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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2017 00:58

The USAF and USN specify only the mission combat radius for their aircraft with a mixed payload (KPP strike payload of 4500 lb with 2 bombs and 2 self-defense AMRAAM's) and they use EOL engine profiles (5% fuel degradation and 2% thrust reduction). The combat-radius for their profiles is 1160 km for the CV and 1150 km for the CTOL.

Ferry range isn't specified for either and the generic USAF CTOL information on range is > 1350 miles/2172 km. No other mission profile has been specified or shared other than what the manufacturer has supplied to programs seeking the information. In an Air-Air mission with internal payload it exceeds a combat radius of 750 nautical miles. The F-35C in USAF's profile (Navy has reserve fuel requirement for bolters) should exceed this, but then it also carries more fuel.

Image

The F-35B has an 860 km combat radius (>1600 km range) with internal fuel, 2 internal JDAM's plus 2 internal AMRAAM's in the USMC specified mission profile - the same payload (weapons) that it must be able to land back with.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Jan 2017 02:13, edited 5 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5000
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 20 Jan 2017 01:20

Indranil wrote:F-35A : 8382/22470 = 0.37
Su-30 : 9400/25000 = 0.37

:-?

Fuel Fraction:

F-35A: 8400/(8400+13300) ~ 0.39
Su-30MKI: 9500/(9500+18400) ~ 0.34

F-35A should have pretty decent legs. F-35B and F-35C, not as much.

F-35B yes, but combat radius for the F-35C is advertised as being comparable to the F-35A (presumably down to longer wings).

F-35B: 6100/(6100+14700) ~ 0.29
F-35C: 9000/(9000+15800) ~ 0.36

All figures from here - https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... q2015_.pdf
Last edited by Viv S on 20 Jan 2017 11:33, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5675
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Indranil » 20 Jan 2017 02:01

Thank you Viv and Brar. A little caught up. I will read up more on this. In general, I am a bit of a purist and lost interest in the F-35 a while back. So, I have to google around a bit answer properly.

But Viv, Cs increased range vis a vis the B cannot be by virtue of slightly elongated wings. Those things can typically reduce the overall drag by a few couple of percentages.

Added later:
On the other hand, if The Su-30s are to be our long range bombers, we should invest in some DTs for our Su-30. HAL seems to have developed significant know how in modifying the plane for carriage of heavy payloads.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2017 03:00

Makes sense particularly in the Maritime context. Israel is working on DT's for their F-35 I's as well likely based on designs Lockheed shortlisted during their own studies.

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Jan 2017 03:49

A pretty good source for info in general: Code One Magazine

One of the articles, in 2015, dealt with the topic of "generation" among planes.

Generation Gap

The fifth generation of fighters fundamentally changes the concept of operations for combat. A review of the first four generations of fighter aircraft around the world shows why

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 20 Jan 2017 04:14

Yuma Arizona to Anchorage is about 4,000 kms

Anchorage to Iwakuni is about 6,000 kms

plus crossing international date line.

vstol aircraft

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2017 04:23

The Harriers make the same trip. The idea is simple, you must maintain enough fuel to divert and this generally means tanking and topping up frequently (more trips to the tanker then you really need) to mitigate any risk if the tanker develops a snag.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 20 Jan 2017 05:40

its not a simple process being dragged across the pacific. that's the word the kc135 crews use "drag" or "drug".

anything can and sometimes does go wrong with all kinds of diversion plans necessary.

when my squadron came back from vietnam on A-4E's they said it was not a pleasant process and it took them a hell of a lot longer than the flight of the f-35b's to iwakuni,

of course tech has changed in the last 40 years,

the su-30 doesn;t have this problem.

an example of an A-4E

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2017 05:48

There is a larger logistical coordination that needs to happen when you move squadrons especially if you're doing it permanently. These birds spent quite a few days to fully transit. It's more about making sure all the pieces are in place since you're moving current resources around.

It's much easier when you deploy as a security package. In this case they permanently moved 10 aircraft, and enough resources to support 16, the remaining 6 to come after Norther Edge in Alaska.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Jan 2017 06:00, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 20 Jan 2017 05:57

and crossing the pacific on a single engine. gives an additional pucker factor as the pilots say.......

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby deejay » 20 Jan 2017 08:24

TSJones wrote:and crossing the pacific on a single engine. gives an additional pucker factor as the pilots say.......


Yes, this is the most significant thing (IMO). Single Engine flight over the vast Pacific with few diversions available. Excellent reliability of the engine.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 20 Jan 2017 09:33

TSJones wrote:Image

Nice image.

When India needed to replace Seahawks on the old carrier Vikrant, the A-4 Skyhawk was the only one that had the correct dimensions. Back then we also wanted the C-130. But no - the US did not want anything to do with this because of loyal ally Pakistan and friendly China. Eventually we got the Harrier that served us till yesterday. And guess what - we have MiG 29s now. :shock:

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 20 Jan 2017 13:58

paging the f-35 marketing salesman..

____
Boeing has an updated F-18 in the works — here's how it's 'comparable' to the F-35

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-u ... net-2017-1

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 20 Jan 2017 14:39

JSF must be the only plane with so much what-if debate *after 200 airframes already produced*

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Jan 2017 15:01

^^^^^

The power of the internet. Post anything, conclude anything.


BTW, highly recommend hiring Gillian to push the Indian F-teens. They should pay for themselves.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2017 15:47

Singha wrote:JSF must be the only plane with so much what-if debate *after 200 airframes already produced*


The shrinking number of new starts, size of the program given the sequestered budget, past developmental problems, and a competitor OEM that has repeatedly failed to win clean sheet competitions (ATF, JSF, J-UCAS, LRS-B). One has to go back decades to find a new clean sheet fighter design out of Boeing that won a competition. Though acquiring McD helped, it apparently wasn't enough on the J-UCAS or LRSB).

And not just the 220 delivered. More than 50 in production, and another 90 in pre-production with contracts expected in a few days :). Media no doubt needs something to print but it was quite hard not to see the carrot and stick policy of the incoming administration as being anything other than leverage.

Exclusive: Pentagon, Lockheed near deal on $9 billion F-35 contract - sources

The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) are close to deal for a contract worth almost $9 billion as negotiations are poised to bring the price per F-35 below $100 million for the first time, people familiar with the talks said Wednesday.

The F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program, has drawn fire from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump who has made lowering prices for military equipment a pillar of his transition into office.

Talks are still ongoing for the tenth batch of stealthy fighter jets with a deal for 90 planes expected to be announced by the end of the month, three people said on condition of anonymity.


Since the F/A-18E is an exclusive US-Navy product. I'll post again, what the Chief of Naval Operations said just this week -

"If you just think about the aircraft in terms of capability … [the F-35] is on a completely different level from the Super Hornet," Richardson said at a DBrief Live event.

While he acknowledged there are updates and improvements that can be made to the Super Hornet to make it closer to a four-and-a-half generation plane, the F-35 is crucial to the Navy's missions."We need the F-35," he said... LINK


It's not hard to understand the role each type will play in the USN. The F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet will be the fleet's stand off platforms in a high threat environment..while the smaller fleet of F-35C's will be the penetrating high end element. The SH to JSF ratio reflects that since the USN's F-35C's will be backed up by 80 USMC F-35C's, in addition to their hundreds of STOVL F-35B's.


As I had said, the Advanced Super Hornet cannot come close to some the JSF KPP's, some of these KPP's were directly influenced by the Navy especially the one where it had to carry a pair of 2000 lb. bombs internally. The tiny little weapons pod can't carry more than 1 heavy bomb and nothing else (1 2000 lb bomb with no AMRAAM's).

Some of the Advanced Rhino features are good upgrades and should go into the fleet. The CFT's are a good addition especially since range on internal fuel is so inadequate that they permanently carry a centerline bag, so much so that it was the place they integrated the IRST since for all practical purposes it's a permanent fixtures on the type of missions the USN expects.

One must not forget what the new Navy strike fleet is replacing..The Super Hornet was a budgetary compromise and in terms of pure range/payload it is far inferior to the aircraft it replaced (F-14). The F-35C, in terms of range/payload is superior to the aircraft it is replacing in the fleet (F/A-18C) and this even before you have integrated bags to it. There is nothing stopping the Navy from intergrating an F-22 like EFT solution on it's future fleet of Charlies..

The upgraded F414 engines will probably come in around the middle of the next decade to provide some restoration of performance once all the new weight has been added. There are also plans to upgrade the self-defense suite etc. The Navy is not done buying the Rhino..between that and the Growler, probably another 70 could be required. But that's to support that aspect of the strike fighter enterprise given utilization, likely future utilization and the long road to getting the FA-XX given USN's history with new strike aircraft development.


Neshant wrote:Boeing has an updated F-18 in the works — here's how it's 'comparable' to the F-35

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-u ... net-2017-1


Let's take a look at the article -

But the US and other countries already have in their sights a modern update on the F/A-18 that is meant to complement the F-35. The update may be poised to deliver even more capability than Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter in some areas, even without being as stealthy.

Dan Gillian, Boeing's vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 programs, told Business Insider that even with the coming F-35C naval variant, US carrier air wings would still field versions of the F/A-18 into the 2040s. The company is planning considerable updates that will focus on "addressing the gaps" in naval aviation.


Boeing has been marketing the Advanced Rhino for 2-3 years now. They've managed to sell the F-18E once since then, and that sale apparently includes a block II Rhino with CFT's and not the advanced SH configuration. The next hope is Canada but we must wait to see what configuration they select.

An infrared search and track radar, which would be the first such capability included on a US fighter jet since the F-14 Tomcat. This will allow the Advanced Super Hornets to counter enemy stealth capability and to get a read on heat-emitting entities without emitting any radar signal of their own. "There was a fixation on stealth attributes," Gillian said of fifth-gen fighters, "which is an important attribute for the next 25 years, but tactical fighters are designed for stealth in one part of the spectrum, all planes emit heat."


The F-35C the Navy's are acquiring have both a long range nose mounted IRST (Made by the same OEM that supplies AN/ASG-34's to Boeing and that OEM is Lockheed Martin), and a short range 360 degree IRST feature through the DAS. Basic fact checking that the article got wrong. Also, an IRST isn't a radar.

Advanced electronic warfare capabilities. Currently, the F-18 family leads the US military in EW platforms with the Growler, an EW version of the Super Hornet in which Boeing has "taken out the gun and installed more EW equipment ... Instead of missiles on the wing tips it has a large sensing pods," Gillian said. The Navy has scheduled the F-35C to eventually carry the advanced EW pod, but the initial generation of F-35s will have to rely on Growlers for EW attacks. The Advanced Super Hornet will have EW self-protection, but not the full suite present on the Growler.


The Super Hornet isn't the Growler and the Super Hornet does not magically possess Growler capabilities just because Boeing delivers both products. Boeing hasn't yet made the "Buy one Super Hornet and we'll give you one Growler for free" offer.

Regarding the Bold part, the F-35C has a self-protection EW suite, and a low-observable design plus a passive suite the likes of which only the Growler possess, not the Rhino.

Improved avionics and computing power as well as increased ability to network to receive targeting data from platforms like the F-35 or the E-2 Hawkeye. The Advanced Super Hornet would also feature an improved active electronically scanned array radar.


The F-35 already has this. It's already demonstrated NIFC-CA compatibility, through the MADL where it cued an SM6 to a cruise missile working hand in hand with AEGIS.

An enclosed weapons pod would make the plane more aerodynamic while also cutting down on the plane's radar cross section. Combined with the form-fitting fuel tanks, the Advanced Super Hornet could cut its radar signature by up to 50%.


To what? Does the small pod magically transform the F-18 into an all aspect low-observable design?

Hypothetically, Advanced Super Hornets could field IRST before F-35Cs come online.


As long as we are sticking to "hypothetical" scenarios anything goes. Meanwhile, the USN has an IRST program for the Rhino, and it's time-frame for declaring full operational capability is well documented. And no, it isn't even close to when the first Navy squadron of Charlie's is expected to become operational.

And on the F-35 sensor, in a few months from now an Advanced EOTS sensor will begin flight testing, meant as a direct drop in LRU that swaps out the current sensor. The Next Generation IRST program that the USAF (and USN) are funding is going to take close to a decade to deliver. The IRST-21 while good is not where they eventually wan't to be - i.e. a long range, multi-spectral staring IRST in a given footprint.
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Jan 2017 19:10, edited 7 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 20 Jan 2017 18:26

Anything in life has a purpose and therefore limitations. Even a crummy printer has value, if all you do is print once in 6 months. So ........


The US Navy has contracts already underway to update its existing Super Hornet fleet with elements of the Advanced Super Hornet package, and it seems the US will end up with both Advanced Super Hornets and F-35s, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

The F/A-18, not designed with all-aspect stealth in mind, will most likely never serve as a penetrating aircraft for heavily contested airspace, but its future onboard America's aircraft carriers is well defined for decades to come.


So easy to tweet and post. That reporters need to put food on the table is understandable.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Jan 2017 09:32


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Jan 2017 09:33


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Jan 2017 17:21


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 21 Jan 2017 19:05

the air force doesn't use a basket for in-air refuel. they use a boom probe, I wonder if the f-35A will use the basket?

a friend of mine used to operate the boom probe in the air force.

you actually have to steer the darn thing.

he liked it.

got flight pay as an enlisted puke and wear a poopy suit.

until he crash landed in cambodia and was their guest for a while. :(

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Jan 2017 21:53

Are they not F-35Bs? They should be refueled using a basket.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Jan 2017 00:41

Those are the STOVL variants that along with the CV use the drogue and probe. The A variant uses Boom.

Meanwhile - First Red Flag for the USAF Jets (Marines went last year)

Hill fighter wings first to bring F-35A to Red Flag

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah -- Pilots and maintainers from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings deployed the F-35A Lightning II to Nellis AFB, Nev., Jan. 20.

This is the first deployment to Red Flag for the F-35A and the first large movement since the Air Force declared the jet combat ready in August 2016.

Red Flag is the Air Force's premier air-to-air combat training exercise. Participants include both United States and allied nations' combat air forces. The exercise provides aircrews the experience of multiple, intensive air combat sorties in the safety of a training environment.

“Our Airmen are excited to bring the F-35 to a full-spectrum combat exercise,” said Col. David Lyons, 388th FW commander. “This battle space is going to be a great place to leverage our stealth and interoperability. It’s a lethal platform and I’m confident we will prove to be an invaluable asset to the commander.”

The jets will be at Red Flag through Feb. 10. While deployed, the F-35 will fly alongside fourth-and-fifth generation platforms and provide offensive and defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, and limited close air support.

“Red Flag is hands-down the best training in the world to ensure our Airmen are fully mission ready,” said Col. David Smith, 419th FW commander. “It’s as close to combat operations as you can get. Our Reserve pilots and maintainers are looking forward to putting the F-35A weapon system to the test alongside our active duty partners to bring an unprecedented combat capability.”

The F-35A is a fifth-generation multi-role stealth fighter designed to gather, fuse, and distribute more information than any other fighter in history.

The first operational F-35As arrived at Hill AFB in October 2015. The base will eventually be home to three operational F-35 fighter squadrons with a total of 78 aircraft by the end of 2019. The active duty 388th FW and Air Force Reserve 419th FW will fly and maintain the Air Force’s newest fighter aircraft in a Total Force partnership, which capitalizes on the strength of both components.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 22 Jan 2017 13:28

Singapore, India continue air force joint training agreement

Singapore has renewed the Bilateral Agreement for the Conduct of Joint Military Training and Exercises with the Indian Air Force (IAF), announced the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) on January 19, source from VNS.

The ministry said the agreement paves the way for the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) to continue its joint military training at Kalaikunda Air Force Station in India for another five years. Under the agreement, the RSAF will have opportunities to train with the IAF's advanced Su-30 fighter jet.

The renewal was signed by Singapore's Permanent Secretary of Defence Chan Yeng Kit and India's Defence Secretary G Mohan Kumar.

The signing ceremony was witnessed by Singapore's Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen and India's High Commissioner to Singapore Jawed Ashraf.

Kumar paid a two-day visit to Singapore from January 18 to co-chair the Singapore-India Defence Policy Dialogue with Chan Yeng Kit.

According to the MINDEF, during the dialogue, both sides emphasised the strong and growing ties between the RSAF and the IAF.

Both countries are committed to strengthening bilateral defence interactions and welcomed deeper defence cooperation for mutual benefit, it added.

The Bilateral Agreement for the Conduct of Joint Military Training and Exercises in India was inked in 2007 and first renewed in 2012.


http://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/Intern ... /1/122785/

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jan 2017 14:23

Landing in Winter Snow

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 23 Jan 2017 00:41

General Electric Wins $98 Million to Remanufacture US Fighter Jet Engines

The U.S. Defense Logistics Agency has awarded General Electric a $98 million contract to remanufacture F110 engines.

The F110 is an afterburning turbofan jet engine used to power military aircraft including the F-14, F-15, and F-16. The device was developed from General Electric’s earlier F101 and F118 variants.

The engine’s components include a two-spool, three-fan compressor, annular combustors, and 2 low-pressure and 1-high-pressure stage turbines.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, work on the contract will be performed at facilities in Ohio and Kansas. Officials expect the work to be complete by October 2018.

Once finished, the engines will be used by the U.S. Air Force.

The contract was a sole-source acquisition. The Defense Logistics Agency Aviation is listed as the contracting activity.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 23 Jan 2017 00:48

Exclusive: Pentagon, Lockheed near deal on $9 billion F-35 contract - sources

Dec 19, 2017.

The U.S. Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) are close to deal for a contract worth almost $9 billion as negotiations are poised to bring the price per F-35 below $100 million for the first time, people familiar with the talks said Wednesday.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jan 2017 01:52

Posted this earlier. They will have to wait for someone to sign the contract with though. Trump has yet to announce his Under Secretaries at the Pentagon.


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 23 Jan 2017 10:27

$49k per hour for a drone.

Why is RQ-4B so expensive to fly?

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 23 Jan 2017 12:22

I wonder if they would consider co-developing a variant of the LCA for the purpose.

Wouldn't hurt to make the suggestion to them.

With the Mig-27s being phased out, India could also absorb a bunch of them for ground attack.

______

Air Force considering low-cost fighter for counterterrorism

The Air Force intends to conduct an informal experiment of a potential light attack fighter aircraft the service could use in ongoing counterterrorism air campaigns, the service’s top general said Wednesday.

Brig. Gen. Edward Thomas, director of Air Force public affairs, said Goldfein — who hasn’t officially signed off on the experiment, dubbed OA-X — “believes it does make sense to look at opportunities to provide a … cheaper, attack-type aircraft that can do the close-air support mission, that other countries, allies, can fly also. And do this in a way that doesn’t require an F-22 or an F-35 over a permissive environment,” he said, mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan.

The additional light attack aircraft — which would not replace the service’s beloved A-10 Warthog — “would relieve the pressure on other aircraft, maintenance crews, [and] it would give us some turning space with our other combat platforms,” Thomas said.


http://ameriforce.net/air-force-conside ... terrorism/

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 23 Jan 2017 14:00

Nick_S wrote:$49k per hour for a drone.

Why is RQ-4B so expensive to fly?


that's the global hawk. a massive, online realtime, surveillance drone that can fly nonstop across the pacific from california to australia, etc.

131 ft wing span, 44 ft long fuselage, speed almost 400 mph.

more electronic gear than you can shake a stick at.

all kinds of tech personnel work on it or its subsystems.

made by nothrup grumman

like flying a darn jet airliner full of complex gear.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jan 2017 15:31

These are CPFH for the enterprise..i.e. total money spent to operate and support the enterprise divided by the number of hours flown by that system. I've provided O&S cost break-up in the past it pretty much includes all manpower cost directly attributed to the weapons system, and some that is shared by it. Some of these costs are fixed i.e. you will encounter similar cost structures within a wide range of flight hours and cannot reduce them by simply flying less (These are "readiness level dependent ").

The number for the GH fleet looks high because the enterprise has a global footprint, and they are probably maintaining a ton of infrastructure around the globe to support it given it's mission (ISR Orbits to support all COCOMS). When you take that into account, and the fact the numbers aren't awfully large you get something that looks out of place. Now if it were simply operating or capable of operating form one or two bases fairly close to each other than it would have looked a lot different.

As I had previously mentioned, in the US the following things are taken into account when determining O&S costs -

- Operations Manpower
- Other-Unit Level Manpower
- Operating Material
- Energy (Fuel, Electricity etc)
- Training Munitions and Expendable Stores
- Other Operational Material
- Support Services
- Temporary Duty
- Transportation Costs
- Consumable Materials and Repair Parts
- Depot Level Reparables
- Intermediate Maintenance ( External to Unit Level)
- Depot Maintenance
- Other Maintenance
- System-Specific Training
- Support Equipment Replacement and Repair
- Sustaining/Systems Engineering
- Program management
- Information Systems
- Data and Technical Publications
Simulator Operations and Repair
- there Sustaining Support
- Continuing System Improvements
- Hardware Modification
- Software Maintenance
- Installation Support
- Personal Support
- General Training and Education

CPFH calculations basically take money spent on each of these for a given year, and divide it by the number of hours flown by the aircraft either operationally or for training.

For a more system operations specific, bare-bone cost of actually operating the aircraft see this (Global Hawk is on the second link)-

https://s24.postimg.org/5bttwf2ph/DOD_Comptroller.png
https://s30.postimg.org/6liqhixoh/DOD_Comptroller_2.png

Given the nature of these large ISR orbits (mission durations), I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of other costs added to Global Hawk and U-2 calculations. Now if you switch payloads, and say put a SAR payload on the aircraft and have it fly shorter orbits say to cover a maritime area you're cost is obviously not going to be as high. The cost to operate is actually quite reasonable and commensurate with the aircraft, the engine it carries etc.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17237
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Jan 2017 19:30

An interesting comparison of the US and Russian bomber fleets.Here's an xcpt. dealing mainly with the RU birds as we still operate Bears in an LRMP role by the IN which could easily be used for a strat. role too if need be equipped with similar LRCMs.
I've kept stressing the vital need for the IAF/IN to acquire a dedicated strat. bomber to be able to hit any part of China apart from our land-based ICBMs and sub-launched missiles of the future. As Russia has just amply shown in the Syrian conflict,these strat. bombers are enormously useful in prosecuting the enemy in conventional bombing roles and using PGMs.LRCMs for pinpoint attacks.Their range,endurance and weaponload is unmatched by any multi-role heavy fighter such as MKIs or SU-34s too.

However the report has one glaring omission.That of the TU-22M3 Backfires,of which Russia has dozens in service and mothballed and which are being upgraded for frontline duties.

Russia vs. America: A Nuclear Bomber Showdown
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/rus ... 460?page=3
The “White Swan” and the “Bear” Carry the Most Sophisticated Strategic Cruise Missiles

Like with the United States, the Russian equipment currently in service includes two types of strategic bombers—the Тu-95МS (NATO reporting name: Bear) and the Тu-160 “White Swan” (NATO reporting name: Blackjack).

Let us look at the Тu-95МS first. The basic version of the Тu-95 was put into USSR service as long ago as 1956. However, the early versions of the aircraft have all since been discarded. The modernized “Bears,” now in the Russian service, were issued during the period from 1981–92, that is, they are much “younger” than American B-52s. There are a total of sixty-four aircraft of this type, although around half of them are apparently in storage, with about thirty to thirty-five vehicles in service. The main Tu-95 weapon is the Kh-55SM cruise missile, with a maximum launch range of 3,500 kilometers. Moreover, the bomber’s modernization to the level of the Tu-95MSM (up to thirty-five vehicles) has started. The modernized missile carriers are able to use the latest Kh-101/102 cruise missiles, with nonnuclear or nuclear payloads, respectively. The new missile has advanced and unequalled characteristics: its maximum air range is 5,500 kilometers and filigree precision, and its circular error probable (CEP) is just five meters. Also, the missile is created with radar stealth technology. The nonnuclear Kh-101 has already been successfully applied in field conditions, in the Syrian conflict. Tu-95 carries eight cruise missiles, either Kh-55 or Kh-101/102. After modernization, the aircraft will serve for long enough, at least until the 2030s.

The most sophisticated Russian strategic bomber is the Tu-160. Presently, the Russian Air Force includes sixteen aircraft of this type. Its maximum flight speed is much higher than that of its American “twin” the B-1B, at 1.6 Mach. Moreover, the Tu-160 carries twelve strategic cruise missiles in its inner compartments. The same cruise missiles are used as on the Tu-95MS: the Kh-55 and the latest Kh-101/Kh-102. Aircraft of this type have started to undergo some modernization—they are receiving new equipment that allows for the use of precision nonnuclear weapons. Also, production renewal works for the “White Swan” are currently being performed, with deep modernization to the level of the Tu-160M2. The updated vehicle will have a completely new electronic “filling” and far exceed its predecessor’s abilities. The precise number of aircraft planned for construction is unknown so far, but there has been talk of fifty vehicles. Production, according to plan, will start in 2023.

As for the project of the new PAK-DA bomber (Prospective Aviation Complex for Long-Range Aviation), following the decision on the renewal of Tu-160 production, the terms of project implementation have become very vague: earlier, its first flight was planned for 2025, which now seems unlikely. The aircraft concept has not been revealed, but most likely it will be a subsonic stealthy missile carrier resembling the American LRS-B.

Conclusions

From a quantitative perspective, U.S. strategic aviation has a certain advantage over Russia’s. However, American aircraft are currently equipped noticeably more poorly: the operational range of the Russian Kh-101/Kh-102 cruise missiles already in service exceed their American analogues more than twice over, which guarantees that the Russian bombers will blow off their entire payload, from a secure distance, on any opponent. Nevertheless, shooting down a B-52H carrying an AGM-86B ALCM is a very uneasy task just as well. Besides, a B-2 carrying no cruise missiles could hardly realize its potential in a real global nuclear war, despite the fact that the platform itself is the most sophisticated in the world.
As for the further prospects, the B-21 program has just started, and it is unclear so far which difficulties it will face and whether it will be implemented in full. The same is true of the Russian PAK-DA project: the future of both vehicles is still vague. That cannot be said about Tu-160M2, whose start of production may not be easy, but is still feasible. Given the level Russian designers have achieved in the field of strategic cruise missiles, the profoundly modernized Tu-160 with its weapons will be able to fulfill its nuclear deterrence function for decades, as well as take part in local conflicts as necessary.

Strategic Nuclear Deterrence Will Persist For the Foreseeable Future

Now, let us briefly sum up the results of our series of articles on each of the components of the United States and Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons.

As far as we have understood, with its mobile launching platforms and more advanced antimissile defense penetration systems, closely approaching the creation of a maneuvering hypersonic warhead, Russia has a noticeable advantage over the United States in the field of land-based ICBMs. This, among others, may also be due to the fact that the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and has begun to actively develop this type of weapons, forcing Russia to respond asymmetrically to the forming threat.

As for submarines with SLBMs, the United States currently has more balanced forces in this area, due to the application of the Ohio-class nuclear submarines with highly reliable Trident II missiles. Nevertheless, Russia has managed to be the first to create a strategic nuclear submarine of the fourth generation; three Project 955 Borei submarines are already in service. Therefore, for some time before the United States has designed the Ohio replacement—SSBN(X)—the situation may be brought to balance or move to the Russian side altogether.

Strategic aviation has been discussed above. Its role in the implementation of nuclear deterrence is weaker than that of ICBMs and SLBMs, although it still occupies its niche. Today, one may speak of a situation close to parity in this area.

Summing up all the above, we may come to the only conclusion: nuclear weapon is still playing its main, positive role of deterring the world from global wars. What is more, the situation is not going to change in the foreseeable perspective—each step of the parties is followed by a quick response. Thus, as long as the United States develops its antimissile defense, Russia is going to develop ICBMs and warheads likely to penetrate this antimissile defense. The only beneficiaries in such a situation are weapons manufacturers, who will always have good financing. Therefore, all speculations and statements on the issue of nuclear war are either propagandistic or destructive—people simply do not understand what they are talking about.

Leonid Nersisyan is a military columnist for the REGNUM information agency (regnum.ru), Moscow, Russia.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jan 2017 19:47

Mothballed aircraft shouldn't really be counted unless they are brought back for either strategic (where there are treaty limits) or conventional roles. For example, the USAF currently has a dozen B-52H's (plus iirc 10 B-1's) in Type-1000 storage but only the 2 that have been recently brought back to active duty are counted. If the re-engine program goes through, given the conventional conversion and the aresenal plane concepts (and past efforts in the CCJ realm) we could actually see them brought back as conventional long range stand off aircraft for both kinetic and non-kinetic missions. Currently they are weapons limited but with Hypersonic weapons they can find a new stand off role that expands on what is currently possible.

Image

http://www.janes.com/article/64266/usaf ... to-service

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5765
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jan 2017 22:26

Second batch of F-35B's landing at Iwakuni . All seem to have done a rolling landing.,



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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 24 Jan 2017 05:01

f-35b hot load out training...........

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

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15768
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 05:21

TSJones wrote:f-35b hot load out training...........

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


I was going to post that too, could not grab the URL on my notSoSmart phone.

But, I was wondering why is there so much manual labor. At the very least LM should have provided 12V socket and a few tools to make it less intense.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 24 Jan 2017 06:34

NRao wrote:
TSJones wrote:f-35b hot load out training...........

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


I was going to post that too, could not grab the URL on my notSoSmart phone.

But, I was wondering why is there so much manual labor. At the very least LM should have provided 12V socket and a few tools to make it less intense.


where they may have to operate from a hot load out, they may not have squat to work with.

constantly short of people and resources. it's just how the Corps works.

of course its a brand new airplane with lots of brass attention......for right now.

anyway, the Corps can't hold a candle to Air Force operational resources.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Jan 2017 07:34

Ideally the drone wingmen should be figuring this out for themselves.
That would be real AI.
____
Improved Artificial Intelligence will allow pilots to control drone wingmen

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/im ... -will.html


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 39 guests