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.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Jan 2017 07:44

UCAVs conducting dogfights using AI would be downright deadly. A human can only survive a 10 to 12G maneuver while air-to-air missiles can pull 40G turns in the sky without any problems.

AI is almost coming as an afterthought to the F-35..

----------------
Gregory Zacharias: Air Force Seeks to Integrate AI Functions With F-35s

http://www.executivegov.com/2017/01/gre ... ith-f-35s/

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Jan 2017 07:55

see right now even state of art driverless cars have faltered and got into accidents on certain moving obstacles like the shiny side of a trailer truck and so on. and this is 2D without deliberate decoying. in 3D with state of art decoys and such to distract I would imagine A2A UCAVs have some air to cover before even a POC, hence we see ALL Xplanes and drones are oriented to long range strike so far

a SM6 or amraam is in effect a UCAV - small vs the platforms that carry and shoot them. all thats missing is a unmanned mothership but that again is not a F-solah that can fight on its own, just a missile truck.....even a B52 can do it and carry 300 amraams.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 07:58

Neshant wrote:UCAVs conducting dogfights using AI would be downright deadly. A human can only survive a 10 to 12G maneuver while air-to-air missiles can pull 40G turns in the sky without any problems.

AI is almost coming as an afterthought to the F-35..

----------------
Gregory Zacharias: Air Force Seeks to Integrate AI Functions With F-35s

http://www.executivegov.com/2017/01/gre ... ith-f-35s/


Extrapolation is OK, but it does direct you into extremely dangerous situations.

AI has been there for eons - did my work on pattern recog 40 years ago (detecting planes nonetheless).

AI is already there in crafts like the F-35, in the form of self diagnostics and reporting - there are more. In such areas it has found a use.

AI will *never* be used as a tool for combat - combat requires a man in the loop. Check out the UAVs in use in Iraq/Syria/etc. UAVs can very easily detect and make decisions, but are *never* allowed to release until a human says so.


see right now even state of art driverless cars have faltered and got into accidents on certain moving obstacles like the shiny side of a trailer truck and so on. and this is 2D without deliberate decoying. in 3D with state of art decoys and such to distract I would imagine A2A UCAVs have some air to cover before even a POC, hence we see ALL Xplanes and drones are oriented to long range strike so far


Combat is diff. Especially PC combat.
Last edited by NRao on 24 Jan 2017 08:00, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 30943
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 24 Jan 2017 08:00

Hmmmmm....
Stealth troubles: Why leading air forces want more traditional warplanes
By serving a warning to Lockheed-Martin over its cash-bleeding F-35 stealth fighter, Donald Trump has focussed attention on the trillion-dollar scam going on in the name of American national security. At the same time, the new U.S. President’s pot shots at the American fighter come at a time when stealth programmes worldwide are in trouble. While the F-35 programme has already swallowed a trillion dollars – which is equal to the GDP of Australia – the Russian T-50 is also experiencing take off issues. The Chinese J-20 and J-31 parallel stealth programmes are shrouded in secrecy but China’s purchase of the expensive Russian Su-35 jet fighter is an indication that Beijing’s birds are not quite ready to fly out of their nests.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 08:02

Singha the last part is the most interesting. It's not as much about the platforms as it is about the payloads since you are dealing with faster turn around times for these systems. Think LRASM++ and the possibilities that a recoverable Gremlins enables. Autonomy is good and basked into the F-35 and LRS-B from the start particularly in it's sensor fusion, multi-platform integration and the way it shares information but the real breakthroughs lie in a SOS approach and how you get that to much smaller elements of your kill chain..Right now the greatest impediment are resilient and agile networks but that is a problem some smart folks are working on at the moment.

Image

shiv wrote:While the F-35 programme has already swallowed a trillion dollars


And the myth survives. Fact is that the total F-35 development and acquisition program i.e to develop, produce and acquire all three variants would cost a little below $400 Billion**. The developmental program that began in the early 2000's started this funding and the procurement program is currently scheduled to deliver the last US aircraft in the late 2030's.

The number is adjusted for inflation and is in TY$. The Trillion dollar amount has not been SPENT and is a projection over nearly 60 years of O&S cost and ASSUMES close to 2500 F-35's are procured by the USAF, USN and USAF. Those are (including the 2500 number) are some fairly substantial assumptions that are bound to have some substantial errors associated with them. What they are doing with that prediction is assuming all 2400+ aircraft are acquired and trying to find an inflation adjusted cost of operating them through their end of life.

**That is approximately (as of 2016 estimate) $391 Billion (or $320 Billion in FY12 constant dollars) for R&D, Procurement of 2500 aircraft, Initial Spares and Support, and Military Construction and infrastructure modernization tied directly to the program.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 08:18

shiv wrote:Hmmmmm....
Stealth troubles: Why leading air forces want more traditional warplanes
By serving a warning to Lockheed-Martin over its cash-bleeding F-35 stealth fighter, Donald Trump has focussed attention on the trillion-dollar scam going on in the name of American national security. At the same time, the new U.S. President’s pot shots at the American fighter come at a time when stealth programmes worldwide are in trouble. While the F-35 programme has already swallowed a trillion dollars – which is equal to the GDP of Australia – the Russian T-50 is also experiencing take off issues. The Chinese J-20 and J-31 parallel stealth programmes are shrouded in secrecy but China’s purchase of the expensive Russian Su-35 jet fighter is an indication that Beijing’s birds are not quite ready to fly out of their nests.


I just do not subscribe to any of this.

Per chance I found teh following Discovery, claims to be recent, but no idea how recent:



Anyhow, check out the segment on F-35 - $40 million was the price stated at some point in time. Supposed to come in at $85 mill or so. BUT it was near dead in 2010, revived in 2011 and the cost brought under control. Imagine if it was much, much lower. Not so, because of bad management - IMHO.

Russian PAK_FA - I was planning on a time line for teh PAK_FA thread - I said this a year+ ago, I just do nto think the Russians can deliver. The question then becomes what is expected out of them. IF a F-22/F-35, I just do not think they can. BUT, if ot means a LO object, then yes they can.

As an example, recall when Indians fisrt said "40 changes" - one of them was ............................. "composites". Long story, but the IAF/India had more experience than Russia in this area. They claim they have since caught up, but that is a diff story. The problem: composites really do not contribute too much to "stealth". So, the question becomes, what exactly are the Russians giving? Dunno. Need to wait and see what that 650 pages has. Betting nothign earth shattering (an do not claim Parrikar this and Parrikar that).

China: how can we expect them to produce a true 5th Gen plane within the time frame they have been at it? They cannot get an engine to run their planes, but have solved the "5th Gen" problems? Highly doubt it. The J-20 will be EOL and J-31 DOA. Stolen goods. Demoed.

US: B-2 Spirit, F-117 Nighthawk, YF-23, F-22, X-32 (Boeing) and the F-35. That is a total of 6 incremental objects? Ground up. Without competition?

Trump is right in that the cost to the nation needs to come down - among other things (jobs and debt). But, he is not getting another F-35 for cheaper - point beign if he were to cancel teh F-35, he has much more to make up on the job front and loss of funds.

Well ................... this just in.

Washington Post wrote:Trump signed order declaring his day of inauguration a ‘National Day of Patriotic Devotion’


*THUD* (Not an acronym for a defense system)
Last edited by NRao on 24 Jan 2017 08:57, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Jan 2017 08:25

it is illuminative to note the B2/F22 are late 80s LRIP products which rest of world has still not deployed a analogue for - after 25 years and counting.

5th gen is probably a lot beyond cool vlo shaping, serrated edges and composites. the biggest problem seems to be fuel efficient, light but very powerful engines and managing the thermal signature since having a VLO shape is nullified if a high thermal blob can be tracked by IRST and AAM with ease. airborne networking and C3I support systems like E2D is another.

russia with all their history is still struggling to get the engine ready. one can imagine where the chinese are. engine tech does not seem amenable to easy stealing or cloning.

on serrated edge note some of the engine exhaust cowls on 737 has a sine curve shaped edge - this is supposed to reduce noise

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 30943
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 24 Jan 2017 08:27

Singha wrote:5th gen is probably a lot beyond cool vlo shaping, serrated edges and composites.

+1

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 08:30

Singha wrote:it is illuminative to note the B2/F22 are late 80s LRIP products which rest of world has still not deployed a analogue for - after 25 years and counting.

5th gen is probably a lot beyond cool vlo shaping, serrated edges and composites. the biggest problem seems to be fuel efficient, light but very powerful engines and managing the thermal signature since having a VLO shape is nullified if a high thermal blob can be tracked by IRST and AAM with ease.

on serrated edge note some of the engine exhaust cowls on 737 has a sine curve shaped edge - this is supposed to reduce noise


Sir,

None of that.

It is what the residing AF wants. What the residing AF thinks it can fight with. IF they think a RCS of "2.0" is great, so be it. Nothing else really matters.

PAK_FA - RuAF like what they get - *great* (for RuAF). IF the IAF thinks it is louse, it is lousy for the IAF and has no bearing whatsoever on the RuAF.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 08:32

Thermal management is extremely important as is evident in some of AFRL's goals for next generation breakthroughs in this area. I've posted on this earlier and there is of course quite a significant leap from previous generations and a significant will be demanded for future applications. Third stream and adaptive engines offer such advantages as do other things such as micro cooling embedded within your electronic systems.

Both the F-22 and F-35 requirements had an IR signature in addition to an RF signature requirement. I've posted the academic paper on the measurement in a dynamic environment using a chase aircraft with a custom mounted multi-spectral sensor system. They take this very seriously both at the time of requirements and in the avionics and thermal management architectures.

In fact the same applies to other technologies. There are well documented open-source programs that have researched counter-LO technologies in support of developing LO technologies. This extends to IR suppression, and Low Frequency (S, L, UHF, VHF radars) and passive radars. Keep in mind that the largest maker of surveillance radars in the west is Lockheed Martin (Massive marketshare in L band and most recently have upgraded their existing L band offerings to GaN (including first export sale) and have introduced the Next generation L band GaN AESA clean Sheet..They also make the UHF radar on the E-2D) so even outside of CRAD there are some substantial IRAD opportunities to develop things as well, and this is why the article that Viv posted regarding RAM breakthroughs and some of the bands LMA's patents attribute to is very facinating.

. You must test these things against potential red-teamed countermeasures to study how they will hold up. Expect most serious developers and utilizers of LO (including India, Russia and China) to pursue this approach. The evidence is actually in the open, those designing counter-LO are developing or fielding LO on fighters, UAV's, weapons, and even long range strike aircraft. There is a tactical advantage that is quite universally recognized as is evident from its adoption. The great competition would be on who stays on top of emerging technologies and bringing them into production and how conflicting requirements and capabilities are integrated with each other.

Then there are the lesser talked about programs and pictures clicked at groom lake or surrounding air spaces such as this -

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Jan 2017 16:35, edited 4 times in total.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Jan 2017 08:35

a PIO engineer based in hawaii is serving a long jail sentence presently for selling the Thawk missiles exhaust system cooling details to the chinese.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 08:40

Thermal management is extremely important as is evident in some of AFRL's goals for next generation breakthroughs in this area. I've posted on this earlier and there is of course quite a significant leap from previous generations and a significant will be demanded for future applications. Third stream and adaptive engines offer such advantages as do other things such as micro cooling embedded within your electronic systems.


:) . Nothing against you brar ji.

And, exactly to whom are these things of importance?

Where is "thermal" in a FGFA or a AMCA, where the TVC is a key item?

Go on mute:


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 08:45

For legacy fighters thermal management applies more to making sure there is capacity to grow as the designs grow and are prepared to accommodate higher capability systems. On 5th generation you have that plus signature management hence the fuel sinks and other approaches to get rid of the heat.

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/

Here is the sensor and the F-15 Chase aircraft using it to test the Raptor's signature to it's requirement and providing measurements.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 08:57

I've posted these before but worth another look -

Image

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 09:06

Brar ji,

Take it from an old man. Road maps are very bad for health. They tend to blow gaskets.



BTW, I am waiting for "My laptop has a heat sink".

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Jan 2017 09:23

NRao wrote:AI has been there for eons - did my work on pattern recog 40 years ago (detecting planes nonetheless).
AI is already there in crafts like the F-35, in the form of self diagnostics and reporting - there are more. In such areas it has found a use.


That kind of stuff is not AI - at least not to me. That is just a computer running a program with hand crafted human logic.

If you look at Google's Driverless car project, that involves use of a learning machine to figure out for itself how to drive just through observation.
There is no endless lines of hard coding logic because the logic itself is fluid and adapts to circumstance.

The second is deep pattern recognition in big data which is something AI can do a lot better than any human. This ain't like detecting a tank in a video still but rather something way deeper. When you look at the ARGUS project, you begin to realize what a revolution that will be when paired with self-learning AI to spot patterns in big data. Argus :



There are probably many prior examples to this but the Google Driverless car is our first practical introduction to the birth of a self-learning machine. Actually that came about from Alexnet but anyways.

With 360 high def video cameras, SAR, lidar, amplified audio inputs and other sensors, practically all the senses and more of the pilot can be replicated electronically for the UCAV's AI. A self-driving a car is surely no more complex than an AI UCAV drone doing a dogfight. All that's needed thereafter is a training set with millions of hours of simulated flight combat followed by a few thousand hours of real-life mock combat.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 09:35

That is just a computer running a program with hand crafted human logic.


That is exactly what ALL software is, including AI.

There is no endless lines of hard coding logic because the logic itself is fluid and adapts to circumstance.


The very first step for an autonomous driving vehicle is pattern recognition.

Also that "logic itself is fluids" is human written. Just like the pattern recognition code.

There are very few applications where a machine generates code. But that is also based on "crafted human logic".



BTW, AI is not new (said that many a times). Is is only coming back into play because of cheap hardware. And, big data too is because of cheap hardware. Absolutely nothing is new in any of those fields. Just BIG and FAST. And, if I may add, useless.


I missed thsi gem:

All that's needed thereafter is a training set with millions of hours of simulated flight combat followed by a few thousand hours of real-life mock combat.


The very first AI application was in the field of medicine. In 1950-60s. Man has not even produced a dependable AI product to duplicate a physician.

I had posted the best produced I have seen that "learn"t was Autonomy. MS, Oracle and a few others gave up in the very early 2000 - they actually laid off 100s of Ph.Ds in the area. Could not match Autonomy.
Last edited by NRao on 24 Jan 2017 09:54, edited 1 time in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Jan 2017 09:53

NRao wrote:There are very few applications where a machine generates code. But that is also based on "crafted human logic".


It doesn't generate code in as much as it generates its own logic.

The generated logic is an adaptation to its cumulative knowledge.

Pattern recognition by itself does not rely on cumulative knowledge.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 10:15

Neshant wrote:
NRao wrote:There are very few applications where a machine generates code. But that is also based on "crafted human logic".


It doesn't generate code in as much as it generates its own logic.

The generated logic is an adaptation to its cumulative knowledge.

Pattern recognition by itself does not rely on cumulative knowledge.


Sorry. Really. That is you imagination.

To be short - this thread is about something else. Pattern Rocog is the core for "AI". Humans can NEVER do anything without PR - not even possible. Shut down your 5 senses and tell me how you will operate.

No pattern recog, no autonomous driving.

And, you want a machine to get into a dog fight with crafts that travel at 150-1000+ mpg? teh very first step is to recog. At the speed of your brain. try it. Down load R and give it a try.

I had posted earlier, the auto vehicles use GPUs, not CPUs. They parallel process (GPU has 1000s of CPUs) and are able to accomplish what they do. Fighters?

Pattern recognition by itself does not rely on cumulative knowledge


very true. Good!!!

That is because cumulative knowledge relies on pattern recognition.



BTW, in a very crude sense, "patterns" are stored in a fighter as threat libraries. Go down to the basement of a building in wright-patt and you should find a person or two doing this work (adv publically) - building a threat lib. How else would a "sensor" determine what object it is facing? PatReg.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2017 11:44

Brar, if you ahve posted this, I am going to petition that you be prohibited from posting any youTube material.

JayS, this is for you.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 15:52

NRao wrote:Brar ji,

Take it from an old man. Road maps are very bad for health. They tend to blow gaskets.



BTW, I am waiting for "My laptop has a heat sink".


Noted, but the point of posting this information was to show the projected demand for thermal management in the short, medium and long term.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2920
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 24 Jan 2017 21:36

Russian $500 million dollar system will wipe out US trillion dollar airplane system,,,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DALBMA9Z89w

sure nuff........trillion dollars wasted..........

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 24 Jan 2017 23:23

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

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


duh...What kind of 5th Gen fighter doesn't have a robotic arm to grab a weapon n load inside its belly. Trillion $$ down the drain only.. :lol:

NRao wrote:JayS, this is for you.

Good one. I got to know a couple of new tidbits. Though I couldn't quite figure out exactly which 11 little known facts the title was referring to.


On a different note: MRJ delays EIS for their 90 seater MRJ again to mid-2020. A total of 7yrs of delay from initial plan. Who knows how much more is coming. But luckily for them they ain't losing any orders. Not just yet.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/01/23/mrj-r ... -mid-2020/
Last edited by JayS on 24 Jan 2017 23:31, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2017 23:25

That part was to get you to watch it ;)

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 24 Jan 2017 23:36

brar_w wrote:I've posted these before but worth another look -

Image

Image


NIce info. Indeed Thermal Management is going to be one of the key things of incoming generations of aircrafts. Heat Sink is going to be one of the defining feature of 6th Gen Jet engines.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Jan 2017 00:21

Yes even beyond current efforts where the designs use fuel as a heat sink and all the design decisions that that forces. Microfluid cooling is another effort that they are exploring that will get them to these goals
http://www.darpa.mil/program/intrachip- ... ed-cooling

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 25 Jan 2017 06:56

NRao wrote:
Neshant wrote:It doesn't generate code in as much as it generates its own logic.
The generated logic is an adaptation to its cumulative knowledge.
Pattern recognition by itself does not rely on cumulative knowledge.


Sorry. Really. That is you imagination.


No, that's where you are wrong.

You can certainly have pattern recognition without cumulative knowledge.

How else would a "sensor" determine what object it is facing? PatReg.


How do you think look-down-shoot-down radar determined threats in the late 70s when "threat libraries" did not exist. Before you blab out pattern recognition, understand that cumulative knowledge is not information on the event being analyzed but a database of past events of a similar nature. I already know what you're going to say. You'll try to classify everything as pattern recognition and call it a day.

Anyway this is not the thread for this topic.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Jan 2017 07:12

^^^"Noted, but the point of posting this information was to show the projected demand for thermal management in the short, medium and long term."

Oh Snap! as my daughter would say! :)

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Jan 2017 07:17

In today's WSJ

" Lockheed Martin Corp. said it expects the next batch of F-35 combat jets to be priced at less than $100 million each, a target that is in line with existing Pentagon plans.

The world’s largest defense company expects to deliver 66 of the planes this year compared with 46 last year and remains in talks with the Pentagon over a contract for 90 jets for the U.S. and some overseas buyers.

Lockheed Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson has met twice with President Donald Trump after he criticized the cost of the F-35 program. Ms. Hewson has committed to bringing down the price.

Ms. Hewson said on an investor call that the price of the F-35A models being used by the U.S. Air Force and most overseas buyers would fall below $100 million. This compares with $102 million for the previous order and is in line with the Pentagon’s target for a 6% to 7% sequential drop.

She also said the F-35 plan still calls for the price of the most common model to fall to around $85 million in inflation-adjusted dollars by 2019, in line with existing Pentagon plans."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lockheed-ma ... 1485276557

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Jan 2017 09:17

No clue what a Chinese 5th Gen plane is, but ...................

Will China Fill the Skies With Stealth Jets?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Jan 2017 09:23


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Jan 2017 15:22

The status of these projects is that the US Navy's is conducting an AOA for what replaces the F-18E/F and EA-18G, while the USAF is to begin its shortly. Timelines are 2030's at the very earliest. The USN is likely to seek a traditional replacement of the Rhino capability while the USAF is likely to demand a PCA in line with its Penetrating long range strike (LRS-B), P-AEA (Airborne Electronic Attack), and Penetrating ISR programs (RQ180) so essentially a different category as opposed to a direct replacement for it's Raptors , Eagles or strike eagles.

Any NG project will require an EMD program for propulsion and the earliest that can begin is the "early 2020's" once the current projects conclude.
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Jan 2017 16:53, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Jan 2017 15:50

Cosmo_R wrote:In today's WSJ

" Lockheed Martin Corp. said it expects the next batch of F-35 combat jets to be priced at less than $100 million each, a target that is in line with existing Pentagon plans.

The world’s largest defense company expects to deliver 66 of the planes this year compared with 46 last year and remains in talks with the Pentagon over a contract for 90 jets for the U.S. and some overseas buyers.

Lockheed Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson has met twice with President Donald Trump after he criticized the cost of the F-35 program. Ms. Hewson has committed to bringing down the price.

Ms. Hewson said on an investor call that the price of the F-35A models being used by the U.S. Air Force and most overseas buyers would fall below $100 million. This compares with $102 million for the previous order and is in line with the Pentagon’s target for a 6% to 7% sequential drop.

She also said the F-35 plan still calls for the price of the most common model to fall to around $85 million in inflation-adjusted dollars by 2019, in line with existing Pentagon plans."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lockheed-ma ... 1485276557


6-7% Sequential drop from LRIP-9 URF's would mean around $95 Million URF for LRIP-10 F-35A. While Trump is likely to be given credit, one can go back 6 months or so and look at the PEO's statement's where he expected this. In fact even as recently as LRIP-9 award he again claimed that they are aiming for 6-7% reduction in URF for the A variant in Lot-10. That was to be his and Frank Kendall's acceptable price.

Both LRIP-9 and 10 are contracts definitizations in the sense that work on these aircraft is ongoing concurrently to contract negotiations (standard practice). Periodic payments are made to Lockheed to continue the work but the ceiling is only defined at the time of final contract agreement. The JPO had hoped to announce both last year but the negotiations have dragged on with both sides not coming to an agreement. LRIP-9 was where Bogdan and Kendall basically drew the line and gave a price to Lockheed without reaching an agreement. One Trump affect is that there is likely to be an LRIP-10 agreement instead of an another unilateral contract.

The call also confirmed their ramp up schedule. The cost target of $85 Million ($TY) URF for the Aircraft and Engine is Lot-13 where they are expecting an order of aroundf 200 aircraft (LRIP-10 for comparison is 90 aircraft, LRIP-9 around 57 aircraft) in 2019, for 2021 deliveries. Long Lead contracts should be awarded in 2018 for this lot and it's essentially then that they begin price negotiations. Some aircraft in Lot-13 will likely be part of the bulk buy the international partners are participating in and where the Obama administration was reluctant to join initially. That could change with the change of guard at the Pentagon. Trump's 4 year first term coincides with the transition from LRIP to Full Rate Production so I'm sure he'll milk the political benefits of what was eventually expected to happen.

In the LRIP stage of the program the aim was always to increase production --- > sustain the increase and then increase once again. So LRIP-9 to LRIP-10 saw a production increase, and LRIP-11 will sustain that number and they will aim for another production increase in LOT-12 / 13. The pattern of URF reduction has also followed this with higher %age reductions between batches where there is volume increase and smaller drops when it is sustained.

LRIP-11 long lead contracts were awarded late last year, and production # is in the 90's for this batch as well. If they stick to the current schedule of contract finalization, LRIP-11 contract negotiations should conclude between Dec, 2017 and Feb. 2018 and it will in this time-frame that they also award Lot-12 long lead contracts. Lot-12 should take them well into triple digit production rates.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $1,171,206,489 advance acquisition contract for the advance procurement of long lead time materials, parts, components and effort to maintain the planned production schedule for F-35 low rate initial production lot 11 aircraft. The advance acquisition effort includes 80 F-35A aircraft (28 for the U.S. Air Force; 6 for the government of Norway; 4 for the government of Turkey; 8 for the government of the Netherlands; 8 for the government of Australia; 10 for the government of Israel; 6 for the government of Japan; and 10 for the government of South Korea); 7 F-35B aircraft (6 for the U.S. Marine Corps; and 1 for the United Kingdom); and 4 F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy. This contract also includes an undefinitized contract action for production of 2 F-35A aircraft for the U.S. Air Force and F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Jan 2017 00:22


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Jan 2017 00:50

A sampling, from AWST (http://aviationweek.com/technology/tech ... es-1491461)



Image

Ultra-High Bypass

Commercial aircraft turbofans are getting bigger. Larger fans and higher bypass ratios mean greater propulsive efficiency and lower fuel consumption. Turbofans entering service in the early 2020s will have bypass ratios of 15-20, compared with 10-12.5 for the latest engines. But their increased size will force changes in wing and landing-gear design and, potentially, aircraft layout and engine location.

Research is biased toward future turbofans being geared, for larger fans; but ultimately nacelle drag and weight will set a limit on their diameter. Open-rotor engines remain an option if demand for reductions in fuel consumption and emissions require even higher bypass ratios. Concerns with the airport noise and aircraft safety implications of open rotors remain to be fully allayed, but work continues.

Photo: NASA




Image

Over the evolution of aircraft design, aerodynamics have improved continuously but seldom dramatically. The search for future increases in fuel efficiency, however, could lead to significant changes in aerodynamic design including more slender, flexible wings; natural laminar flow and active flow control; and unconventional configurations.

Laminar flow reduces drag, but requires wings with tight tolerances that are difficult to achieve in manufacturing and smooth surfaces that are hard to keep free of contamination in service. But the potential for significant drag reduction has researchers in Europe and the U.S. developing ways to manufacture and maintain laminar-flow wings on airliners that could enter service by 2030.

More slender and flexible wings will reduce drag and weight but require new structural and control technologies to avoid flutter. Techniques under development include passive aeroelastic tailoring of the structure using directionally biased composites or metallic additive manufacturing, and active control of the wing’s movable surfaces to alleviate maneuver and gust loads and suppress flutter.

High-speed cruise is a focus for aerodynamic improvement; another is high lift at low speed and potential use of compliant or morphing surfaces to adapt wing shape while reducing the noise and drag generated by conventional slats and flaps. Active flow control could also increase takeoff and landing performance, reduce noise and, NASA/Boeing tests show, increase rudder effectiveness for a smaller tail.

Photo: DLR



Image

Teams and Swarms

Many current military unmanned aircraft are costly and complex to operate, requiring significant manpower and mission preplanning. But advances in autonomy could unlock the power of lower-cost vehicles operating collaboratively in swarms or in teams with other aircraft, both unmanned and manned.

The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office is planning near-term fielding of 3-D-printed micro-UAS that are launched from flare dispensers on fighters to form swarms and conduct surveillance in contested airspace or overwhelm an adversary’s defenses. Using more than 30 tube-launched Raytheon Coyotes, the Office of Naval Research is testing swarms of cooperating autonomous small UAS to measure their effectiveness in gathering intelligence, drawing enemy fire or jamming their defenses.

As it looks for ways to penetrate and survive in heavily defended airspace, the Air Force Research Laboratory is pursuing demonstrations of both affordable, limited-life unmanned strike aircraft and autonomous air vehicles that act as “loyal wingmen” to manned fighters, carrying additional sensors and weapons. DARPA is developing methods of airborne launch and recovery of swarming UAS, and software to enable unmanned aircraft to collaborate with minimal human supervision.
As a result of research programs such as these, the next generation of combat aircraft, planned to enter service in the U.S. and Europe in 2030-40, is expected to be a system of systems—a manned fighter controlling a fleet of cooperating UAS with different mission capabilities.

Photo: Georgia Tech Research Institute {BRiet close by}


Remaking Manufacturing

The potential of additive manufacturing, better known as 3-D printing, has almost every industry in its grip, from food to chemicals. Aerospace is embracing additive cautiously because of the safety and reliability implications, but even so, applications are expanding at a rate unheard of for aviation.

As a manufacturing technology, 3-D printing established its foothold with polymers, which the aircraft industry has been able to use for rapid prototyping and some flyable low-strength parts. But the real growth in adoption is coming with the maturing of metal additive-manufacturing processes.

Aerospace manufacturing involves removing a lot of metal from formed pieces, and additive promises dramatic reductions in the “buy-to-fly” ratios—the weight of the raw material versus that of the finished part—for expensive materials such as lightweight, high-strength titanium and nickel alloys.

First, industry must convince itself and airworthiness authorities that 3-D-printed parts are as good as those manufactured by conventional means, preferably better. This is happening, with GE Aviation additively manufacturing fuel nozzles, and Avio Aero making titanium-aluminide turbine blades for turbofans.

These initial production parts are made using lasers or electron beams to melt metal powder. Aircraft structures involve larger parts and that means breaking “out of the box” created by the working volumes of powder-bed machines. Laser wire deposition enables larger components and is entering production.

Additive manufacturing already allows part designs to be optimized to use less material, for lower cost and weight. With time, it will permit the microstructure of the material to be controlled throughout a part to maximize its performance. Eventually it will allow entirely new materials to be tailored.

Spacecraft with additively manufactured parts are already operational, and Silicon Valley startup Made in Space is pursuing the potential for 3-D printing in space itself—to manufacture spacecraft structures such as reflectors, trusses or optical fibers for terrestrial communications.

Photo: Airbus



Image

Adaptive Engines

Aviation propulsion has been through two transformations: from propellers to jets and from turbojets to turbofans. A third is underway, in the form of adaptive or variable-cycle engines. Where a turbofan has two streams of air—one flowing through and one bypassing the core—an adaptive-cycle engine has three. The fan can adapt to pump more air through the core for higher thrust or through the bypass ducts for higher efficiency and lower fuel burn, while providing more air to cool aircraft systems.

General Electric and Pratt & Whitney have each been awarded $1 billion contracts to develop 45,000-lb.-thrust-class adaptive engines to power the next generation of U.S. fighters. Ground tests are to begin in 2019, and both engines could fly competitively in Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the early 2020s. Three-stream turbofans could also power future supersonic commercial transports, providing the combination of thrust, fuel economy and low airport noise required to meet environmental targets.


Image

High Speed

After decades of on-again, off-again development, air-breathing hypersonic propulsion is tantalizingly close to being fielded in the form of high-speed cruise missiles. But much research remains before aircraft can accelerate from runways to beyond Mach 5 on air-breathing engines, for surveillance or strike missions or to lift payloads or passengers into low Earth orbit on reusable first stages.
Recent Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapon tests have added urgency to DARPA and U.S. Air Force plans to fly the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept demonstrator by 2020. This is a follow-on to the Boeing X-51 WaveRider scramjet engine demonstrator flown in 2010-13 and the precursor to an operational Mach 5-plus long-range cruise missile.
As a next step, DARPA has resurrected plans to ground-test a turbine-based combined-cycle engine coupling a turbojet to a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet, all sharing the same inlet and nozzle, enabling air-breathing operation from standstill to hypersonic cruise. Such a propulsion system is required for the unmanned “SR-72” Lockheed Martin proposes flying in the 2020s.
Space access vehicles could use a powerplant such as Reaction Engines’ SABRE, which operates in both air-breathing and rocket modes. Inside the atmosphere, incoming air is precooled by a heat exchanger and burned with liquid hydrogen in the rocket. Outside the atmosphere, SABRE operates as a conventional rocket. Reaction Engines plans a full-scale ground demo in 2020.
Photo: Reaction Engines

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Jan 2017 07:37

F-22

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Jan 2017 16:32

Four F-35A's from the 388th Fighter Wing @ Nellis Red Flag 17-1 [Jan. 20/2017]. First Red Flag for the A variant.


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 26 Jan 2017 19:58

^ Nice video

Loved to see the F35 in the rains.. looks more cool in the wet and dark


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Jan 2017 02:56

One is likely due to technical reasons (Raytheon) and the other (and perhaps both) is likely being priced out of the competition by Boeing and Lockheed. I still expect Northrop to compete but perhaps not as a prime. They do have a huge presence in LVC and have a successful large scale demonstration under their belt.

The USAF essentially wants quite mature "near" production ready designs and prototypes to compare against the RFP and Northrop probably doesn't want to show up with a green jet like they did on the ATF. Bush probably does not see a very big upside in investing a fair amount of money to get there with his prototype.

The B-21, Nuclear modernization, JSTARS (and eventually E-3) replacement and the Directed Energy R&D portfolio is probably consuming a ton of their IRAD funds anyways. NG is not Northrop or Grumman from the past. Under Wes Bush they have shown discipline in picking their battles and developing capability in house to successfully compete.

They walked out of the KC-X re-compete and could very well walk out or not take the T-X very seriously. Their strengths over the last few decades worth of work, acquisition and self-funded capability lies in stealth, autonomy, unmanned, mission systems, integrated systems, and radars - None of these are really differentiators on the T-X (minus the non aircraft portion which is why I said that they could still partner up with their LVC offering). While they can still deliver a very good product what the competition demands is a lot of contractor cash and risk to deliver on the cap that the USAF has put on the program.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Jan 2017 15:30, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G, Bing [Bot], ritesh and 41 guests