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: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Sep 2017 17:40

JayS wrote:A question to brar_w. OT here, may can be taken to Engine thread. Whats the weight of F119..? The weight quoted on wiki ~1800kg, is that including the TVC in it..?? Looks higher to me than expected.


From what I understand, the contracted all up propulsion system includes the TV system and the nozzle. This is how engines are delivered by the OEM as the unique TV nozzles are very much an integral part of the design that P&W furnished to the airframe prime. So yes, the weight estimate (no idea where RAND got it from though) would include it. Both these engines also have IR supression requirements that their legacy counterparts in the teens did not have so those also add to the weight but are necessary given performance requirements sought by the ATF and JSF programs.

Image

I remember us having this conversation earlier. Refer to this forum/thread for additional information. I had earlier provided the picture referenced in the thread (link to which is broken).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... ic=12335.0

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 13 Sep 2017 17:47

brar_w wrote:
JayS wrote:A question to brar_w. OT here, may can be taken to Engine thread. Whats the weight of F119..? The weight quoted on wiki ~1800kg, is that including the TVC in it..?? Looks higher to me than expected.


From what I understand, the contracted all up propulsion system includes the TV system and the nozzle. This is how engines are delivered by the OEM as the unique TV nozzles are very much an integral part of the design that P&W furnished to the airframe prime. So yes, the weight estimate (no idea where RAND got it from though) would include it.

Image


Hmm. I would expect ~1500kg for the engine alone without the TVC. I always considered F119 to be of T:W ~ 10.5 class. Since its designed for super cruise, that would take a toll on the dry weight and would reduce T:W somewhat (not considering anything related to TVC or LO related weight addition). But it definitely cannot have 1800kg weight for the basic engine.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3403
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 14 Sep 2017 23:26

RSAF Typhoon crashes in Yemen, pilot killed

A Saudi warplane has crashed in Yemen’s southern province of Abyan for unknown reasons, killing the pilot onboard.

The Typhoon warplane crashed into a mountain in Al Wade'a district on Wednesday, Yemen’s Saba news agency reported.

The report identified the pilot as Mahna al-Biz.

Last week, a UAE pilot was also killed in another warplane crash in Yemen.

..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Sep 2017 23:40

Likely shot down , the f-16 too were shot down , yemen has old but good AD and have shot few GCC aircraft on their territory

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Sep 2017 00:49

brar_w wrote:
I remember us having this conversation earlier. Refer to this forum/thread for additional information. I had earlier provided the picture referenced in the thread (link to which is broken).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... ic=12335.0


I remember now after looking at that thread. I have tried to confirm what it exactly means when they say:

Pratt points out that the F119 and F135 are the only production engines with stealthy augmentors. Their design eliminates conventional spray bars and flame holders and integrates multi-zone reheat fuel injection into curved vanes that block the line-of-sight to the turbine


But couldn't. I think they mean the AB fuel spray is integrated in the Turbine Exhaust Case. I was actually looking if they have a patent or something on this.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3403
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 15 Sep 2017 02:25

From AW&ST

Local Content In Japanese F-35s Behind Target

BEIJING—Early Japanese F-35s are not meeting targets for local content, the government’s Board of Audit says.
A lack of material from the U.S. prevented Mitsubishi Electric and IHI Corp. from supplying any parts for Japan’s first two F-35s, the board found.

The next four, of a total of 42 programmed, may be similarly affected, according to the board’s report, which was cited by local media including the Nikkei, Asahi and Yomiuri newspapers.

Neither the intended Japanese parts nor the lacking U.S. material are identified. Mitsubishi Electric is supposed to supply seven parts for the F-35’s Northrop Grumman APG-81 radar and three for the Lockheed Martin Electro-Optical Targeting System. IHI is due to build 19 parts for the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine.

Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011 to replace F-4 Phantoms. The government ordered the first two in September 2013, at which time the Japanese suppliers were also contracted for their parts by Northrop Grumman and Pratt & Whitney.

Lockheed Martin assembled the first four Japanese F-35s. MHI assembled the fifth and delivered it in June. Since the report has firm conclusions about the content in only the first two aircraft, it was evidently prepared some time ago. The report was issued on Sept. 13.

The three Japanese companies have invested ¥171.6 billion ($1.558 billion) in preparation for their work on the F-35, Nikkei says.

Unit cost has risen to ¥15.7 billion for each of the six aircraft budgeted in fiscal 2016 from ¥9.7 billion each for the four in the fiscal 2012 budget. A major cause was depreciation of the yen.

The Board of Audit notes that the defense ministry’s estimate of F-35A total life cycle cost has risen by 16%, to ¥2.2287 trillion.

The values are in current-year, not constant-year, currency.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3403
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 15 Sep 2017 02:35

From AW&ST

18 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets cleared for Canada, should Canada decide to buy them..the cost is estimated to be potentially as much as $5.2 billion for 18 jets!

Less than a year after the Canadian government started negotiating with Boeing to buy 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets, the U.S. State Department let Congress know on Sept. 11 that it had approved a potential Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of the aircraft.

The package, worth up to $5.2 billion, includes 10 F/A-18E and eight F/A-18F Super Hornets. Both variants will use the F414-GE-400 engine and will be fully equipped with active, electronically scanned array radars, electronic warfare systems, countermeasures, and other equipment.


Canada, which uses 1980s-era CF-18s, has described the Super Hornet as an “interim” choice to maintain its fighter fleet while the nation selects a new CF-X fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The service currently has 57 CF-18A and 20 CF-18B fighters.

The announcement of the interim purchase was a blow to Lockheed Martin. Canada is one of the nine original partner nations on the F-35 program, and the previous government had sought to purchase 65 Joint Strike Fighters. Other contenders for a CF-X contract include the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab JAS 39 Gripen.

..

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35341
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Sep 2017 09:12

U.S. Air Force Cadets 'Invented' a Stealth Fighter

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hter-22281

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Sep 2017 02:33


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Sep 2017 10:46

Yars Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launched from Plesetsk Cosmodrome


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Sep 2017 12:20

SoKo's new Taurus ASM<with a range of 500KM.The US is helping SoKo and violating the MTCR ,providing it with help.

Watch as South Korea's new Taurus cruise missile hits target, in stark warning to Kim Jong-un
Our Foreign Staff
13 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 9:21AM
South Korea said Wednesday it conducted its first live-fire drill for an advanced air-launched cruise missile it says will strengthen its pre-emptive strike capability against North Korea in the event of crisis.

South Korea's military said the Taurus missile fired from an F-15 fighter jet traveled through obstacles at low altitudes before hitting a target off the country's western coast.

The missile, manufactured by Germany's Taurus Systems, has a maximum range of 500 kilometers (310 miles) and is equipped with stealth characteristics that will allow it to avoid radar detection before hitting North Korean targets, according to Seoul's Defence Ministry.

A Taurus missile is about to hit the target CREDIT: SOUTH KOREA DEFENSE MINISTRY VIA AP
South Korea has been accelerating efforts to ramp up its military capabilities in face of a torrent of nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, which on September 3 conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear test to date.

Shortly after the nuke test, Seoul announced it reached an agreement with Washington to remove the warhead weight limits on South Korean ballistic missiles, which under a bilateral guideline could be built for a maximum range of 800 kilometers (497 miles). :eek:

The Taurus missile fired from a South Korean air force F-15K fighter jet hits its target
The missile, fired from a South Korean air force F-15K fighter jet, hits the target CREDIT: SOUTH KOREA DEFENSE MINISTRY VIA AP
A pre-emptive strike against Pyongyang's leadership would be difficult to undertake, but it's widely seen as the most realistic of the limited military options Seoul has to deny a nuclear attack from its rival.

The North said its latest nuclear test was a detonation of a thermonuclear weapon built for its developmental intercontinental ballistic missiles that were flight tested twice in July.

Bang on - the Taurus missile blows through its target
Bang on - the Taurus missile blows through the middle of the target CREDIT: SOUTH KOREA DEFENSE MINISTRY VIA AP
The country is also developing solid-fuel missiles that could be fired from land mobile launchers or submarines.

It flew a powerful new midrange missile over northern Japan last month while declaring more missile tests targeting the Pacific Ocean.
The Taurus long-range air-to-surface missile fired from a South Korean Air Force F-15K fighter jet CREDIT: AFP

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Sep 2017 15:03

Taurus is not an American system but a joint Germany/SAAB undertaking. Had the US really wanted to provide long range cruise missiles to the ROKAF they could have cleared the JASSM or JASSM-ER which has a 1000 km range and which is compatible with their F-15Ks. The US Congress denied this request with the ROKAF having to chose the Taurus (which had an integration cost) and the SLAM-ER which has a shorter range. As far as the warhead weights on their ballistic missiles, those are not systems imported by the South Koreans, Hyunmoo (2/3) is an indigenous program. Anyhow, this warhead weight limit was a result of a bi-lateral pact with the US and South Korea, and had nothing to do with MTCR.

Tactically, those F-15Ks would probably be tasked with harder targets if hostilities ever break out. Given their mission systems and the abilities to carry multiple EO/IR sensors and SAR pods, I'd think they would be best tasked with finding and engaging rapidly relocatable targets that require some level of man in the loop discrimination. Same with their F-35As. For long range cruise missile strike against fixed targets you have B-1s that can be armed to the teeth with up to 2 dozen JASSM-ERs on top of the TLAMs that can be launched from the sea.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby VishalJ » 21 Sep 2017 16:31


vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 21 Sep 2017 20:07


Image

Nice, over here anything that's not traditional will not work, in that sense Ka-226 with an interchangeable cabin, the Chinook with tandem rotors and the Apache with Longbow radar all are welcome additions.

On the engine side, the French are experimenting with diesel-electric engines on their Helos and another engine maker, an American one, from an article you linked recently shows extraction of 1MW power from the turbine shaft directly in addition to thrust

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Sep 2017 22:53

Video of rare encounter between RuAF & USAF flying close over Syria, more than we get a chance to see. Note Su-27SM(?)armed with R-77-1 &F-18 with AIM-9X.

https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/stat ... 6734182400

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20259
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Prem » 22 Sep 2017 09:54


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20259
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Prem » 22 Sep 2017 09:55


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Sep 2017 16:20

Scaled Composites has, for the first time, shared high resolution images of its prototype aircraft that Northrop Grumman had considered as its offering for the USAF T-X competition, before choosing not to bid.

Image

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/ScaledC/status/910988853506220032

Prithwiraj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 57
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Prithwiraj » 23 Sep 2017 17:59

Stunning display by Rafale in Sion Airshow - Switzerland Mountains


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2017 19:20

Northrop's flying wing legacy in one graphic -

Image

Was lucky enough to catch the B-2 at an air show last week..Though I've seen do a flyby before at a sports event but it was still as if I was seeing it for the first time.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2017 20:53

vasu raya wrote:Ah! thanks, is there a tradeoff between dwell time and laser power needed? and USAF opting for AC130 based system is to get the Coil based one quicker to fielding? than the compact SSLs

Recently there was a test of Apache mounted laser, the specs are similar?



Nope, there is nothing happening in the COIL world. COIL laser on the C-130 was demonstrated (live firings) years ago, and of course the megawatt class YAL. SSLs take up significantly less space and are more efficient, and don't want costly, and potentially hazardous chemicals to be stored onboard. The USAF, USN and US-Army have now fully committed to SSLs and Fiber lasers. The reason there is a bigger push on AC130 is because of SOCOM demand being the most active. SOCOM wants to add an SSL but does not want to loose any other capability to pay for it so that is where the challenge lies. The laser should be integrated on the platform in the next couple of years. There are three programs of importance here, one is to integrate something on the AC-130 for special forces needs, another is to develop a pod mounted self defense SSL for supersonic fighters, and another is to prepare HELADS for multiple air-borne, land based, or ship based use. AC-130 should happen shortly, the fighter laser will begin demonstrations starting 2021-2022 and progressively move to full up DE shots a few years later. HELADS is now in its 3rd generation and the USN is taking the technology and integrating it on a DDG 51 destroyer with the Northrop Grumman integrated system to perform at sea testing (150kW) next year. Then there is a black area on what sort of space, weight and power is provisioned on the B-21.

Besides this there are number of efforts..Army is already shooting down small UASs with its 6-10kW system mounted on a Stryker and there are plans to go ahead and move it to a 10kW system and eventually to a 50kW system on the same platform. HEL-MD is also moving to a 60 kW system and the eventual goal is to field a 60kW system on a FMTV and a 150kW on a HEMTT. These are all medium risk areas and should happen within the next decade. The risk is still scaling up to 200-300 kW range for all applications.

The Apache program is internal Raytheon effort, likely meant to provide them a leg up when it comes to integrating a laser on a helicopter with all the issues associated with the same.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Sep 2017 21:31, edited 1 time in total.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 23 Sep 2017 21:02

when the eventual goal is 200-300kW systems, is there a chart mapping the power needed vs. various types of targets neutralized at typical distances?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2017 21:04

^ Here is more on the AFSOC demonstrations planned fairly soon -

Flight Tests for Laser-Equipped AC-130 Expected in FY18


ORLANDO, Fla. — Air Force Special Operations Command is “months to maybe a year out” from flight testing a directed energy weapon aboard an AC-130 gunship, its leader said March 3.

Feedback from initial tests of the capability at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, have allowed the command move forward with a proof of concept phase, said Lt. Gen. Marshall "Brad" Webb at the Air Force Association’s annual Air Warfare Symposium.


The White Sands tests showed that a low kilowatt laser could be controlled and aimed. Next, "We will take the next step of upping the kilowattage and go from there,” he said.

Special Operation Command's program executive office fixed wing has been working to outfit an AC-130J Ghostrider with a laser. Its stated goal is to equip an aircraft with a directed energy weapon by the end of the decade. SOCOM officials have previously discussed the possibility of outfitting an AH-64 Apache helicopter with a laser weapon, and analysts have noted it could also potentially be mounted on an MH-60 Black Hawk.

The command continues to perform tests to see where it could place a laser weapon on the gunship, Webb said.

“There are multiple options that we got to play out,” he said. The possibility of placing the weapon in a gunport, or having it support the existing gunships, are options the service is exploring, he added.

“That’s what we want to get to: Where does it make sense? What mix of weapons could you go with or should it go with?” he said.

But the command remains short on funding, Webb said.

“We have funding to do the first steps. Over the course of what we want to do with the program, we’re still short money-wise, but I am confident … we’ll be able to get more funding,” he said, adding that should the command receive more funding in fiscal year 2018, it could possibly go toward directed energy investments.

The continued interest of both government officials and members of industry could help bring more funding to the project, he noted.

“There are a lot of vendors who are really contributing to and continuing to push that technology along, he said, adding that companies have invested their own money into the project, though he did not say which companies.

The Air Force has been conducting a series of studies to determine how directed energy could be used as an offensive and/or defensive capability. AFSOC has been looking at the technology primarily from an offensive standpoint, while other commands have been investigating its defensive potentials, Webb said.

“I still contend an offensive capability, which is what we’re looking at … is contributory to the defense aspects that other commands are looking at,” he said.

The Air Force’s Air Mobility Command is studying where the technology might make sense as a defensive capability for tankers and other aircraft, its leader said March 2.

Gen. Carlton Everhart told reporters he was “all for it.” The command is in the process of working with the Air Force Research Laboratory and conducting studies to determine the feasibility of adding the capability to aging legacy aircraft such as the KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft, so they are able to support fifth-generation aircraft in the future threat environment, he said.

But Everhart noted that he did not see the technology fielded in the near future.

“I see it happening in the near-term future, roughly five to 10 years,” he said. “But I need something to be able to keep those aircraft viable.”

Acting Air Force Secretary Lisa Disbrow said in her keynote address that the Air Force is “accelerating investments in directed energy applications.” And Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told reporters he was interested in how directed energy technology could enable a “silent sabotage” capability for the service.

As the military moves toward a future multi-domain war environment that must defend against attacks on land, at sea, in space, in the air and in cyberspace, the ability to strike an adversary without revealing an airman’s position could be beneficial, he said.

“When we drop the bombs, you know who we are, you know where we are. That’s an attributable effect,” he said."If all of a sudden, something goes away as a result of directed energy, that brings us unattributable potential that perhaps allows us to move in a new direction relative to how we create effects. So I”m one that’s quite interested in that.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2017 21:09

vasu raya wrote:when the eventual goal is 200-300kW systems, is there a chart mapping the power needed vs. various types of targets neutralized at typical distances?


The image linked below would help, but keep in mind these are application dependent (air to air, air to ground, ground to air, ground to ground etc) and also mission dependent (offensive/defensive). It would require much higher power, and laser on time on target to destroy a cruise missile from the ground then it would form the air. Similarly, it may require a much higher power to destroy the missile aerodynamically but much less power and much less time to impact its seeker or communication/navigation. Ranges are also variable depending upon application and type of target and largely dependent on the efficiency. I believe systems at the cutting edge of SSL and Fiber lasers are approaching high 40% operating effecieincy so on a net it depends upon the technology and efficiency as opposed to raw power. This is where the focus seems to be heading in the short term. I've earlier written in detail about Ground based mobile, and fixed applications HERE.

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... RODUCE.jpg

This is obviously very broad and general. Class I UASs the fly below 2000 ft don't really need very much power to defeat them at their sensor ranges. The US Army has been knocking dozens of them out with a 2-5kW system at short range (2-4 km). When you go up to 10kW it allows you to get a bit more additional range (its not linear) and requires less time on target to get the effect so you could move between targets faster or kill more targets before requiring a recharge.

Below is a 30 kW demonstration of a fiber laser against a class I UAS. This particular project is Lockheed funded but they have just delivered a fiber laser twice its power (60kW) to the US Army and it should begin testing in the next few months. HELAD has not yet moved from a fixed fixture apparatus to a mobile truck based platform (like FMTV or HEMTT) so until then, the 60 kW Lockheed system is the most powerful system integrated on a ground based platform out there. This will then be superseded by the US Navy's 150 kW laser that is expected to begin ship based testing in the next year or two.



Lockheed Martin has completed the design, development and demonstration of a 60 kW-class beam for the US Army.In testing earlier this year, the Lockheed Martin system produced a single beam of 58 kW, representing a world record for a system of this type. The Lockheed Martin team met all contractual deliverables for the system and is preparing to ship it to the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command in Huntsville, Ala.

“Delivery of this represents an important milestone along the path to fielding a practical laser weapon system,” said Paula Hartley, vice president, Owego, New York general manager and Advanced Product Solutions within Lockheed Martin’s Cyber, Ships & Advanced Technologies line of business. “This milestone could not have been achieved without close partnership between the U.S. Army and Lockheed Martin; we are pleased to be able to deliver this system for their further integration and evaluation.” LINK

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 23 Sep 2017 21:43

The Stryker is mentioned with a offensive role using its 5kW system to shoot down low end drones, how about a defensive role like the Active Protection System envisaged for light armored vehicles? can they acheive that with a 50kW system specifically neutralizing RPGs, PGMs and anti tank missiles

Artillery shells and tank rounds seem beyond the 100kW range

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 23 Sep 2017 21:55

And I haven't heard on why CIWS systems like the Phalanx haven't integrated the laser director from the above Laser programs so few shots do the kill? and not waste a whole lot of lead.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 23 Sep 2017 22:01

vasu raya wrote:And I haven't heard on why CIWS systems like the Phalanx haven't integrated the laser director from the above Laser programs so few shots do the kill? and not waste a whole lot of lead.

Phalanx type systems are last ditch efforts and are meant to make a wall of lead milliseconds before a missile hits. The last thing that one wants at this stage is frugality and cost savings on bullets/shells. Tracking with a laser, illuminating, passing the information to the gun, making it track via the actuators all take more time than building a cloud of metal in the general direction of the incoming missile.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 23 Sep 2017 22:17

Shiv, the assumption is for a land based scenario there is some early tracking of say aircraft delivered PGMs which are neutralized once they are in the gun range, its the terrain hugging cruise missiles that probably give no warning time at all. More than frugality its about more reloads and less pollution which was the discussion here sometime back

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2017 22:28

vasu raya wrote:The Stryker is mentioned with a offensive role using its 5kW system to shoot down low end drones, how about a defensive role like the Active Protection System envisaged for light armored vehicles? can they acheive that with a 50kW system specifically neutralizing RPGs, PGMs and anti tank missiles

Artillery shells and tank rounds seem beyond the 100kW range


Current systems have shown good effect on the smaller end mortar threat. Counter rocket and artillery likely requires 75-150 kW at higher efficiency levels but that is not going to be very far out.

Boeing's HEL MD was integrated with a 10kW laser a few years ago, and below is a video of it in action against the threat type. The laser lockheed delivered to the US Army in August bumps up the power to 60kW on the same platform. Looking at the 10kW laser vs mortar one can imagine what something with 6 times more power, and likely higher efficiency can do against this and perhaps a larger threat type.

You could field this system relatively quickly if required but operationally, this will move from a HEMTT to an FMTV for smaller size and greater mobility/deployability etc but as a technology getting a 50-60kW system out there is fairly mature. What isn't mature however is the industrial base to support mass production for operational use with many suppliers in the US requiring a few years and a significant amount of money to ramp up and create capacity for the defense need.



HEL-MD currently mounts an off-the-shelf 10-kilowatt laser, but it will be upgraded next year to a custom-built 50-60 kW weapon, with potential for 100 kW and above. It’s already shot down drones and mortar rounds, and the higher power levels should make it capable against rockets and even artillery shells. LINK


^ From my earlier link, Lockheed delivered the higher power Fiber laser in August of this year.



As far as offensive missions, yes, the US Army is beginning to now talk about offensive missions particularly against seekers and tank sights and laser rangefinders. Lockheed has demonstrated ground to ground capability of its 30kW system by using a vehicle. Now stopping a truck is much harder than disabling a seeker or electronic sight of a system so you can do that with lower power, or at longer range and with a smaller laser on time.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... laser.html

Remember operationally, the Stryker will likely show up with a 10kW system but will soon move to something closer to a 50kW system rather quickly. Internally, General Dynamics and Boeing have a target range of 30kW - 75 kW for the Phase II of their Stryker vehicle based DE system so 40-50kW is likely a good range to assume say by the middle of next decade if not earlier (Operationally. They are on record of claiming that they require a 2-3 year lead time from contract award to demonstrations of an integrated system within that range if given the green light) That seems to be the best mix of platform survivability and mobility and technical capability. Larger systems will be integrated with air defense systems starting with a 60-100 kW system as part of the IFPC which is a SHORAD system and likely 150-300 kW systems alongside Patriot batteries closer to the end of the next decade.

As I mentioned in my write up on the Stryker, the low end systems are actually in higher operational demand. A 5-20kW system mounted on a Stryker, or JLTV or a 20-30kW system on an FMTV is going to be great to take out the Sub $5000 UAVs that fly low and as ISIS has shown can even carry weapons. If you move up the price point to say $50,000 UASs then you can make them more jam proof so cheap EW solutions alone may not cut it. US Army demand is for something that can come below the Stinger almost immediately (next 3-5 years) and then they can scale up to larger systems.

vasu raya wrote:And I haven't heard on why CIWS systems like the Phalanx haven't integrated the laser director from the above Laser programs so few shots do the kill? and not waste a whole lot of lead.



Ship based systems are going after this threat. The USN like I mentioned is integrating a 150 kW laser on the DDG 52 with the demonstrations of the laser weapon to occur out at sea relatively shortly (next year or two). Currently, the USN has a trial system out on the USS Ponce that is at 30kW power. Next year or soon thereafter they'll field a system with 5 times the power. This will likely allow longer range engagement against anti ship weapons than the Phalynx so no reason you can't do both. 150kW will likely not neutralize the seeker or weapon by itself but the advantages are there since you are talking about a speed of light weapon. Engage it long enough, and you can bring about thermal challenges on the weapon that will negatively impact design weight and cost of future systems. Now add Electronic Warfare, ESSM, SeaRAM, Phalynx and you have a much better layered system.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15760
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Sep 2017 07:51

'We are planning weekly rocket launches'

At $5 million a flight. 50 in 52 weeks. NZ!!!

Built a prototype in 4 years.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15760
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Sep 2017 12:54


ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 167
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 25 Sep 2017 01:20

Italian pilot is killed as he fails to eject before his Typhoon jet crashes into the sea during airshow in front of stunned spectators

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Sep 2017 10:40

Two new MiG-29M / M2 for Egypt

Image

A photograph of two new fighters built at the Production Complex No. 1 of RAC MiG in Lukhovitsy (Moscow region) for the Egyptian Air Force - a single-seat MiG-29M with the Egyptian airborne number 8705 (705) and a two-seat MiG-29M2 with Egyptian the onboard number "8804" ("804"). Two new fighters built on the Production Complex No. 1 of RAC MiG for the Egyptian Air Force are a single MiG-29M with the Egyptian side number 8705 (705) and a twin MiG-29M2 with the Egyptian airborne number 8804 (" 804 "). Lukhovitsy (Moscow region), September 26, 2017

Recall that the contract to supply Egypt with more than 50 fighters MiG-29M / M2 was signed by Rosoboronexport in May 2015. The first aircraft under this contract were manufactured at the Production Complex No. 1 of RAC MiG in Lukhovitsy in early 2017. Although the first batch of cars has already been transferred to the Egyptian Air Force, in fact, their delivery to Egypt, according to known data, has not yet begun.


https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2871016.html

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vinod » 27 Sep 2017 12:45

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181
Bombardier hit by tariff in Boeing row

An interim tariff of 220% :shock: has been proposed on the import of Bombardier's C-Series jet to the US.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1242
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Zynda » 27 Sep 2017 14:16

Massive tiff going on between Boeing & Bombardier. Recently the Candian PM JT cancelled the deal with F/A-18E/F deal with Boeing over the tiff. Boeing alleges that Bombardier is benefiting from subsidies which is enabling them to sell their C-Series at up to 50% of listed price (around $80 Mil per plane) to various operators in US. I think the above tariff has to be ratified by an International Trade body to go in to effect.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Sep 2017 16:01

Their fighters acquisition is a clusterf&%*. I guess they'll just move on to acquiring second hand F/A-18's (or not buy anything for a while), complete the current term and just buy the F-35As at a later date, hoping that the public has long forgotten their campaign rhetoric by then (if they win a second term). Boeing cannot compete with the F-35 (either with capability or with cost and industrial participation) when it is being produced in the triple digits annually which would be the case when Canada actually ends up deciding.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 27 Sep 2017 16:53

brar_w wrote:Their fighters acquisition is a clusterf&%*.


That is an understatement. The IAF procurement looks smooth compared to theirs. The Canadians now want to use ex-Aussie F-18s which are probably as old as Canada's own Hornets. I dont understand how they can still claim LM industrial benefits from the F-35 deal even when their government has come to power on the promise of NOT buying the F-35.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Sep 2017 17:03

One must separate rhetoric from action. While the government had a tough anti-F-35 rhetoric during the election, calling it a non-competitively acquired defense equipment etc etc etc, they have since then quietly kept funding their share of the program obligation and have not withdrawn from the program. Meanwhile, the non-competitive rhetoric was suppressed as they quickly looked to buy interim F/A-18E/Fs through a non-competitive means by claiming an urgent unmet need. Since the industrial feud with Boeing, it appears the "urgent need" seems to have vanished and they are exploring just extending the life of their Classic Hornet fleet while ditching the "interim new built fleet" and going straight towards a new competitively acquired aircraft that replaces the classic hornet sometime next decade.

As this slowly churns, the F-35 has gone from a pre IOC program to having declared IOC with 2 of the three US services, has completed most if not all of its weapons integration, is months away from finishing out its SDD phase and is flying with multiple operators in 3 continents. Simply put, the odds of the F-35A coming back and being selected either as a sole source or through a competition are actually quite strong. The current government probably wants to wait it out and claim that the problems they cited earlier have vanished as the product they are getting now is more mature than the one they lobbied against etc etc etc. They played politics with the issue and got some pretty good mileage out of it. But at some point of time they'll move on.

By the time they actually pick a winner (likely 2020-2022 time frame) you will have between 600-800 F-35s delivered, surpassing deliveries of pretty much all of its main competitors.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Sep 2017 17:22

Zynda wrote:Massive tiff going on between Boeing & Bombardier. Recently the Candian PM JT cancelled the deal with F/A-18E/F deal with Boeing over the tiff. Boeing alleges that Bombardier is benefiting from subsidies which is enabling them to sell their C-Series at up to 50% of listed price (around $80 Mil per plane) to various operators in US. I think the above tariff has to be ratified by an International Trade body to go in to effect.


Even Boeing gets subsidies from US Government after all that was also a point of dispute between Airbus and Boeing , So Boeing allegiations might be true but its case of the pot calling the kettle black

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1242
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Zynda » 27 Sep 2017 17:28

^^Forgot to include past Boeing vs Airbus dispute along the same lines...


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, manish singh, prasannasimha, Shakthi and 31 guests