available western systems or sub-systems into a unique design. Therefore if there is a requirement for high end systems such as IR MAWS, Multi-Role AESA radar, Color HMS/HMD, a wider selection of EA/EW equipment and western standard avionics there isn't a lot of choice when it comes to the Russian systems whereas you have multiple sources of supply that for western products that do cost a lot more.

However the western suppliers (europeans included) and even Indian products have made a switch to all digital EW, AESA radars and advanced versions of IR sensors while the Russians have yet to field an operationalized AESA radar on a frontline combat aircraft and it seems that the first aircraft to do it for them would be the PAKFA/T-50. The engine availability, life, and time between overhaul is nowhere near the western engines be it the US, french or from rest of Europe. To the best of understanding, even the Su-35 at the moment does not come standard with an IR MAWS, something the west fielded decades ago and have since moved to an IR-staring-IRST in the EODAS and DDNG.

The Soviets designed an extremely competitive and high quality aircraft in the Flanker and it took the IAF's demand and support to really go out and make it better than what the Soviets marketed as far as systems and sub-systems go. However the Russians have since not caught up with what others in the field of self-defense, AESA radars, Integrated avionics, core-processors and data sharing have been offering with the advanced variants of the F-15, Eurofigther Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and the Gripen. Egypt is going to do what any new leader in the ME does, i.e. shop a little from the US, a little from the French (long time allies), a little from the Russians and some from the Chinese. The new establishment is establishing long term security relations with major global players so expect them to 'spread the love/cash'

As far as the capabilities go, once the Russians do start to offer these on the high end flankers, we will know more about what the cost is to acquire them. I am talking about long-life engines that have a MTBO closer to a decade if not more, have a life closer to that of the airframe, have an advanced AESA with T/R module performance at par or ahead of the western systems, Integrated avionics, IR MAWS, a digital integrated EA/EW suite, and the sort of a2a and a2g weapons flexibility provided by the likes of Rafale, Strike Eagle and even the Typhoon and Gripen. Those require sizable investments into core areas such as mass producing Gallium Arsenide and Nitride T/R modules for both FCR's and EA/EW systems, advanced targeting pods at par or ahead of western suppliers, and integrating and fusing all that as some of the advanced fourth generation and 4.5 generation western designs currently do. They also need to produce something of the level of a Litening G4, integrated a2a/a2g Tiger Eyes or Sniper XR for those customers that want a true multi role capability. Once you begin to offer all that as a package then you can better gauge the price of the aircraft and how it compares to the western counterparts. The Russians do have a different labor rate compared to the west, and their investments in core productions are largely extensions of the ones made by the State under the Soviet Union. However significantly more investments would be required if you are to offer advanced features as standard on your flanker and fulcrum families and do so at a volume. Those investments will therefore reflect in the price quoted on these advanced multi-role variants of jets in the future and when that happens we will be better able to see what the ' real difference' especially when you factor in airframe life, since all the western fighters at the moment are built around 8000 standard (NON SLEP) hours except the F-15E which is designed around a 16,000 hour airframe life. The Su-30MKI is the epitome if a true multi-role flanker the likes of which even the Russian Air Force does not have (capability). A lot many customers would continue to demand capability (serious ones like the IAF anyhow) that is a bit different (or significantly different) from the ex. soviet or russian conops for the flanker. India for example wanted significantly better avionics, top of the line electro optical targeting and wanted the the MKI to be a PGM striker in addition to an air superiority fighter. At the moment the only real way to get a lot of that capability is through the MKI route unless one is willing to compromise (drop the AESA, drop advanced pods etc etc). The western fighters provide that capability and have done so for many years despite of the higher cost. The trend is towards multi-role fighters as nations around the world cannot afford to maintain single purpose fighters any more.

The only option many have to get all of that on a flanker at the moment is develop another MKI like the IAF and not a lot of air-forces can afford to do that, or have the technical manpower and expertise to pull it off. The Chinese are trying to do that with their own 'flanker clones' but they are A) stuck with Russia for the lack of another supplier especially for engines, and B ) limited to what they develop in house as they can't simply source the best avionics solutions, data links, jammers, targeting pods etc from the international market. In contrast however much smaller defense forces like Singapore have been able to field advanced Beagles with AESA radars etc. Saudi Arabia has FBW which no one else has, and had a choice with two cutting edge EW systems designers to choose its DEWS solution something that even the USAF doesn't have and wishes to get. These nations don't have the design expertise to put this together themselves, they don't have the depot level capacity to overhaul large parts at 500 hours or 1000 hours or invest Crores of Ruppees/dollars to develop indigenous production and supply line in order to improve mission availability rate. They spend a bit extra to buy equipment that lasts longer, has up to 2 times the MTBO and sign a global PBL to ensure high availability rates and get the capability from that angle. Small flanker operators cannot do that because there isn't a mechanism in place, nor do they have the logistics and product-support investment of the IAF to do it 'themselves'. They therefore must rely on regular supply of parts from Russia and that can be problematic, expensive, delayed etc as many have found out in the past.

I was a bit surprised that the IN for example stuck with a standard Mig-29K in stead of a Mig-29 MKI. There was an opportunity lost there in my opinion to take the entire thing a step above the Su-30MKI as far as cross-country/OEM technology integration was concerned. This time around they could have done a considerable indigenous component incorporation etc. Perhaps it would be an option going forward although if they go for EMALS or steam CATS, the Mig29K can easily be ditched for future carriers in favor of far more capable aircraft that are already flying around the world.

Though capable they surely are, there is a long capability to add to do a true apples to apples cost comparison between a non MKI version of the flanker to a multi role aircraft such as the Strike Eagle+or rafale or the Mig-29/35 to the block 50./52/60 F-16 or Gripen C / NG.

Singha wrote:one of the F-15C A2A Fighting cocks won best squadron a few yrs ago, they are the gold std in usaf for a2a as thats all they do full time
awesome HD video as they fight , refuel , then fight again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSCdvj4tAFg

watch with sound...afterburner use at night seems visible from way far out...a deadly advantage for supercruisers.


Thanks for the Video, nice stuff. The F-15C needs three to four things and it will be right at home be it in near peer to peer conflict or GW like conflict. One is the DEWS (Digital EW suite) and its in the process of getting that. Saudi F-15SA is already flying with a BAE DEWS, while the uSAF is in the process of choosing between BAE and NG for the entire fleet wide DEWS. Next is AESA and they already have the Apg-82 being procured. The other is the Packs for linking it tot he F-22 and F-35. Two programs are currently addressing that and the point is to fix the F-22's IFDL and have it translated into the F-15C and they have done a few exercise where they have tried the tactical benefits with the interoperability of the F-15C and F-22A and F-22A and EF Typhoon and in both occasions the results have been very favorable. 4th generation capability really gets enhanced when you mix a few High SA, high performance 5th generation platforms as long as they can share the information in a timely manner.

The DEWS upgrade is being developed, and I think down select is due for next year. The 4th to 5th is progressing nicely with an interim program having hardware in the air at the moment and a long term solution in the design phase. The F-15C's will also get IRST.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2015 04:51

was a bit surprised that the IN for example stuck with a standard Mig-29K in stead of a Mig-29 MKI.


Did India have a choice?

If the stories are true, which seem to be, then the 29 were part of the vikram deal - and get this ,- at the lower price.

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 11 Jun 2015 05:16

Singha wrote:Rus has grounded its Tu95 fleet following a engine fire during takeoff of one bird.

in other news they say will produce 50 new Tu160 blackjack

but starting 2023 only


Only when Crude price will be 500 dollars per barrel

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Jun 2015 05:34

NRao wrote:
was a bit surprised that the IN for example stuck with a standard Mig-29K in stead of a Mig-29 MKI.


Did India have a choice?

If the stories are true, which seem to be, then the 29 were part of the vikram deal - and get this ,- at the lower price.


Yeah but I guess the IN could have developed the platform even though they were stuck without the ability to compete the Air wing.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby SaiK » 11 Jun 2015 06:27


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9634
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2015 01:24

Russia's bomber production plans 'not feasible'

Recent declarations by Russian officials regarding plans to re-start production of the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber, combined with various other announced procurements, are being met with scepticism by a number of experts. The two reasons most commonly cited for this are that Russian industry lacks the numbers of qualified personnel necessary to support so many procurements taking place simultaneously and that the funding available is nowhere close to what would be required.

The Russian deputy defence minister for procurement, Yury Borisov, told news outlets on 4 June that the envisioned new-build Tu-160 would essentially be a new aircraft due to its onboard systems being several generations beyond the 1980s-era avionics suite of the original Tu-160. "This aircraft would be designated the Tu-160M2," he said, adding that, "according to our plans, this will most likely happen sometime after 2023".
In addition to the plan for a modernised Tu-160, another initiative calls for 130 Mikoyan MiG-31 interceptors to be brought up to the MiG-31BM configuration. Central to that upgrade is the installation of a new avionics suite, modernised crew stations fitted with state-of-the-art displays and a new variant of the onboard radar set. Known as the NIIP Zaslon-M, this enhanced model of the passive electronically scanning array (PESA) design has an enlarged antenna array around 1.4 m wide, which increases the number of targets that can be handled simultaneously in track-while-scan (TWS) mode to 10. The range of the radar against aerial targets with the radar cross-section of a typical fighter is 320 km, while targets can be fired upon at up to 280 km.
In addition, the chief of staff of the Russian Air Force (VVS), Colonel General Viktor Bondarev, is also calling for large numbers of Sukhoi Su-30MK, Su-35 and T-50/PFI fifth-generation fighters, Su-34 fighter-bombers, and a new domestic version of the MiG-35 that was formerly proposed for export to India.
"The people issuing these orders still believe we are living in Soviet times," said a Moscow-based analyst of the Russian defence sector, "where you simply make proclamations and an entire constellation of design bureaus and production plants charge forward and no one is estimating the money required or - even worse - calculating anything like the opportunity cost created."
A commonly cited weakness of today's Russian defence sector is that the workforce is only a small fraction of its former, Soviet-era size, with a commensurate drop in its capacity. Following a soon-to-be-completed round of reductions within the Russian defence sector, the numbers of personnel to be left at some of the most critical design bureaus is estimated at being less than 10% of their apex in the 1980s.

Analysis

Col Gen Bondarev stated at the end of May that the plans to once again build versions of the Tu-160 would in no way adversely affect the Perspektivniy Aviatsionniy Kompleks Dalney Aviatsii (Perspective Aviation Complex - Long-Range Aviation: PAK-DA) project. However, the production facilities for the PAK-DA and for a re-start of Tu-160 production would be essentially the same factories and design centres, as there are no other comparable enterprises in Russia.
"It is difficult to believe that two very different types of aircraft - one a stealthy, blended wing/body design and the other a traditional airframe design with a variable-sweep wing - could be built on top of one another without adversely affecting both programmes," said a US defence industry executive with experience of new-generation aircraft designs.
Additionally, some of the same experts who spoke to IHS Jane's pointed out that the production lines for the Tu-160 have been idle for years and that the necessary re-tooling of the facilities would require massive investment. Most of the production plants in Russia's defence sector are estimated to be working at no better than 40% of their original capacity. Even if the production plants were to receive such massive funding, the 50 new Tu-160M2s that will supposedly be built represent more than three times the 15 Tu-160s built in Soviet times when the plant was at its peak level of production.
Funding is perhaps a greater problem. The 2015 Russian defence budget that was developed in the summer of 2014 was based on projected revenues from oil being priced at USD100 or more per barrel and with inflation rising no higher than 5%. Today, world oil prices are well below this mark and Russia currently suffers from double-digit inflation. This has, in part, caused various new Russian defence programmes, such as that for the T-14 Armata tank, to come in at 250% or more above their original target cost per unit.
The engine fire that grounded Russia's entire fleet of Tu-95 bombers in the first week of June is "a symptom of the bigger disease in the Russian armed forces. The fleets of these strategic platforms are ageing fast and there is nothing to replace them with," said the Moscow-based analyst. "Grandiose announcements calling to for huge numbers of bombers to be built to replace them - announcements bereft of any sense of reality - are evidence of the undying belief in the power of bureaucratic solutions within Russian officialdom."


member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 14 Jun 2015 19:22

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-comet-lander-philae-awakes-from-hibernation-20150614-story.html


Comet lander Philae awakes from hibernation
Probe lands on comet

By ASSOCIATED PRESS Space Space Exploration European Space Agency

The comet lander Philae has awakened from a seven-month hibernation and managed to communicate with Earth for more than a minute, the European Space Agency said Sunday.

The probe became the first spacecraft to land on a comet when it touched down on the icy surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in November. After its historic landing Philae managed to conduct experiments and send data to Earth for about 60 hours before its batteries were depleted and it was forced to shut down its systems.

ESA lands probe on comet
CAPTION
ESA lands probe on comet
ESA / Getty Images
A photo provided by the European Space Agency on Nov. 13 shows the surface of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet as seen from the Philae lander.
CAPTION
Spacecraft selfie
ESA handout photo
Using the camera on Rosetta's Philae lander, the spacecraft snapped a selfie with 67P from a distance of about 10 miles from the surface of the comet.
Scientists hoped the probe would wake up again as the comet approaches the sun, allowing its solar panels to charge the on-board battery.

The German Aerospace Center, DLR, which operates Philae, said the probe resumed communication at 10:28 p.m. (2028 GMT; 4:28 p.m. EDT) on Saturday, sending about 300 packages of data to Earth via its mother ship Rosetta, which is orbiting the comet.

“Philae is doing very well,” said DLR's project manager Stephan Ulamec, adding: “The lander is ready for operations.”

lRelated See how Philae landed on a comet and made history
SCIENCE NOW
See how Philae landed on a comet and made history
SEE ALL RELATED
8
Ulamec said the probe appears to have been awake for some time before it called home, because some of the packages received contained historical data.

Philae has more than 8,000 data packages still stored in its memory, which scientists hope to receive when the probe next communicates with Earth. The data contained therein may help them determine where exactly Philae has landed.

The probe's exact location has been a mystery, though scientists have narrowed down its likely location based on images and other measurements received from Philae and Rosetta.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16962
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2015 00:29

Image

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby TSJones » 15 Jun 2015 01:23

submitted for your perusal and edification:

http://www.military.com/equipment/m107- ... rifle-lrsr

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Jun 2015 13:44

Image

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Jun 2015 13:50

IF I am not wrong the NEW START specifies Deployed Warhead for Bombers , RV/ICBM , SLBM to 2250 and another 800 for Deployed and Non-Deployed launchers total ~ 3050

Even if we look at Deployed Warhead both Russian and US Warhead and much below the NEW START Limit of 2250 , I think both countries in few years will be around those figures.

The other warheads are the ones not counted within New Start , which can mean any thing with any yeald.

I Doubt China and India have those number of low warhead and are not binded by any treaty which has provision of transparency


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: V_Raman and 42 guests