Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Aerospace 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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Feb 2017 20:44

sudeepj wrote:
NRao wrote:Not a topic for this thread, yet one that shows how disjointed our logic has become because we have been burying our heads in the sand.

Plan for $10 Billion Chip Plant Shows China’s Growing Pull
Sanjay Jha, the chief executive of GlobalFoundries. The company will build an advanced semiconductor factory in Chengdu, China. Credit Arno Burgi/European Pressphoto Agency

That is a CEO, of one of the largest chip manufacturers, a NRI, making an announcement that his American company will invest in China, AFTER Intel announcened they would invest $7 billion in AZ and Trump's threats.
.


If GloFo goes to China, Ill be really surprised. They will be stopped.


Not if the work is for internal use to China. Or am I missing something?

Trump, seems to, be opposed to stuff being made elsewhere and then sold in the US. I do not think he opposes stuff being made elsewhere and sold outside the US.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2017 08:42

Dubai announces passenger drone plans

A drone that can carry people will begin "regular operations" in Dubai from July, the head of the city's Roads and Transportation Agency has announced at the World Government Summit.

The Chinese model eHang 184 has already had test flights, said Matt al-Tayer.

The drone can carry one passenger weighing up to 100 kg (220 pounds) and has a 30 minute flight time.

The passenger uses a touch screen to select a destination. There are no other controls inside the craft.

It is "auto-piloted" by a command centre, according to a video released by the government agency.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3405
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 16 Feb 2017 03:27

Qatari Rafale. Love the scheme, so much more interesting than the boring all grey.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 06:05

Very Interesting/refreshing scheme. Wonder if they'll choose something similar or their F-15 QA's.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 06:07

F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) 2016, Year in Review. Some really good test footage.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 23:06

KAI KF-X

Image

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1384
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby wig » 17 Feb 2017 12:24

UK based Cobham is facing financially tough times
excerpts
As well as the profits bombshell, Mr Lockwood - who took on the job two months ago - also revealed £179m of cash charges and a whopping £574m of writedowns


and
The company also took writedowns of £196m on its wireless division, £186m against integrated electric solutions and £192m against semiconductors.

Much of these writedowns were on the 2013 and 2014 acquisitions of antenna business Axell for £85m and US communications group Aeroflex for £870m, which includes the debt attached - and was seen by many as paying hugely over the odds.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ng-cobham/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33456
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 17 Feb 2017 16:40

From aviation week
http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-oft ... 8ab954bfda

An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns.

The Marine Corps does have tankers—the legacy KC-130s—but only Air Force tankers support fighter ocean crossings.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2017 16:43

The Marines have been wanting a larger tanker fleet for some time for this and other reasons (probably one reason to come out and publicly complain about the USAF's rules). The USAF will not take risk and reduce their peacetime requirement on safety grounds. It is the same for the F-22, or F-15 as it is for the F-16 or F-35 or even the Harriers and Hornets. On this program just imagine the hipsters reporters going bat $hit crazy if an aircraft had to divert during transit..Folks would be lining up 10 x 1 Trillion dollar cost in media headlines ;). The only time they tune down their requirements are during a security package deployment (that mandates a pre set logistical footprint) or combat operations. The Marines did a scheduled transit to MCAS Iwakuni so it doesn't fit in any other category.

The USAF required the F-35B's to fly with their fuel probe retracted (same for all such transitions) and mandated that they refuel every 30-35 minutes. Needless to say the Marine Aviation boss, Lt. Gen. Dog Davis wasn't amused.

“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”

While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.

It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe.

“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.”

Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted.

Pleus pushed back on Davis’ criticism, stressing that extending time between refuelings during an ocean crossing would mean more risk to pilots.

During a combat scenario, however, the Air Force would have a different calculus. Typically on a 6-hr. mission, a pilot would tank just two or three times, according to one Air Force official. It is important to top up before the mission because tankers are too vulnerable to fly alongside fighters during combat.



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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 17 Feb 2017 18:20

in a trans pac drag the worst scenarios must be planed for; anything can happen......and sometimes does.

the public thinks its like flying in a civilian air liner..........its not.

the pilots must wear additional safety gear, etc, everything is planned to the nth degree.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2017 18:36

I don't think anyone is really worried about the public's opinion on matters of military logistics. The article here came out of a public call by the Commandant for Aviation for the USMC wanting the USAF requirements to be made less conservative so that it eases his mission planning when it comes to deploying squadrons of jets in the Pacific. The USAF's response was " My court, my rules". ;) Story filed by AvWeek, matter closed. Somewhere down the road amidst a future fleet planning document the USMC could introduce larger tanker footprint for the future..using this as a justification.
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Feb 2017 21:29, edited 4 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2017 19:55


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 18 Feb 2017 04:54

Subscription.

HAL To Service Saab EW Systems In India

BENGALURU—Saab Grintek Defense (SGD) will transfer its technology to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) for in-country maintenance of Saab’s Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (IDAS) system in ...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 18 Feb 2017 20:56


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 18 Feb 2017 21:23

back before days of gps we had pilots who would get lost and land at small airfields, stray into mexico and canada, etc.

they learned to identify and follow major highways believe it or not!

there were tacan towers all over the US but sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3441
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby deejay » 18 Feb 2017 21:30

TSJones wrote:back before days of gps we had pilots who would get lost and land at small airfields, stray into mexico and canada, etc.

they learned to identify and follow major highways believe it or not!

there were tacan towers all over the US but sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't.


Yup, this happens. I would see it as an advantage of helicopters that one could do this. Bad weather, poor viz and remote area helipads can cause problems. Follow the railway line if lost in India.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Feb 2017 23:44

Noticeable EW/EA warts for the digital AESA based ALQ-239, and also the MAWS inserts. Interesting that the pilot chose to wear a smart watch..wouldn't wan't to eject during combat and have the battery run out.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 01:28

TSJones wrote:back before days of gps we had pilots who would get lost and land at small airfields, stray into mexico and canada, etc.

they learned to identify and follow major highways believe it or not!

there were tacan towers all over the US but sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't.


How many times on a video? : )

That too in a blizzard?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33456
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 19 Feb 2017 10:05

SAAB Viggen enters spin and recovers with spin parachute (video)
https://twitter.com/GripenNews/status/8 ... 0253665280

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 788
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 19 Feb 2017 11:40

Here is another wart

F 15 C with Talon Hate on top of right engine

(Admin - apologies, i don't know how to resize images)

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 788
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 19 Feb 2017 14:33

Another attempt after an earlier rejection

The Machete: The Super Plane That Could Replace the A-10 Warthog (Or Not)?

Image

Image

Indranil wrote:
shiv wrote:Stop Disrespecting the Turboprop

Turboprop powered A-10? :D
Image

This, I absolutely love.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 19 Feb 2017 15:06

The propeller at the back looks like it could be easily destroyed if it were hit by shrapnel from AAA or a SAM.
The good thing about the A-10 is it has twin engines on either side of the plane.
Even if one engine is totally destroyed by a SAM/AAA, it can be shut down and the plane can return to base on the other engine alone.
Same for the Su-25.
Titanium plates separate both engine compartments.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 19 Feb 2017 15:11

You don't develop an indigenous defense industry by buying a load of crap from overseas and doing screw driver assembly work - which is all it really amounts to. That destroys opportunities locally and creates them overseas for foreign aerospace R&D companies.

You develop an indigenous defense industry by pursuing indigenous projects and if need be, involving foreign players in some sub-system development.

Babuz making decisions to buy foreign planes and blabbing about "transfer of technology" do not understand this.

In the end they will cost the country tens of billions of dollars with near zero gains domestically.

----

India’s biggest sky hunt begins

NEW DELHI: India has launched the world’s biggest hunt for fighter jets in recent years. From single-engine to twin-engine, global players have been invited to build nearly 300 fighter jets here on the basis of foreign technology under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make in India campaign.

Though all eyes are on Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar to announce its much-awaited strategic partnership model, the main focus will be towards developing an indigenous defence industry. :roll:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesund ... 72138.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19598
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Feb 2017 15:50

deejay wrote:up, this happens. I would see it as an advantage of helicopters that one could do this. Bad weather, poor viz and remote area helipads can cause problems. Follow the railway line if lost in India.


Kazak Chopper Pilot lands on Road in bad weather to ask direction from Truck Driver :lol:


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2017 02:10

David Axe, National Interest and Stavatti makes a deadly combination.

Anyhow, SX landed one back again today.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Feb 2017 03:37

CRS-10 launch + landing, very short version:




The long version:


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2017 03:58

Manish_P wrote:Here is another wart

F 15 C with Talon Hate on top of right engine

(Admin - apologies, i don't know how to resize images)

IMG



Thanks for the picture. I hadn't come across this one. Talon hate will give them interoperability through a supersonic platform that can share and receive data both discretely and in high volume. They can do it now, but the gateway rests on the Global Hawk BACN which is not going to be able to keep up with a strike fighter force and is obviously not as survivable as an F-15C or E that can defend itself.

Northrop Grumman, recently also put their BACN - MADL (F-35 LPI data link) payload on a Eurofighter Typhoon to demonstrate to the Royal Air Force the concept as they refine requirements to get secure , LPI/LPD comms in contested environments between the F-35 and Eurofigther, and perhaps later with their UCAV as well (FCAS). The RAF Tyhoons at Red Flag 17-1 demonstrated this new feature. I'm pretty sure that a similar gateway would also rest on the B-21 allowing all penetrating aircraft to optimize their data-link spectrum depending upon how contested the EMS is.

Once the USAF F-15C's and E's are finally upgraded with AESA, EPAWSS, and IRST they will be fairly capable in their mission of complementing the F-22 and F-35. Here's another pic of the talon hate OT aircraft --

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33456
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 20 Feb 2017 20:19

How private companies with retired fighters help western air forces with realistic aggressor training
http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/02 ... for-asdot/
DA Defence operates the world’s largest privately-owned operational fleet of aggressor aircraft for air support, and provides tactical airborne training and adversary training for various armed forces around the world. The DA Defence fleet currently includes A-4N/ TA-4J Skyhawks and ex-Luftwaffe Alpha Jets.

DA Defence is thought to be planning to acquire F-16 Fighting Falcons from an undisclosed source in order to aid fourth- and fifth-generation fighter pilot training. It is understood to be aiming for four single-seat Block 10 F-16A models and two F-16B models, with plans for 10 in total, with the jets in question being described as having a ‘decent, low level of flying hours’.

Inzpire currently provide an exercise management team for the RAF’s Air Battlespace Training Centre, as well as supplying expertise within the RAF’s Air Warfare Centre through the management of large-scale live training exercises. Inzpire’d Qualified Helicopter Flying Instructors instruct the British Army Apache attack helicopter and Wildcat helicopter conversion-to-type and conversion-to-role courses.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60267
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 20 Feb 2017 20:38

Tor firing on move


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3405
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2017 01:38

Oh oh...

From AW&ST


The head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) says the outer wings of 32 carrier-based C-models need to be replaced to carry the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder, the aircraft’s primary dogfighting weapon.

The U.S. Navy variant experienced an undisclosed amount of oscillation or turbulence during flight trials with the AIM-9X in December 2015, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan says aircraft already delivered need to be retrofitted with strengthened wings.

“It was discovered the outer, folding portion of the wing has inadequate structural strength to support the loads induced by pylons with AIM-9X missiles during maneuvers that cause buffet,” Bogdan says in written testimony to Congress on Feb. 16.


Engineers have already produced an enhanced outer wing design, which is now undergoing flight testing. The issue has impacted the timeline for fielding AIM-9X, which is being rolled out for the Navy in Block 3F. “Once the new design is verified to provide the require strength, the fix will be implemented in production and retrofitted to existing aircraft by swapping existing outer wings with the redesigned ones,” Bogdan writes.

..


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2017 01:55

This was reported last year.. the redesigned outer wing is flying right now. Although Chris Bogdan has to schedule for the entire Charlie fleet to be retrofitted, I doubt they'll (It is a USN decision) retrofit the non operational aircraft. Out of the 32 Charlies only about a 1/4 are destined to operational units, the rest are for the test force and the training squadrons. I think it is quite likely that they'll only apply the changes to around half, i.e. the ones meant for operational squadrons and the ones required to support the OT&E starting next year. The rest will just get it during their schedule overhaul in a few years time.

From earlier this year courtest Lee Hudson -




F-35C design fix to support AIM-9X missile weight will cost $8.8M


A design fix for the F-35C that strengthens the wing to support the weight of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile will cost about $8.8 million, Inside Defense has learned.

The initial cost estimate assumes that flight testing the design fix this month will be successful, according to a Dec. 28 Navy information paper viewed by Inside Defense.

Thirty-two F-35C jets will require the modification and the Pentagon anticipates the retrofits will be completed by the end of 2018, the paper reads.

"The aircraft required for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation will be completed by Spring 2018 and the Initial Operating Capability aircraft will be completed by Fall 2018," according to the information paper.

F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters Dec. 19 during a media roundtable at his office in Arlington, VA, his team had an "inkling" during the program's modeling and simulation phase there was going to be a problem with the F-35C wing supporting the missile.

If the design fix to strengthen the jet's outer wing is a success during flight testing, it would be a simple modification for C models, according to Bogdan.

"The reason is because the outer wing on the C model comes off like a piece of Lego, it just comes off and you pop it back on," he said.

Inside Defense previously reported flight testing the design fix would begin in November 2016 instead of January 2017. The flight tests will last for about six weeks at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, according to F-35 spokesman Joe DellaVedova.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/f- ... l-cost-88m



The US Navy's IOC window is late 2018 to early 2019 so it is not going to be impacted.

Navy IOC is capability based and will be declared when the above conditions are
met. If the F-35 IMS Version 7 executes according to plan, Navy F-35C IOC criteria could
be met between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold).

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 21 Feb 2017 08:36

DEX 2017: The UAE and Russia plan to co-develop a next-gen fighter
http://quwa.org/2017/02/20/idex-2017-ua ... n-fighter/

The United Arab Emirates and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) have agreed to collaborate on the development of a lightweight next-generation fighter.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2017 16:35

So we can count three new fifth generation fighters from Russia. One is the PAKFA, the other a brand new stealth light fighter for/with UAE and a completely new one in the FGFA ;).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19598
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Feb 2017 16:46

Nick_S wrote:DEX 2017: The UAE and Russia plan to co-develop a next-gen fighter
http://quwa.org/2017/02/20/idex-2017-ua ... n-fighter/

The United Arab Emirates and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) have agreed to collaborate on the development of a lightweight next-generation fighter.


Air Cosmos latest issue has picture of Mig light fighter , UAE is also opting for Su-35

Image

Estimated views promising light multipurpose front-line aircraft (LMFS) development of JSC "RAC" MiG "(c) Peter Butovo / Air & Cosmos

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5763
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2017 16:55

A new fighter development project is a good 15-20 year undertaking these days given the level of design and system integration. I don't think this UAE co-development and manufacturing thing is going much beyond a few announcements and a study or two, but lets see how this is going to play out. So far they have M2K's, Block 60 F-16's and will probably order the Rafale in the short-medium term. While the F-35 is not an option for them now it would be one when their Block 60 F-16's get old enough to warrant replacement (which for them will probably be before they reach their EOL).

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2378
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 21 Feb 2017 17:50

brar_w wrote:A new fighter development project is a good 15-20 year undertaking these days given the level of design and system integration. I don't think this UAE co-development and manufacturing thing is going much beyond a few announcements and a study or two, but lets see how this is going to play out.


+1. I as well, would be rather surprized to see any serious development on this on.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19598
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Feb 2017 18:43

Testing New Types of Weapons by the Russian Armed Forces in Syria

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15766
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2017 19:13

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote:A new fighter development project is a good 15-20 year undertaking these days given the level of design and system integration. I don't think this UAE co-development and manufacturing thing is going much beyond a few announcements and a study or two, but lets see how this is going to play out.


+1. I as well, would be rather surprized to see any serious development on this on.


Russia needs a source for funding her MIC. This development seems to indicate that both India and China have dried up. The plane itself is an afterthought.

A great move on the part of Russia, frankly.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60267
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Feb 2017 19:42

Abu dhabi has a tieup with italian co for producing large drones. Pix in web. For cash strapped arms cos arab $$ is welcome. The big markets are locked up by the p5

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19598
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Feb 2017 20:08

Operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, chola, Google Feedfetcher and 40 guests