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: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2017 06:35

Podcast: How Stealth Technology Changed the World


Aviation Week editors sat down with John Griffin, a member of the “Pioneers of Stealth.” The pioneers are group of engineers, contractors and members of the military who worked on stealth programs from 1970s to the first flight of the B-2 in the late 1990s and continue to meet to share stories about the early days of the technology

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3340
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Nov 2017 07:00

Karan M wrote:
Philip wrote:The second point,to maintain qualitaive superiority necessitates the acquisition asap of a 5th-gen fighter.Here,in whatever shape or form,the FGFA deal must be sealed.


Why? The JSF's test reports are public, its (many) warts are being fixed. The FGFA does not have a single flying prototype, and the IAF was not even given access to the PAK-FA testing. Given the huge issues with even fixing the Su-30, it stands to reason we should avoid the FGFA boondoggle and only pick up a PAK-FA once the Russians use their own money (for once) to fix it, mature it and put it in service. And even that only if, the PAK-FA is substantially superior to the JSF in facing Russia supplied IADS in service with the PLAAF and other stealth fighters.


Yes!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Nov 2017 08:21



That article, in Scientific American, is a reprint from
https://theconversation.com/what-went-w ... hter-60905

The original article sources our good friend P Sprey!!!! But, for whatever reason, SA states it is a reprint, but does NOT source the Sprey vid.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 19 Nov 2017 10:03

The article clearly said that it was from the Conversation at the outset.SC found it good enough to reprint it so what's the problem and with Sprey?

What "huge issues" fixing the SU-30? MKIs are now over 70% indigenous, engines 100%from Desi raw material, 50 already delivered out of 350 built locally.Even the LCA has more firang content than an MKI! Poor negotiations by the MOD have plagued almost every foreign and Desi weapon system with the excruciating procurement procedure that currently exists in the MOD.This has had a serious effect with after sales support and timely acquisition of spares.Various statements have been made by the services over the years about this.It is only recently that foreign OEMs are setting up dedicated support facilities in India with enough spares, etc. to draw from when required.The IA has said that he poor availability of Arjun-1 is becos of its high import content and that firang spares are "drying up."
We know how AKA sat on his a*se and allowed our Kilo subs to run out of batteries until a fatal tragedy took place , forcing Adm. Joshi to resign.

It is only now in the last 3 years that the Modi regime is trying to break the back of the babu empire that is so well entrenched in the corridors of power esp. in the MOD.A close friend/prominent industrialist,huge fan of the PM, compared the hectic activity in ministries today and that during Snake-Oil Singh's time.He says that" Modi is India's last chance" to reform the establishment and catch up with a relentless China which has been press- ganged by XI Gins into a billion+ galley slaves slaving to make him the triad chief of the globe.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 19 Nov 2017 17:14

Philip wrote:Pl list how many of the 270+ "critical" flaws have been rectified and in what expected timeframe.The problem is that no one knows when this will happen and the aircraft being with indecent haste rushed into production with development and rectification still going on, will have to be rectified at huge expense later on.

The problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and have a tendency to pretend that the ignorance is universal.

FYI, the 276 deficiencies in a specific software build (FR5) identified in Aug-Sep 2016 and around half of which were being addressed by the next software block (FR6) that entered testing in Dec 2016, and the rest in subsequent patches.

All this was a year ago.

And the software of already existing fighter, in case you didn't know it, can be upgraded in a matter of hours by ground staff anywhere in the world.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2017 18:49

Specific to the 2016 report, there were two subsequent software updates released to 3FR6 in February of 2017 and another in April of 2017 to begin fixing those. There will obviously be more for correcting deficiencies discovered earlier and those that would have been discovered through testing since then. This as I have been saying for years now, is how the process of testing works.

When the last DOTE report was written the 3F software build was in early testing. Fast forward to today, more than a year has passed from the time-period captured by the last report. Overall, more than 98% of the test points have been completed for the program and what the current DOTE gets for his operational testing will be quite a mature variant of the 3F final software build that completes the SDD phase and not what Gilmore "observed" the program testing in 2016.

As I wrote earlier, the program, almost exactly like the ATF program before it, has budgeted a "bridge period" that extends beyond SDD completion (currently expected for Q1 in 2018) and before the team shifts to exclusively working on block 4 FOM. The bridge period is for any software based correction that may need to be done during or right after IOTE. They are giving themselves 4-6 months for that which again may or may not be required.

He doesn't understand that software development, and even testing takes time and maturity is often based on time as well with discoveries leading to fixes and subsequent variants and upgrades being more mature, and less buggy etc. That is why they port a new software version only on the developmental test jets and not to the rest of the fleet. Piece by piece each major sub-block of the software build is tested, debugged, tested again and then released to the fleet. They then move on to the other variants. There is no such thing as a perfect, bug/glitch free software variant straight out of the lab..if they or anyone else were capable of building something like that then there would be no need for testing. As has been told to him on numerous occasions now, initial versions of block 3F have now gone to the operational and non-test fleets. In fact, even he himself posted an article a few pages back (quoted below) that quoted the program executive officer of claiming this.

This tells us that the initial versions of 3F are now mature and stable enough that the program has certified them for fleet release. Over the next few months they will do the same for the final version of 3F i.e. put it through testing, and then once it is stable and mature enough release it to the fleet. The current estimate is for a Q1 2018 time period for this to happen. The same final 3F build will go on the 20 odd aircraft the program is preparing to hand over to Bob Behler for his shop to begin IOT&E.

He also doesn't seem to understand that there was a difference in the version of the software the operational fleet was flying with and the version that was in developmental testing. While Gilmore observed glitches in initial versions of 3F, the USAF was flying a stable, mature, and fully - tested block 3I while the Marines were flying the same software but on previous generation hardware (2B). So the lack of software build maturity and a high number of fixes were only required for the software build in testing..not the one that the operators were flying with.


That 3F software is already going on aircraft coming off the Lockheed Martin assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, Winter said. It’s not the absolute final version of 3F, he acknowledged, because additional testing must be done before the software is fully “verified and validated.” The program is already compiling a database of deficiencies it must correct, he said. Most of them are minor issues, such as indicators moving too much on displays or radar screen refresh rates being a few seconds too slow.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2017 01:45

On the contrary,let the US offer us some truly worthwhile systems without the puppet strings.It is so loath to give us even a naval N-reactor for a CV unlike Russia supplying us with both N-reactor tech and N-subs! If you compare the weapon systems offered to us by both sides, their quality, capability and cost, it is "nolo contendre".

There is no hatred for US systems,I've advocated more C-130s, Chinooks,P-8Is, helo MCM eqpt.,not Apaches-too costly and C-17s are now out of production. "Horses for courses " has been my mantra.The MIG-35 offers a bomb truck + a terrific air combat aircraft with its TVC nozzles, "nothing flew better", described when it flew at Farnborough,at v.affordable comparative cost when compared with its rivals.At least $20M less.Acquiring another 60+ aircraft is a very cost-effective method of maintaining numbers and sqds.

A few air shows ago, just before the decision was made for the MMRCA deal , I asked a Typhoon pilot about the MIG-35's air combat capability.He had flown almost everything including German MIG-29s.He said it was the best of the lot, but that the Typhoon had the best sensor fusion of all the contenders,etc.It was only the price factor that swung the deal Rafale's way.However, with approx. 300 MKIs with us and at least 50+ to be upgraded into BMos std., there is no need for an EF class of mid-sized lett) sized aircraft.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 21 Nov 2017 02:00

Philip wrote:On the contrary,let the US offer us some truly worthwhile systems without the puppet strings.It is so loath to give us even a naval N-reactor for a CV unlike Russia supplying us with both N-reactor tech and N-subs!

Commissar, the last time you made that claim, it was rebutted by the ATV designers themselves. Yet the lies continue.

Asked whether the Russians helped in designing and building the PWR, Kakodkar, Banerjee and Basu were emphatic that BARC developed it on its own. Banerjee said: “The Russians were consultants. The consultancy was done for the whole submarine, not for the power part alone.” Basu asserted, “Everything is totally indigenous [in this PWR]…. We developed it. It is our own reactor. We did not take it from anybody else.” - Frontline

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1889
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Katare » 21 Nov 2017 02:31

Philip wrote:On the contrary,let the US offer us some truly worthwhile systems without the puppet strings.It is so loath to give us even a naval N-reactor for a CV unlike Russia supplying us with both N-reactor tech and N-subs! If you compare the weapon systems offered to us by both sides, their quality, capability and cost, it is "nolo contendre".

There is no hatred for US systems,I've advocated more C-130s, Chinooks,P-8Is, helo MCM eqpt.,not Apaches-too costly and C-17s are now out of production. "Horses for courses " has been my mantra.The MIG-35 offers a bomb truck + a terrific air combat aircraft with its TVC nozzles, "nothing flew better", described when it flew at Farnborough,at v.affordable comparative cost when compared with its rivals.At least $20M less.Acquiring another 60+ aircraft is a very cost-effective method of maintaining numbers and sqds.

A few air shows ago, just before the decision was made for the MMRCA deal , I asked a Typhoon pilot about the MIG-35's air combat capability.He had flown almost everything including German MIG-29s.He said it was the best of the lot, but that the Typhoon had the best sensor fusion of all the contenders,etc.It was only the price factor that swung the deal Rafale's way.However, with approx. 300 MKIs with us and at least 50+ to be upgraded into BMos std., there is no need for an EF class of mid-sized lett) sized aircraft.


If we buy 70% of all our arms from USA for 70 years, I am sure they'll be willing to give us a lot more than a pesky N sub on lease. All of US ally, be it Israel, JaPAN, Korea, Singapore and Turkey are much better off than us when it comes to industrialization. Stop pretending that Russia or USSR done/doing us any favors. That was part of the their cold war, we had to tow their socialist/communist line, which ruined our economy and relationships with the western world which has a lot more in common with us than the frozen wastelands of eastern Europe.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2017 04:37

The US Just Flew a Stealth Fighter to Bomb Drug Labs in Afghanistan

Image
A KC-10 Extender from the 908th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, refuels an F-22 Raptor from the 95th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron in support of a new offensive campaign in Afghanistan Nov. 19, 2017. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Gregory Brook)

NOVEMBER 20, 2017
The Air Force has unleashed the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter in Afghanistan for its first operational mission against Taliban drug labs, the Defense Department said Monday.

The F-22s were joined by B-52 Stratofortresses and Afghan A-29 Super Tucanos to conduct an expanded strike mission — called the new offensive campaign — against the Taliban’s revenue stream, said Army Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission and U.S. Forces Afghanistan.

The Raptor “was used because of its ability to deliver precision munitions — in this case, a 250-pound bomb, small-diameter, that causes the minimal amount of collateral damage,” he said during a teleconference briefing in Kabul.

“This target was also a Taliban narcotics production facility in Musa Qala. So I want to draw your attention — as you look at this strike, you’re going to see that inside this compound are multiple structures, and we destroy only two of them, while leaving the third standing, which we do to avoid collateral damage,” Nicholson said.

The F-22s launched from Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates, where the stealthy, fifth-generation jets reside for operations in the Middle East. The Raptors are part of the 95th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron out of Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.

The mission was aided by “refueling support from KC-10s and KC-135s, ISR platforms and command and control aircraft,” said Lt. Col Damien Pickart, Air Forces Central Command spokesman.

“Along with Air Force assets, our joint partners contributed to the fight with strike support from U.S. Marine Corps High-Mobility Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and ISR capabilities from U.S. Army assets,” Pickart said in a statement.

Nicholson said using a variety of aircraft together provided a larger range of bombs necessary for the mission.

“We’re looking for a mixture of ordnance in the air over the targets so that, as we make the final decision on the use of which weapon, based on concerns about collateral damage, we needed to have a variety of airframes available with different kinds of munitions,” he said.

“And so that was the purpose [of the F-22]. It wasn’t because of some of the other capabilities of that aircraft,” he added.

The Raptor has played a crucial yet evolving role in air operations over Syria and Iraq, including its high-value mix of weapons.

The F-22 wields the AIM-9X Sidewinder missile; the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM); the precision-guided GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB); and the GPS-guided GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).

One F-22 pilot who spoke with Military.com in June said the Small Diameter Bomb is more likely to be used, especially in the counter-Islamic State fight in urban areas where the Raptor is conducting precision strikes.

“We carry the low collateral damage weapon, the Small Diameter Bomb GBU-39, to precisely strike enemy combatants while protecting the civilian population,” said Lt. Col. “Shell,” an F-22 pilot and commander of the 27th Squadron on rotation at Al Dhafra. He spoke to Military.com on the condition that he be identified by his call sign.

“We also can carry the 1,000-pound JDAM GBU-32 used for targets where there is less-to-little collateral damage concern,” meaning a larger blast for attack.

Regarding Sunday’s bombing run, Nicholson said airstrikes have been and will continue to be on the rise.

For example, the Air Force dropped more than 900 weapons in August and September combined, up from 270 for the same timeframe last year, according to AFCENT’s latest airpower summary.

“We’ve used airpower — dropped more munitions this year than any year since 2012,” Nicholson said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2017 16:13


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Nov 2017 12:25

Stop peddling the "facts" that we had to tow the Commie line during the CW.Mrs. G. then the best pal that the Sovs. had,never allowed them to establish a mil. base on Indian soil and after her return to power after the defeat in '77 ,looked to improve ties with the US,esp. in the eco. arena.RG went even further and maintained a healthy balance between east and west.The fact is that the US on the other hand supported Pak all these years,turned a blind eye to its nuclear ambitions and proliferation and are still in cahoots with it in sensitive areas. trump is trying to break the mould,but it remains to be seen how far the US will "punish" Pak fro its terrorist agenda and chicanery.

Post independence,India did not want to lose the gains of the freedom struggle by becoming the dumping ground for western MNCs. Nehru's emphasis in building up our core heavy industry was wise and laid the foundations for both heavy industry,nuclear power,etc. which we've built upon.One must remember that the West was most unwilling to give us anything during the CW becos we preferred to remain non-aligned. That is why even today we won the ICJ seat with the support of over 150 nations in the GA and saw off our colonial master Britain! had we succumbed to the West as you would've liked,we would've NEVER become a nuclear weapons' power,as we would've been forces to sign the various nuclear non-proliferation treaties like Japan,Oz,SoKo,etc.who now shiver and shake becos of China and NoKo! Thank Nehru and Mrs. G for that (and of course our dedicated scientists!).They had their flaws but on this score were spot on.

Just make a list fo what we've recd. from Russia and the West. Who has supplied us with game-changing milware. The US even today is denying us "full TOT"" for aircraft tech,no N-plant for a carrier,etc. And we're supposed to be their "strat. partner"! Just old hags of fighter aircraft ,no N-sub,no ABM system to deal with pk and China,nothing contemporary,barring some transports and the P-8I That too meant for us to be the USN's "benami" against China in the maritime sphere.it's just a relationship of Bullsh*t!

The Brits are running scared after the great show that Russia has put up in Syria,exterminating ISIS and US-led rebels in record time too with its array of mil power ,some of it even legacy Sov. era weapon systems like Bear bombers,SU-25s,etc. Its new weapons like Kalibir missiles,SU-35s,SU-34s ,MIG-29Ks were also in action and are attracting the attention of many nations eager to pick up these excellent systems at low cost.PLus being Uncle Sam's poodle,they have to toe the US' sanction line.Poor "Little Britain".It just lost out to former colony India in the ICJ stakes! How the (once) mighty have fallen!

Deputy PM lashes out at UK air show’s refusal to accept Russian military hardware
Military & Defense November 22, 5:28 UTC+3
"It is silly to deprive your visitors of a chance to see the world’s best combat aviation that had played the decisive role in the outcome of the Syrian war," Dmitry Rogozin said
Share
Russia's newest PAK FA fighter jets
Russia's newest PAK FA fighter jets © Sergey Bobylev/TASS
MOSCOW, November 22. /TASS/. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin on Tuesday criticized organizers of the Farnborough air show for their refusal to accept Russian military hardware next year.
"It is silly to deprive your visitors of a chance to see the world’s best combat aviation that had played the decisive role in the outcome of the Syrian war," Rogozin wrote on his Facebook page.
READ ALSO

Farnborough organizers prohibit Russia from displaying military products
Earlier on Tuesday, the aerospace show’s press-service notified TASS that Farnborough organizers had prohibited Russia from displaying military products at next year’s exhibition. "We take guidance from the British Government’s Export Control Organization (ECO) regarding the EU embargo on imports of armaments and military hardware to and from Russia. We welcome all exhibitors, Russian or otherwise, that fall within these ECO guidelines," the press-service said.
In 2016, Russia’s participation in Farnborough was minimal. The space corporation Roscosmos did send a delegation but no exhibits. Russia’s arms exporter Rosoboronexport, too, declared its reluctance to participate.
In 2014, more than half of Russian delegates were denied British visas due to the geopolitical situation in Ukraine. After Britain in 2015 kept a Roscosmos delegation away from a local defense exhibition the space corporation decided against bringing its exposition to Farnborough-2016.
The biennial international aerospace show at Farnborough is one of the world’s largest. It is held at an airdrome near a city of the same name in Hampshire. Next year’s show is scheduled for July 16-22.

http://tass.com/defense/976796

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Nov 2017 12:38

Saudi Arabia eyeing newest Russian aircraft
Business & Economy November 20, 9:16 UTC+3
The sides are discussing possible supplies of the SSJ-100 and MC-21 aircraft

MOSCOW, November 20. /TASS/. Saudi Arabia is in talks with Moscow on the supplies of Russia’s Sukhoi Superjet 100 and MC-21 aircraft, Director for International Cooperation and Regional Politics at the Rostec state corporation Viktor Kladov said in an interview with TASS.
"We have an active dialogue with Saudi Arabia on a whole number of areas, they are interested not only in the Russian equipment, but also in technologies. I would not like to go into details, but the dialogue is positive. The sides are discussing possible supplies to the country of the SSJ-100 and the MC-21 aircraft, and we are actively showing our achievements in aviation," Kladov said.
READ ALSO
Sukhoi Civil Aircraft can make VIP version of MC-21 aircraft in 2022

MC-21 aircraft makes first flight from Irkutsk to Zhukovsky airport
New MC-21 jet: Russia’s first step on aircraft market
Senior official says MC-21 and SSJ-100 will be upgraded
Italian companies showing interest in SSJ-100 assembly

According to Kladov, the new MC-21 medium-haul passenger jet is a 100% Russian development and it has good prospects after entering the market. "The discussion is underway, Saudi Arabia has interest in our jets," he added.
MC-21 is a medium-haul aircraft being developed by the United Aircraft Corporation. It will be manufactured in two configurations: MC-21-200 (seating 132 to 165 passengers) and MC-21-300 (capable of carrying 163 to 211 passengers). Currently, work is in progress only on MC-21-300. In late May 2017, it performed its maiden flight. The first planes are scheduled for delivery at the end of 2018.
The Sukhoi Superjet 100 is the first modern Russian jet, unveiled in 2003. Its maiden flight was carried out in 2008 and in 2011 the aircraft undertook its first commercial passenger flight. At the moment, more than 120 SSJ-100 jets are in service, and the 169th aircraft is being manufactured, President of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Alexander Rubtsov said.

More:
http://tass.com/economy/976406

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 22 Nov 2017 12:39

Some Baywatch C-130 style :wink:


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Nov 2017 18:47

First F-35A TSP currently underway in Okinawa (Full article at source) -

Hill’s F-35A and Airmen Mastering First Pacific Deployment

KADENA AIR BASE, Okinawa, Japan -- More than 300 men and women of the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings and 12 F-35As are conducting business for the next six months on the subtropical Japanese island of Okinawa during a deployment known as a Theater Security Package.

Their business is to fly the F-35A, integrate with Kadena Air Base’s F-15Cs and other assets and demonstrate the continuing U.S. commitment to stability and security in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region—and they’re excited to do it.


Maj. Daniel Toftness Assistant Director of Operations for Hill Air Force Base’s 34th FS said this TSP took months of planning and is a little different than the others that have staged at Kadena since 2004, as this is the first time the Air Force’s version of the F-35 has deployed to the Pacific.

“It’s a little bit of a game changer,” he said. “We’re increasing the capability since were bringing 5th generation assets. It’s the first time the F-35A has deployed for an extended length of time. We have learned some lessons along the way on how to do that, but this is really a big first for us. It’s a great opportunity to integrate with all the other platforms here, and it’s a great opportunity to reassure our allies of the US commitment to the region.

Col. Jason Reuschhoff said careful planning and good people executing the plan is making this a successful deployment and is what will continue to sustain it through the duration.



Okinawa is the perfect location for the F-35As and Hill airmen to operate because it’s a different environment than where they work in Utah.

“Back home, we only have F-35s, so our integration opportunities with other platforms are limited,” Toftness said. “Now, out here with the F-15s and all the other assets throughout the region, we are going to get a lot more opportunity to do those things. It’s really good training when we get with those other platforms. Also, our training back home is primarily over land and out here it’s completely over water. Every piece of airspace over here is over water.”

The expectations on what can be accomplished on this deployment revolve largely around flying with the 18th Wing’s F-15Cs and coalition partners.

“The integration that the F-35 can facilitate is a big piece in what makes this aircraft so capable,” Rueschhoff said. “The opportunities to do that with the F-15 in an air superiority role is huge. Ultimately, if we’re able to work coalition engagements and integration, that allows us to fly with other Air Force assets and our coalition partners, it will be a huge benefit to our TSP success.”

Johnston said another benefit of the TSP is the ability to work closely with the maintenance and support team, who have continually kept jets in the air here.

“Maintenance has done a tremendous job, he said. “We flew the first day we could possibly fly a plane here, and we have flown every line. I am really impressed with the whole team, maintenance and Lockheed support have been outstanding.”




brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Nov 2017 23:50

Singha wrote:details on the asmp are very very sketchy, including its flight profile and speed and why it was never developed into a anti-IADS weapon.

perhaps the reality is a lot less soothing than the brochure.

frenchies do have some background in ramjets from early days, incl the redoubtable Nord Griffon :D


There was a plan to develop a non strategic variant of the weapon in the early 1990s (the ASMP‐C) but it was dropped for many reasons including political and a lack of a dedicated justifying need in the post cold war era. In fact, the basic design of the ASMP-A (design and propulsion) was originally envisioned as a dual use Nuclear and Anti-Ship weapon and this was why they originally decided to pursue a path that would require at the time nearly a $1 billion dollars to develop. As with a lot of things post-cold war, the Anti-Ship variant kind of fell through and the only weapons program that pursued as a continuation of the VESTA project was the nuclear ASMP-A we know today.

Anyhow, a conventional ARM focused missile in this type/class does not need to adopt this design, complexity or cost so an anti IADS weapon would not look anything like it. Fast forward to today, there is little need to pursue the design strategy now given what European design teams have achieved with ducted ramjets and the research into scramjets. Anything cost-effective would have to be a multi-national european project which would mean leveraging MBDAs technologies from outside France.

The french and other multi-national projects contributed to this and a liquid fueled ramjet motor is something that is a lot simpler than what they have going elsewhere. Given the strategic nature of the weapon, and the fact that it has been improved (keep in mind that the French have been using the A variant since 2008/9), there is little reason to doubt the performance claims because as you'll see when a more optimized Brahmos-M is developed, you do not need a weapon the size of the Brahmos to take out targets from 400-500 km away when launched from the air especially if it is carrying a nuclear payload. The basic air-launched Brahmos that we saw today had an optimized booster but kept everything else largely the the same. You will see that they'll get the M down to around a 1000-1200 kg by optimizing, making the propulsion and design better and reducing the warhead weight. It will still comfortably reach the the 400-500 km range when launched from altitude and would still be potent against a lot many targets.

Little is known about its design and performance because it is a strategic weapon for the French and isn't available for export. There is good reason behind keeping most of its performance protected much like any other operator would do for its ALCM/GLCM-N, ICBM, or SLBM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0EXC91b9jo

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Nov 2017 09:54

ArjunPandit wrote:
Philip wrote:Interesting debate going on reg.ICBMs.US analysts - quite rightly want land based ICBMs abandoned.One alt. (Ru) is first increasing the reaction time for alerts.Right now there's only a 7 min. window to assess if it is incoming ICBMs or a false alarm.Removing land- based ICBMs would put pressure upon "rogue" states like NoKo, etc. from possessing them, but strat. bombers and SSBNs would remain.Huge savings in def . budgets too.

Thanks phillip and Sri,
regarding the ICBM, there was similar debate during CW as well. The argument that won the day was ICBMs (440, i think that was the recent number) also offer a target to the opponent, which otherwise would have been used for attack on the civil military centers.


The argument regarding the Triad has been revisited multiple times and the sound principle behind all legs still remains largely true. I expect the review with Mattis to look no different than the one conducted by Ash Carter. The sea based leg is the most survivable, the air based leg the most flexible while the land based leg has the largest yield, and is the most cost effective way of maintaining a right-sized strategic detterent. The so called "Analysts" and the Arms-Control mafia in the US were expected to always come hard against one of the three legs before moving on to the other if and when they succeeded. So far, the Obama and the Trump administration have fully funded all three legs including the GBSD which replaces the ICBM. The contract for the same is to be awarded soon with the RFP released recently.

The best CBO estimates currently on the cost have some flaws that will have to be rectified. One of them being that they count the entire B-21 bomber development, procurement and sustainment cost over a 3+ decade period as part of the cost of the strategic deterrent. This is flawed since it is largely a conventional bomber and previous estimates have put the RDT&E cost of making it nuclear capable at roughly 5-8% of its overall development. Regardless, take the size of the US economy, the out years these estimates look at and the overall percentage of strategic deterrent spending over 3+ decades as a %age and it is quite reasonable..and much less than what was spent during the CW.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Nov 2017 11:57

One week old and first Norwegian Leonardo-Finmeccanica AW101 0268 (330skv) flipped over today during testing.

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 25 Nov 2017 12:33

Fighter pilots told 'keep windscreens clean' to avoid crashes

The US Air Force (USAF) has urged its UK-based pilots to keep cockpit windows clean to avoid mid-air collisions with civilian aircraft.

RAF Lakenheath-based USAF F-15 jets were involved in 19 near-misses with UK aircraft in the past five years.

An F-15 pilot from the Suffolk base was recently praised after spotting a glider by eyesight rather than radar and avoiding a collision.

More than 1,000 near-misses have been reported to the UK Airprox Board in the past five years, of which about 360 have involved UK or US military aircraft.


So now i know what was that soap cake like object on the LCA at that airshow :D

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 650
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 28 Nov 2017 01:16

Thakur_B wrote:
JayS wrote:
LOL. Old USN planes used to have tube for peeing while on the mission. Fun story about that in Ben Rich's book. It used to be made up of metal piece and putting in on on the mijjile was rather inconvenient when it would get cold up there. One can imagine. :wink: Ben Rich's first patent was on this - he designed a heating system for the tube. And the pilots were very grateful. :mrgreen:


The very thought of freezing cold metal touching nunuswamy gives me shudders, not to mention, the skin may freeze and get stuck on contact :rotfl:

Alan shepherd became not just the first space traveler but also the first space traveler in pee soaked suit. The story was, he spent ~8 hours sitting in the suit, and just before the go ahead (after 5+ hours of delay) he wanted to pee and the flight controller said no, so he had to do it in suit. It affected the mission because some of the instruments couldnt function afterwards

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ramana » 28 Nov 2017 23:25

Airbus, Rolls Royce and Siemens are teaming up to bring electric propulsions to passenger planes.
Technology demonstrator to be complete by 2020.

Airbus to bring integration and all up assembly. They have some experience if electric propulsion of small airplanes.
Siemens to provide the electric motor and electric generator.
Rolls Royce to provides a jet engine to drive the electric generator.
The jet turbine will drive an electricity generator to drive the electric fan.
The plan is to replace one engine in a BAC 146(?) with this electric motor driven fan in one year.
Then replace with two engines.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Nov 2017 00:09

Last Fort Worth-built F-16 leaves Lockheed factory


Lockheed Martin’s last F-16 produced at its Fort Worth, Texas facility rolled out the door on 14 November, marking the end of a 40-year era for the single-engined fighter.

The last Texas-made F-16 will fly with the Iraqi air force, but over the last four decades the fourth-generation fighter has flown with 28 customers around the globe, from the US Air Force and NASA, to Israel, Venezuela and Poland.

“The Fighting Falcon Nest,” as it affectionately referred to by Lockheed employees, is dwarfed by a F-35 production line that already stretches the length of several football fields.

The fifth-generation fighter line will eventually cannibalise the smaller F-16 facility, as Lockheed makes room for the F-35 production ramp up.

Lockheed will transition F-16 production to an existing facility in Greenville, South Carolina, where it’s also planning to assemble T-50 trainer jets pending the outcome of the US Air Force's T-X trainer recapitalisation contract.

The Lockheed/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50A is a close cousin to the F-16, sharing the same basic shape, flight controls and wing.

Initial activities supporting the move to South Carolina are already underway, a Lockheed spokesman says.

With several potential international sales brewing, including a $2.78 billion deal for 19 F-16Vs for Bahrain, Lockheed expects to extend F-16 production beyond 2022.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 508
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby prasannasimha » 29 Nov 2017 00:53

The latest Soyuz 2 failed to deliver the payload.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Nov 2017 17:40

Latest raid test of PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE with 4 incoming tactical ballistic missile targets -

Lockheed Martin PAC-3 MSE Intercept Opens Door to Full-Rate Production

Four Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) PAC-3 Cost Reduction Initiative (CRI) and one PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors successfully neutralized four tactical ballistic missile targets recently in a complex test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The PAC-3 MSE intercept fulfills a requirement that supports a full-rate production decision for the MSE missile.
The U.S. Army-led missile defense flight test demonstrated the unique Hit-to-Kill capability of the PAC-3 family of missiles. The test also reconfirmed PAC-3 CRI and MSE's ability to detect, track and intercept incoming missiles while meeting fielded reliability requirements.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9261
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby arun » 30 Nov 2017 10:32

Rodong Sinmun on the first launch of the DPRK’s aka North Korea’s latest ICBM, the Hwasong-15:

Nov. 29, Juche 106 (2017) Wednesday

Kim Jong Un Guides Test-fire of ICBM Hwasong-15

A test-fire of the inter-continental ballistic rocket Hwasong-15 was successfully conducted on November 29 under the guidance of Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK and supreme commander of the Korean People's Army.

Kim Jong Un personally supervised the whole course of the test-fire.

He indicated the orientation of developing a new type rocket that can make the final victory of the country in the showdown with the U.S. imperialists and gave detailed instructions every day to the Academy of Defence Science for doing so and thus made sure that the Hwasong-15 weapon system was successfully completed.

Upon receiving the report that it is ready to test-fire the new type ICBM on Nov. 28, he came out to the place where technical preparations for the rocket was under way late at night to see the 9-axis self-propelled launching vehicle manufactured by workers of the munitions industry.

He praised them for having successfully made the vehicle to be impeccable.

He expressed great satisfaction over the fact that such vehicles can be manufactured as many as the country wants now that the munitions industry has made a breakthrough in putting the production of all parts of the vehicle on a domestic and Juche basis 100 percent.

He went to the launching ground and meticulously guided the pre-launch processes one by one including the one for vertically standing the rocket.

At an observation post for command he learned in detail about the launching plan and issued an order to launch the rocket.

The rocket successfully blasted off and soared into the sky.

The ICBM Hwasong-15 soared to the highest altitude of 4 475 km and made a flight over the distance of 950 km for 53 minutes before making an accurate landing in the preset waters in the open sea in the East Sea of Korea.

The test-fire confirmed that all the integers of the weapon system have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of design and that it is capable of fully ensuring reliability in combat situation to serve its mission as strategic weaponry system.

Particularly, the accuracy of hitting targets by posture control and speed correction in the mid-flight section, accuracy in operation of high-thrust engine to which propulsion vector control is applied and the engine of high specific thrust was confirmed, and the accuracy of design integers of subsequent guided and stabilization systems was verified.

Also confirmed were mobile and hoisting capabilities and operational reliability of launching system of the nine-axis self-propelled launching vehicle newly developed and completed.

The test-fire also re-confirmed the control and stabilization technology, phase-separation and start-up technology and the safety of warhead in the atmospheric reentry environment that had already been confirmed.

The ICBM Hwasong-15 weapon system represents the weapon system peculiar to the Workers' Party of Korea, which was developed with domestic efforts and technology 100 percent to suit the specific conditions of the country. With this system, the DPRK has become possessed of another new-type inter-continental ballistic rocket weaponry system capable of carrying super-heavy nuclear warhead and attacking the whole mainland of the U.S.

Greatly satisfied with the at-a-go success in the test-fire of the newly developed ICBM Hwasong-15, respected Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un was so excited to express his great satisfaction and extend his heartfelt gratitude to all those who took part in the development of the new type rocket weapon system.

He said that the day was a significant day when the historic cause of completing the state nuclear force, the cause of building a rocket power was realized, adding that the day, on which the great might of putting the strategic position of the DPRK on a higher stage was given birth, should be specially recorded in the history of the country.

The dazzling achievements made in all fields of the country recently including the field of national defence science are a great victory which can be won only by the heroic people of the DPRK who remain true to the cause of our Party without vacillation, weathering all tempests of history.

He warmly congratulated scientists, technicians, workers and officials in the field of the defence science who demonstrated once again the dignity and might of Juche Korea by succeeding in the test-fire of the newly-developed ICBM Hwasong-15, and had a photo taken with them.

He was accompanied by Jang Chang Ha, Jon Il Ho, Jo Yong Won and Yu Jin.

Political News Team

Copyright @ 2017 by The Rodong Sinmun. All rights reserved.


From Rodong Sinmun : Clicky

A whole bunch (42) of launch and pre-launch pictures including the 9 axle mobile launch vehicle:

Photos Clicky


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Nov 2017 19:44

Denmark F-35 Procurement Cost : 27 Aircraft, associated spares and support, simulators, and upgrades (introduces early block 4 technology refresh instead of the block 3F configuration). Total cost of the purchase DKK 16.3 Billion / $2.6 Billion or roughly $95 Million per unit. That's probably really really close to the $80-85 Million Fly-Away cost plus spares, support, sims etc.

Denmark Begins F-35 Procurement Process


LONDON—The Danish defense ministry has begun the process of purchasing its F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Government publications pertaining to the program published on Nov. 16 have revealed the defense ministry has requested DKK16.374 billion ($2.62 billion) to buy the 27 F-35As, engines, four simulators and a pool purchase of spares, support equipment, modification work and upgrades up to 2026.

The Danish purchase will be phased with a contract and order planned for 2018 for 10 aircraft. Four are to be delivered in 2021 and six following in 2022. The purchase of the remaining 17 aircraft will be carried out through a “series of subsequent payments,” to be paid through until 2027. The Danish aircraft will be initially delivered to Luke AFB, Arizona, where they will be used to support initial pilot training, as with other F-35 operating nations. The aircraft will then be progressively transferred to the Danish air base at Skrydstrup, near the German border, to become Denmark’s main F-35 operating base from 2022.

The documents state that although all the Danish F-35s will be based in-country from 2022, “there may be a need for an additional training flight in the U.S.”

Copenhagen says its aircraft will be delivered in two configurations. The first 10 will be delivered in Technology Refresh 2 (TR-2), while the remaining 17 will arrive in Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3), which will bring several changes to the cockpit. Several companies, including Elbit and Harris, have already declared their involvement in these upgrade packages. The first 10 aircraft will be upgraded to TR-3 standard later.

Work to prepare the Skrydstrup airbase for the F-35 is expected to cost around DKK650 million, although the documents say this does not cover work which might be needed in case of crisis and war, which would mean that additional investments might be needed. Permissions to begin construction are expected in 2019.

Denmark’s 27 F-35s will replace a roughly 48-strong fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons which have been upgraded to Mid-Life Update standard. The F-16s will be used for national defense tasks until 2023. In 2024 F-16 and F-35 operations will be briefly concurrent, until the national duties are taken on by the F-35 entirely from 2025. Copenhagen will not be able to perform any international missions with its fighters between 2022 and 2027 as the air force transitions between the two types, although the F-35 could perform “limited international operations” from 2025 if needed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 01 Dec 2017 17:20

What We’ve Learned About North Korea’s New Hwasong-15 Long Range ICBM.

This Wednesday’s North Korean missile launch test of the new Hwasong-15 was first detected by one of only four South Korean Air Force 737 AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning & Control) aircraft, called “Peace Eye”. The surveillance aircraft (based on the Boeing 737 airliner) were delivered to South Korea between May and October of 2012. They are based at Gimhae Air Base. South Korea claims the missile was detected, “within one minute of launch”. The missile was soon also observed on radar by at least one South Korean Navy Sejong-the-Great class destroyer at sea using their AN/SPY-1D antennae and Aegis Combat System.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chola » 02 Dec 2017 14:17

From the paki forums:

TSP has ordered 50 T129 attack helos from Turkey, beating out the underpowered Z-10 from their tallest and deepest PRC fliends.

(Pakis also looking at Milgem corvettes.)

Turks are moving up in the food chain with their MIC.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chola » 02 Dec 2017 15:07

Turkey has caught my interest. They have risen quickly on the world market offering attack helos, trainers and drones.

The Turks have access to Western technology as we do — maybe a little more since they are NATO (but balanced by the fact they are muslim.) They also seemed to have negotiated control of that tech to export.

We don’t get our MIC in order some time soon, we’ll behind a lot of nations on the global marketplace not including the P5 — South Korea, Brazil and now Turkey it seems.

http://www.janes.com/article/76005/pakistan-reaffirms-interest-in-acquiring-t129-atak-combat-helos

https://quwa.org/2017/11/08/turkey-pitches-t129-anka-hurkus-southeast-asian-requirements/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-tai-targets-global-market-with-new-attack-he-443205/

Image

Image

Image

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 03 Dec 2017 09:18

^^ Turkey is a very underrated player when it comes to defence exports. If embargos hit the middle east anywhere in the future, the GCC can buy most of what they need from turkey. They make some good small arms (almost always license produced or ripped off german designs) with good tolerances and finish. Their defence industry is almost as capable as a medium european power, say Italians, overall. They are producing a little bit of everything. Firtina artillery, anka uav, altay mbt, few trainer aircrafts, SOM missile for F-35, t-129 attack helicopters and near about every ground forces equipment. Their defence industry has a lot of parallels in the Indian industry, with a lot of critical components coming in from european suppliers.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chola » 03 Dec 2017 09:51

Yes, it’ll be interesting to see how Turkey progresses with the TFX in comparison with the AMCA as well as the South Korean KFX. (My personal bet is on SoKo judging by the rapid and successful management of the T-50 program. Though the T-129 beating the more or less established Z-10 bodes very well for the Turks.)

The next to get to a 5th Gen fighter will create a lot of prestige for a non-P5 MIC.

Both Turkey and SoKo began their aerospace industry screwdriver giri-ing the F-Solah. A lesson there?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Dec 2017 15:43

S. Korea, U.S. begin massive air combat drills


SEOUL, Dec. 4 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States kicked off a major air force exercise here Monday against North Korea's threats, with two dozen U.S. stealth jets mobilized.

The five-day Vigilant ACE (air combat exercise) comes less than a week after the North fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and declared the completion of its "nuclear force."

The annual training has drawn keen media attention, although it was scheduled before the provocation.

It's known as the largest-ever combined air force drill between the allies, involving more than 230 warplanes and around 12,000 personnel.

They include six F-22 Raptors and six F-35As, which have been deployed temporarily to Korea for the practice.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chola » 04 Dec 2017 16:06

brar_w wrote:S. Korea, U.S. begin massive air combat drills


SEOUL, Dec. 4 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States kicked off a major air force exercise here Monday against North Korea's threats, with two dozen U.S. stealth jets mobilized.

The five-day Vigilant ACE (air combat exercise) comes less than a week after the North fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and declared the completion of its "nuclear force."

The annual training has drawn keen media attention, although it was scheduled before the provocation.

It's known as the largest-ever combined air force drill between the allies, involving more than 230 warplanes and around 12,000 personnel.

They include six F-22 Raptors and six F-35As, which have been deployed temporarily to Korea for the practice.



Holy crap, 230 warplanes! We usually send a dozen Su-30s to Red Flag and the USAF about the same to Cope India.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Dec 2017 16:10

Not all of these aircraft will be fighters and the majority of them will be South Korean. From WaPo on US aircraft participating -

The U.S. Seventh Air Force sent major strategic military assets, including an unusually large number of the latest generations of stealth fighter jets, for the annual training in the Korean Peninsula. They include six F-22 and 18 F-35 stealth fighter jets. About 12,000 U.S. military personnel are participating. In total, 230 aircraft will be flying at eight U.S. and South Korean military installations in the South.


It is likely that the B-1s or even B-2s could participate in but won't likely operate from SoKo bases during these 5 days.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Dec 2017 18:05

Dutch F-35As at the Star Wars Canyon. (Photos by Frank Crebas)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 04 Dec 2017 20:08

Photoshop on the inlets ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Dec 2017 20:11

There is no photoshop.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Dec 2017 20:33

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... v=top-news

analysis of a burqan missile strike on riyadh airport that evaded a 4 round pac3 salvo - videos inside incl the SAMs going out

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Dec 2017 21:07

The missiles were PAC-2's as can be seen by the video of the missile launches (quite easy to distinguish PAC-2 acceleration of that of the PAC-3 which also has an initial maneuver using thrusters). Saudi Arabia has not yet converted its Patriot batteries to support PAC-3 configuration which is likely to happen in the 2018-2019 time-frame. The missile did not evade per say but the missile impact was likely not direct and the warhead may have suffered less or no damage. Hence you see missile components littered outside of the impact point. This is similar to the classic Patriot-2 problem that occurred during the Gulf War where missiles were being hit but since the TBMs were being launched at the very limit of their envelope they were crumbling up and leading to interceptors damaging missile bodies/motors and other parts.

This was the entire premise behind developing the ERINT that eventually lead to the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE which not only rely on the advanced lethality warhead but also Hit To Kill which creates way more energy and destruction than a warhead going off using a proximity sensor, while also allowing for a Ka band active RF seeker to do end game discrimnation. Similarly, even though the PAC-3 does not have the high-altitude envelope of the PAC-2 it still manages to intercept ballistic missiles at higher altitude than the PAC-2 given its acceleration and the ability use the thrusters to rapidly perform an out of plane manuever which saves time. Same reason why discrimination of the radar was improved under the signals processor upgrade as part of the Configuration 3+ enhancements. This was done so that if these missiles break apart warheads can be more accurately detected and tracked vs debris.

The article also fails to cover the impact damage to see if the warhead that did impact actually was fully intact or was able to result in a damage that would be commensurate with a live warhead of the missile type in question. Saudi's despite of all the investments had neglected their Patriot modernization, choosing to focus on offensive capability first (Typhoon and F-15 purchase). Their Patriot modernization which includes radar component modernization, and PAC-3 didn't happen till a few years ago and will take a few more years to fully realize. Till then they'll be vulnerable to the known PAC-2 issues with TBM targets, something that the US-Army itself discovered during Gulf War. Although this has been mitigated to some extent via missile component upgrades (not sure Saudi's have those) but it remained a significant enough area of concern that the US Army chose not completely replace their upgraded Patriot batteries to use PAC-3s for TBM and keep only 1 launcher of PAC-2 for AAW since it is a larger missile that lofts higher and can therefore get more range against air-breathing targets. Most other Patriot user community has done the same, including the UAE that iirc operates an all PAC-3 configuration.
Last edited by brar_w on 04 Dec 2017 21:25, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, chola, deejay, navneeet, uskumar and 37 guests