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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 04 Feb 2017 22:43

Now there is a realization that high tech weapons do not defeat low tech adversaries. They hurt them but it begins to hurt the user to keep using them. Hence the reinvention of COIN aircraft.

China is now trying to "challenge" the US in a high tech "per fights peer" battle and they are doing it more affordably (for themselves) than the US. Nowadays all the signals I get from the US is fear and respect of China and IMO China is doing to the US what the US did to the USSR - that is outcompete them on technology which the US could afford and the USSR could not. Eerily when this happened to the USSR they were wasting themselves fighting asymmetric war in Afghanistan - with the Taliban being infused with just enough technology to wear out the USSR, China is now ready to supply just enough high tech weapons to low tech adversaries of the US to keep the US sledging against low tech adversaries while they struggle to keep the the tech edge against China.


OK, lets clear up a few things.

high tech weapons can defeat a low tech adversary.

The challenge is that the high tech user is restricting himself by fighting a PC war while the low tech user does not. just one example....ISIS always seems to have their women and children with therm. Unlike the high tech warrior who is in a warrior only environment, the low tech user must have his women with him to serve him and help take care of logistical concerns. The high tech warrior uses a corporate support logistical system. Thus the high high tech warrior is constrained and if he does indeed kill the low tech women and children it is considered self defeating while the low tech warrior doesn't concern himself with self defeating consequences......he just goes ahead and kills....what's to lose?

I guarantee you, if we turn General Matthis loose with no consequences, he will utterly destroy ISIS.....in a thrice...he will show you what high tech weapons (non nuclear) can really do in a very short amount of time. Of course this will never happen, he will be suitably constrained.

and the tech edge of the US will be maintained as long as their economy can support it. I daresay it is part and parcel of our culture. That is no guarantee however and ultimately all civilizations fail. :(

this is off topic to this thread but I felt it must be addressed because of the inference of the superiority of low tech weapon advantage over high tech weapons is constrained to strategy, only not to a heads up, full bore, damn the consequences win at any cost victory.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4812
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 04 Feb 2017 22:59

Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet

By: Valerie Insinna, February 3, 2017

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. — What happens when the F-35A goes to its very first Red Flag, the Air Force’s premier air-to-air training exercise?

The answer, according to U.S. military and international participants, is that the event itself becomes more challenging than ever, with a greater number of more capable aggressors outfitted with advanced weaponry.

Although the Marine Corps operated its short takeoff, vertical landing variant in the event last year, Red Flag 17-1 marks the debut of the conventional F-35A operated by the Air Force. After almost two weeks, 13 joint strike fighters from Hill Air Force Base in Utah have flown 110 sorties, said Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander.

“It’s a much more difficult adversary that we are fighting against here as a team than we would have fought against a year and a half ago, when I was here last,” Watkins said, referencing his previous Red Flag event, which he flew in as an F-16 pilot.

“They have stepped up the number of red air that we’re fighting — the number of aggressor aircraft that are fighting against us — the amount of jamming and stuff that they’re providing against us, the skill level of the adversary that they are trying to replicate, as well as the surface-to-air missile threat.”

Fifth-generation aggressors will not be introduced during this Red Flag, but the sheer number of fourth-generation adversaries have posed a problem for participants. Up to about 24 adversaries can be in flight at the same time and can regenerate three or four times after being shot down, Watkins said.

The F-35A’s kill ratio stands at 15 aggressors to 1 F-35 killed in action, but because Red Flag is a training exercise, the fighter shouldn’t have a perfect record, he contended.

“If we didn’t suffer a few loses, it wouldn’t be challenging enough, so we’d have to go back and redo it. So there are some threats out there that make it through because of their sheer numbers and the advanced threats that they’re shooting at us. So we have had one or two losses so far in our training,” he said. “That’s good for the pilots.”

Once the F-35 reaches full combat capability, it will be more lethal, Watkins pointed out. The fighter is currently limited to an internal missile loadout, but will be able to carry a full complement of weapons — including external stores — as early as 2018 in Block 3F.

For many pilots of other aircraft, the exercise was their first opportunity to fight alongside the joint strike fighter. Lt. Col. Charles Schuck, an F-22 pilot and commander of the 27th fighter squadron, agreed that this year’s Red Flag featured a larger number of skilled adversaries with advanced capabilities. But his squadron’s experience partnering with the Marine Corps’ F-35Bs last year helped them understand how the F-22 and F-35 could augment each other, he said.

“Getting to work with them gave us a little bit of an advance leg up this time to know what kind of questions to ask our Air Force F-35s so that our knowledge was there,” he said. “And it put us a little out in front in getting ready for the Red Flag, so we didn’t have to start from square one on the very first day.”

Lt. Col. Dave DeAngeles, an F-35A pilot who commands the reserve detachment at Hill AFB, said the mission-planning sessions were critical for understanding how to best utilize the unique capabilities of each asset to cooperatively defeat a threat.

“I'm able to sit with my [E/A-18 Growler] partners and just say: ‘How are you able to go and fight different threats, and how are you able to jam them?’ And I'm able to share: ‘This is how I would fight with my F-35,’ ” he said.

“Then, using the Link 16 network, we're able to kind of pass each other targets as well, so in certain scenarios where they say we need to take out a high-threat [surface-to-air missile] we'll work closely with the Growlers,” he said. While the E/A-18s suppress the threat by jamming and other electronic attacks, “we're able to go ahead and take it out."

The F-35 has particularly excelled in missions where the enemy can launch advanced surface-to-air missiles. Previously, in scenarios with those weapons, blue forces, or friendlies, would put all their energy into taking them out with standoff weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles.

"We'd have to start from that, and then we'd peel back from there,” Watkins said.

This year, Red Flag participants have encountered three or four different advanced surface-to-air-missiles in one scenario. In those situations, cyber, space and signals intelligence assets like the Rivet Joint partner with the F-35 to fuse together targeting information. Then, the F-22 uses its standoff weapons to bring down aggressors while the F-35’s stealth capabilities allow it to slip undetected within range of the missile system, where it drops munitions.

It would be too dangerous for a fourth-generation aircraft like an F-16 to get that close, Watkins said.

darshan
BRFite
Posts: 353
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby darshan » 04 Feb 2017 23:07

@TSJones
How?
Pretty much all high tech solutions are like blowing away 100x more money than what the low tech adversary used. It has become very prevalent in defense industry to kick the can down the road when cheap counter measures etc. are brought up during conceptualization phase. All I hear is that yes but who cares as that will be a new set of requirements and new weapon/sensor and more money our way. Customer does not want to hear that, BD guy does not want to hear that, PM does not want to hear that,.... I am not sure if I will be counting on all those high tech advantages.

Sometimes low tech requires low tech like total sanitation of areas. No other high tech solution can solve an issue when the only solution is sanitation.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2856
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 04 Feb 2017 23:33

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Indranil: I was just surprised when I saw the tweet. That is why I asked brar for an explanation. That tweet is an apples to oranges comparison IMHO. Thank you brar for the analysis.


The F-35A currently (Those ordered yesterday, to be delivered in 18/2019) has a fly-away cost approximately at par to the twin Euro-Canards. The curves for both are on opposite trajectories - The F-35 is in Low Rate production, and is going to transition to Full Rate production in a couple of years. The Typhoon and Rafale are likely reduce production rates in the medium term (following the initial bump that the Rafale has to do to get export sales out). The cost of higher capability here is offset by the higher production rates hence it is price competitive.

All this analysis of cost brings back memories of an advertisement I came across regularly in aviation military magazines by Lockheed Martin in the mid to late 1990s. The product was the F-16. Anyways, LM would extoll the virtues of the aircraft and the final line in the advertisement would be, "Fly away cost - $20 million - with a FULL tank of gas." Obviously the plane was weapons free, but you get the point. Twenty years later...we see the costs of a F-35 and wow!!!

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Feb 2017 00:00

shiv wrote:I can tell lies and pretend to answer your question. But let me be honest and state my viewpoint - which is not "popular". Increasingly China gets "respect" from American sources because they (the Chinese ) are copying everything that Americans have been taught to see as the latest and greatest.


+1

watching recent sci-fi movies from Hollywood would itself give enough indication to even a average joe how China is getting more and more "Respect" in American eyes. May be they US has a sinister intentions and they want to replace USSR of cold war ear by China in 21st century by first posing it to be increasingly credible force and then project it as existential threat. Whatever it may be, I don't know, but the rhetoric is there to see for all.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2856
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Feb 2017 00:22

JayS: I am sure you have heard of President Eisenhower's farewell speech in 1961 on the military industrial complex. Very apt here.

Quote from the 2006 movie, The Good Shepherd...directed by Robert De Niro and starring Matt Damon.

Valentin Mironov #2: Soviet power is a myth. Great show. There are no spare parts. Nothing is working, nothing, it's nothing but painted rust. But you, you need to keep the Russian myth alive to maintain your military industrial complex. Your system depends on Russia being perceived as a mortal threat. It's not a threat. It was never a threat. It will never be a threat. It's a rotted, bloated cow.

After reading the above, watch this video....apologies for the bad quality...but a must see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umERmaxELg8

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 05 Feb 2017 07:09

Rakesh wrote:JayS: I am sure you have heard of President Eisenhower's farewell speech in 1961 on the military industrial complex. Very apt here.

Quote from the 2006 movie, The Good Shepherd...directed by Robert De Niro and starring Matt Damon.

Valentin Mironov #2: Soviet power is a myth. Great show. There are no spare parts. Nothing is working, nothing, it's nothing but painted rust. But you, you need to keep the Russian myth alive to maintain your military industrial complex. Your system depends on Russia being perceived as a mortal threat. It's not a threat. It was never a threat. It will never be a threat. It's a rotted, bloated cow.

After reading the above, watch this video....apologies for the bad quality...but a must see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umERmaxELg8

[url=https://www.facebook.com/GavinNewsom/videos/10154039748458117/] That's a video of George Bush Sr, and Regan talking about immigration from Mexico. They're both arguing about US taking a lead in understanding and helping solve Mexico's problem - which at some point Regan mentions as 40-50% unemployment. But the crux of the argument is when he says something to the effect of "we don't want a cuba on our south borders". The US did lot more than just spend on its military-industrial complex as a strategy to contain the Soviets. This included aid, trade and market access in ways that gave them a lot more leverage than the output of their mil-ind complex.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32128
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 05 Feb 2017 08:14

JayS wrote: May be they US has a sinister intentions and they want to replace USSR of cold war ear by China in 21st century by first posing it to be increasingly credible force and then project it as existential threat. Whatever it may be, I don't know, but the rhetoric is there to see for all.

:D Possibly OT for this thread. But the US needs enemies to beat up to stay busy. If you look at popular culture - WW2 memories kept Hollywood busy till the late 1960s. Then we started getting aliens, and other critters including terror insects and dinosaurs that needed to be fought off - all of which usually ended with US armed forces playing a role. What amused me about these movies was how it was always the US under threat to make it a global threat - like "World famous in Bengaluru". After 9-11 - suddenly humans are back in fashion as adversaries..

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Feb 2017 14:36

Rakesh wrote:JayS: I am sure you have heard of President Eisenhower's farewell speech in 1961 on the military industrial complex. Very apt here.

Quote from the 2006 movie, The Good Shepherd...directed by Robert De Niro and starring Matt Damon.

Valentin Mironov #2: Soviet power is a myth. Great show. There are no spare parts. Nothing is working, nothing, it's nothing but painted rust. But you, you need to keep the Russian myth alive to maintain your military industrial complex. Your system depends on Russia being perceived as a mortal threat. It's not a threat. It was never a threat. It will never be a threat. It's a rotted, bloated cow.

After reading the above, watch this video....apologies for the bad quality...but a must see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umERmaxELg8


Incidentally I saw "Good Shephard" just yesterday night, sometime after I wrote that post of mine. :D

I don't pity Chinese though

shiv wrote: :D Possibly OT for this thread. But the US needs enemies to beat up to stay busy. If you look at popular culture - WW2 memories kept Hollywood busy till the late 1960s. Then we started getting aliens, and other critters including terror insects and dinosaurs that needed to be fought off - all of which usually ended with US armed forces playing a role. What amused me about these movies was how it was always the US under threat to make it a global threat - like "World famous in Bengaluru". After 9-11 - suddenly humans are back in fashion as adversaries..


It amuses me too. Now a days in Hollywood movies though, the Chinese come to help save the day with some key help. :lol: Soon we will be seeing joint US-China teams saving humankind.

But its OT here, I better wrap it up before adminullahs come after me.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32128
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby shiv » 06 Feb 2017 09:53

JayS wrote:
shiv wrote:I can tell lies and pretend to answer your question. But let me be honest and state my viewpoint - which is not "popular". Increasingly China gets "respect" from American sources because they (the Chinese ) are copying everything that Americans have been taught to see as the latest and greatest.


watching recent sci-fi movies from Hollywood would itself give enough indication to even a average joe how China is getting more and more "Respect" in American eyes. May be they US has a sinister intentions and they want to replace USSR of cold war ear by China in 21st century by first posing it to be increasingly credible force and then project it as existential threat. Whatever it may be, I don't know, but the rhetoric is there to see for all.

Well both the US and China are blowing hot and cold about war. That video posted by Rakesh in fascinating, but China is making enough waves to generate US anxiety. And that anxiety is passed vicariously on to Indians.

The US has, over many decades become accustomed to broadcasting a type of technological and military boastfulness which translates to "If you are my friend - rest easy, but if you are my enemy, watch out". It's all about me me me (the US) and my power and my goodness.

Chins is mirroring that behaviour exactly - they have gamed this to a T - displaying the same technolgical and military boastfulness in a vastly compressed time-frame - except that the Chinese are reassuring their own people "You are safe" while they tell adversaries - especially the US "You had better watch out" It's about me me me (China) now. The US is history

For too many years the US has convinced everyone that throwing money at a project makes it succeed. Now the Chinese are saying 'We have the money and we are throwing it at projects - so they must all be successful - so we have caught up with the US". Now everyone thinks that the Chinese have caught up. That is how J-20==F=22 and J-31==F-35

Sorry. OT

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2017 07:10

Singha wrote:When b1s struck south libya in the war to depose
Qadhafi i read they needed 2 weeks to line up the
Tankers


Right but since 911 they have reallocated resources and infrastructure to support the global strike. And it's different case to actual line up tankers to support long range sustained campaign vs deploying them for a mission or global strike. If you wan't to sustain a campaign from afar without regional basing or basing that is huge distances away you need to coordinate especially if you are talking about XXXXX bombs. XXX-XXXX sorties over XX days. Same with Afghanistan, but doable given that the tankers were already there and basing was available.



Air Mobility Command planners described the challenges facing them in March 2011 as “March Madness,” borrowing a term from American college basketball’s hectic tour- nament schedule. Twenty years of near-continual con ict since 1990 had normalized a high pace of operations for mobility forces. But March 2011 presented planners with an exceptional load of predictable as well as unpredictable challenges. By the middle of the month, every available aircraft and unit was taken up with ongoing operations, training, maintenance, and periods of mandatory or at least hoped-for rest. ose ongoing operations included supporting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; providing lift and air refueling for the largest rotation of forces to date between those theaters and the U.S. homeland; participating in contingencies and exercises in support of every combatant command; assisting with the relief of Japan following the earthquake and great tsunami of March 11 (Operation Tomodachi); transporting the President and his large entourage around Latin America (a “Banner” mission); and performing the daily web work of missions linking the components of America’s global military establish- ment. Routine training operations and heavy maintenance also tied down signi cant portions of the eet.

When it came to Libya, the command had no spare airlift or air refueling capacity in reserve to handle a new tasking. Whatever AMC sent to that ght would have to come at the expense of other commitments or the training, maintenance, or rest activi- ties of any units tapped for the mission. In other words, the new requirement poten- tially would put the command into a state of “surge”—a pace of operation not allowing normal levels of training, repair, and rest—although it never was o cially declared as such.24 Nevertheless, as soon as things began to heat up in March, AMC began sending tanker-planning specialists to USAFE and U.S. Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA). Two Air National Guard tankers were already operating from Morón Air Base, Spain, in sup- port of the ongoing rotation of combat aircraft to and from the Middle East. en, with the passage of UNSCR 1973 on March 18, but before issuance of a Joint Chiefs of Sta (JCS) “execution” order, AMC leaders made what one called “the risky decision” of start- ing the movement of seven active-duty tankers to Morón from Puerto Rico, where they had been supporting the Presidential Banner mission. is preliminary move risked get- ting the tankers to Morón without authorization or funding. But AMC leaders saw the risk as necessary to ensure that tankers would be available to support initial operations.

Brigadier General Roy E. Uptegra III, commander of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard’s 171st Air Refueling Wing (ARW) at Pittsburgh, was given the job of putting together an expeditionary wing at Morón Air Base to support Operation Odys- sey Dawn. While driving home from work on March 17, he received a call from a sta er at AMC who passed on a request from the AMC commander, General Raymond E. Johns, to consider “going somewhere far, sometime soon.” Over the next two days, Upt- egra and his sta prepared his wing for deployment. On the afternoon of the 19th, Upt- egra received his orders: Take as many planes and crews as he could to Morón as quickly as possible. He left that night in the rst of four aircraft and arrived at Morón on the morning of the 20th in a plane packed with people, baggage, equipment, and spare parts. As he arrived, a mix of four air reserve component (ARC) and active-duty tankers sent to Morón earlier was returning from having supported the rst B-2 strikes against Libyan air force targets. Other aircraft and hundreds of personnel arrived in short order. In less than 72 hours from receiving his initial orders, Uptegra found himself in command of an expeditionary wing containing as many as 15 KC-135s, 4 KC-10s, and almost 800 personnel drawn from as many as 14 wings from the ARC (the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve) and the active duty Air Force.26 Uptegra named it the “Calico Wing” in re ection of the multicolored array of n ashes on the Morón ramp. e availability of Morón AB greatly facilitated the stand up of the Calico Wing. Morón’s isolated location in southern Spain, nearly 12,000-foot-long runway, huge park- ing ramp, large hangars, and robust personnel support facilities made it an unduplicated base in the region for tanker operations into Libya. Morón’s suitability was not an acci- dent; USAFE and AMC had invested heavily in it for years to maintain it as a “warm” base, ready to host a rapid in ux of air mobility aircraft and personnel during contingen- cies. A USAFE unit, the 496th Air Base Squadron, ran the base with a cadre of about 100 active-duty personnel and up to 600 contract personnel, mostly Spanish nationals.


The arriving airmen did nd some shortfalls in Morón’s readiness to host such a large contingent. Most importantly, the base had released most of the
Spanish contract personnel in a cost-cutting move. Morón’s connectivity to the outside world also was inadequate to the demands of such a large unit. e tanker wing’s initial communica- tions were limited to public phone lines, sporadic unclassi ed email service, only one classi ed U.S. email line (SIPRNET), and no access to NATO’s Battle eld Informa- tion Coordination and Exploitation System (BICES). Maintenance personnel, mean- while, found that much of the available oor space in Morón’s hangars was being used for storage. e main dining facility also was under construction.

The incoming and permanent party personnel solved all of these problems in short order. e contractor company rounded up as many of its former local employees as possible and quickly covered most services requirements. A combat communications squadron’s visit soon cleared up the connectivity shortfalls, and Maintenance gained access to at least some hangar space.28 Finally, the 496th expanded the kitchen sta at the Combined O cer/Enlisted Club to meet the messing challenge.
...

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... _RR676.pdf



NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15493
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2017 07:51

Singha wrote:When b1s struck south libya in the war to depose
Qadhafi i read they needed 2 weeks to line up the
Tankers


IIRC, some of the US allies did not participate in that event and as a result things had to be reworked. IF NATO, etc were to pitch in it could be a diff story.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Feb 2017 19:54

With Trump's warning about F-35 costs,here's some official figures regarding the F-35 and cost of each variant,plus orders to date.It remains yto be seen if these costs/prices hold,or that they're meant to defeat the enemy,called "DOnald"!

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/f-35 ... pets-jobs/
F-35A Drops Below $100M; Trump Pentagon Trumpets Jobs
By COLIN CLARK
on February 03, 2017 at 1:34 PM

WASHINGTON: While President Trump has not yet “saved” American taxpayers “billions of dollars” on the F-35 program as his spokesman claimed recently, today’s deal for 90 planes pushes the average cost of an F-35A below $100 million per plane for the first time.

Plane maker Lockheed Martin has promised the F-35A will drop below $85 million by 2019. And the leader of the F-35 Joint Program Office, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, has promised it will hit between $80 million and $85 million for the plane and its engines. The engines are technically a separate program. The latest costs include the engine and assorted other costs.

LRIP 10 – F-35 Costs:

F-35A: $94.6 million

F-35B: $122.8 million

F-35C $121.8 million

The company says in a statement that the increase in production this marks, “enables us to reduce costs by taking advantage of economies of scale and production efficiencies.” For those who haven’t been reading us regularly, the statement also says that the president’s “personal involvement in the F-35 program accelerated the negotiations and sharpened our focus on driving down the price.” However, Bogdan deserves the credit for bringing the price down and for having kept sharp the government’s focus on both price and quality.

White House press spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump had saved taxpayers $455 million. It’s just not true. His tweets and conversations with Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson clearly helped push the company to the bargaining table. But, as the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee told CNBC in an interview, “This is simply taking credit for what’s been in the works for many months.”

Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan
“The F-35A unit price in LRIP-10, including aircraft, engine and fee, is roughly seven percent lower than the previous LRIP-9 contract. Over the past two procurement lots (LRIP-9 and 10), the price of the F-35A has dropped 12 percent,” today’s Pentagon statement says.

The most interesting twist with this deal is the stress placed in the Pentagon statement on the economic impact of the program.

“The F-35 provides economic stability to the U.S. and Allied nations by creating jobs, commerce and security, and contributing to the global trade balance. Current low rate production supports more than 1,300 suppliers in 45 states, directly and indirectly employing more than 146,000 people. In addition it employees thousands of military and civil service positions at U.S bases both home and abroad making it the single largest -job generator in the Department of Defense.

“Projections indicate those employment figures could more than double in the next four years following a quadrupling of production from the current 45 a year to more than 160 in 2020. For the decade 2011-2020, the F-35 program will create more jobs than any other Department of Defense initiative. In just this decade alone, the F-35 will infuse $60 billion into the economy. This will turn into hundreds of billions of dollars as the program is schedule to last more than 50 years. Along with the American economic impact, the program will provide billions of more dollars in U.S. exports.”

So, if you don’t want jobs or cash injected into the economy, go ahead and criticize the F-35. Dare ya.

Here’s the breakdown of who’s buying which planes:

44 F-35A for U.S. Air Force
9 F-35B for U.S. Marine Corps
2 F-35C for U.S. Navy
3 F-35B for UK
6 F-35A for Norway
8 F-35A for Australia (presumably the sale occurs only if they don’t send us those refugees…)
2 F-35A for Turkey
4 F-35A for Japan
6 F-35A for Israel
6 F-35A for South Korea

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Feb 2017 20:23

With Trump's warning about F-35 costs,here's some official figures regarding the F-35 and cost of each variant,plus orders to date.It remains yto be seen if these costs/prices hold,or that they're meant to defeat the enemy,called "DOnald"!


The US Government signs/awards Firm Fixed Price Contracts for aircraft and engine production. EOC is seperate but even 50% of that is covered by the OEM's and the remaining component for LRIP-10 is sub $1 Million per jet. And yes, these costs will hold and come down further as the production capacity increases (has occured LRIP 1- LRIP 10 and economies of scale is a well understood concept). The next production bump will come 2 years from now, and by next year we will have early contracts and ceilings defined for those as well. LRIP-12 could break the $90 Million URF for CTOL variant with Lot 13 still targeting an $85 Million price tag.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15493
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2017 02:07

Per chance happen to meet someone in aerospace. A casual mention of the DTTI engine effort produced, what I consider, very interesting items of interest. So, an engine is an engine is an engine, so why all this dragged on (my observation) discussions, etc.

One area that came out of that was: Cutting Edge Technologies Power Cincinnati Industries

Introduction wrote:Research in Cincinnati schools and companies is leading to "near-zero breakdown performance" maintenance systems and more efficient jet engines.


The Center has over 12 years of experience in developing and delivering Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) solutions for a wide-range of applications. The IMS Center’s mission is to enable products and systems to achieve and sustain near-zero breakdown performance, and transform maintenance data to useful information for improved productivity and asset life-cycle utilization. Since its inception in 2001, the Center has conducted over 100 successful industry and NSF supported projects, and has attracted over 80 members from all across the globe. The IMS Center was recently identified as the most economically impactful I/UCRC in NSF’s recent study titled, “Measuring the Economic Impacts of the NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program: A Feasibility Study.” According to this study, the Center delivered its members $846.7 million in combined benefits over the last 10 years.


Fascinating article.

Further down is GE and CMC.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Feb 2017 03:27

from AW&ST

The U.S. Air Force’s F-35A made its debut at the toughest Red Flag yet, and not only dominated the air space but made the legacy aircraft in the force package even deadlier, according to pilots.
The F-35’s participation in the Air Force’s capstone training event at Nellis AFB, Nevada, which is known as one of the world’s most realistic and challenging air-to-air combat exercises, marked a crucial test for the fifth-generation fighter. This year, pilots went up against the most aggressive threat laydown ever seen at a Red Flag: more surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), more jamming, and more red air, said Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander.
The exercise began Jan. 23 and will continue until Feb. 10.

Despite the stepped up threat, pilots lost only one F-35 to every 15 aggressors killed in action—an impressive kill ratio for an aircraft that is not designed as an air-to-air fighter.
Where before an F-16 would not even see the advanced threat on the battlespace—the blue forces would take them out ahead of time with standoff weapons—now with the F-35 added to the mix, pilots can detect and pinpoint multiple threats at once, Watkins said.

Faced with three or four different advanced SAMs in one scenario, F-35 pilots gather and fuse data from a multitude of sources. Then the stealthy aircraft slips undetected within range and takes out the threat. If the F-35 runs out of munitions, F-22 and fourth-generation pilots still want the aircraft to stay in the vicinity, vacuuming up targeting information and transferring it to the rest of the force.
“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time,” Watkins said. “Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now.”


The F-35 and the air superiority F-22, in particular, make a deadly team, the pilots said.
“When you pair the F-22and the F-35 like together with the fourth-generation strikers behind us, we’re really able to dominate the air space over the Nellis test and training range,” Watkins said.


As of Feb. 3, 13 F-35s from Hill AFB, Utah, had flown 126 missions and only lost three or four aircraft. They had not lost a single sortie to maintenance. Although there have been issues with the F-35’s 3i software load—the aircraft’s systems occasionally shut down and need to be rebooted and there were also problems with clutter and repeating targets—none of the aircraft at Red Flag have experienced any system failures. That is a huge improvement over the F-16s, Watkins said.


“It’s been pretty eye-watering here for me to go out every day and have every single mission system operating,” Watkins said. “Tie that sensor fusion and that situational awareness with the survivability of the platform [and] it’s really a game-changer.”



Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20058
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Prem » 09 Feb 2017 04:58

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-elbi ... 1001176117
Elbit wins $110m helicopter upgrade deal
( India Yaan Indonesia)
Israeli defense electronics company Elbit Systems Ltd. (Nasdaq: ESLT; TASE: ESLT) announced today that it has been awarded a $110 million contract from an Asia-Pacific country for the upgrade and maintenance of dozens of Mi-17 helicopters. The project will be performed over a five-year period.Elbit Systems has extensive operational experience in rotary-wing modernization activities, including conversion of utility and assault helicopters into multi-role platforms, upgrading existing utility and attack platforms, supplying cutting-edge systems for latest-generation aircraft and providing full maintenance and support packages. Elbit Systems has the flexibility to serve as prime contractor, systems integrator, component supplier or service contractor in order to meet the needs of the specific customer. The solutions are tailored to meet customer demands, whether they are for a single system, large-scale systems, structural upgrades or maintenance and support.Elbit Systems president and CEO Bezhalel Machlis said, "We are very pleased to have won this major helicopter upgrade project and for the opportunity to implement our unique and innovative avionic solutions. Elbit Systems is a world leader in the Eastern helicopter upgrade market, having completed and continuing to perform numerous programs which improve operational capabilities and facilitate safer flight, night and day. Since the "aging helicopter" market is growing rapidly and includes numerous Eastern platforms, we hope other customers will follow the selection of our modernization solutions."

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Feb 2017 06:29

From AW&ST- USMC is really struggling with its classic Hornets

The U.S. Marine Corps is reporting that almost two-thirds of its F/A-18 strike fighters were down due to maintenance in December, an alarmingly high number.
And when accounting for additional aircraft in depot maintenance, the figure climbs even higher, to just under three-quarters of all Marine Corps Hornets.

Out of the 171 F/A-18s assigned to Marine Corps squadrons, just 72 are flyable, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the service’s top aviator, said Feb. 8 at the Pentagon, referencing average figures for the month of December. The remaining 99 aircraft, or 58%, are down due to required maintenance, awaiting a repair or spare parts.

But these numbers only reflect the aircraft “in reporting” —the 171 assigned to squadrons—and do not include an additional 109 aircraft that require long-term, depot-level maintenance.
This maintenance is carried out at U.S. Navy depots. The Marine Corps does not count these aircraft when it reports its mission-capable rates because depot-level maintenance is, for the most part, deliberately planned and scheduled, service spokeswoman Capt. Sarah Burns said.

...

Nonetheless, accounting for the additional aircraft, the number of Marine Corps F/A-18s that are grounded due to maintenance is a staggering 74%.


..


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Feb 2017 06:36

From AW&St- issues with the FBW system developed for the Saudi F-15SAs are detailed.

Image

Saudi Arabia has begun inducting its first Boeing F-15SAs, the most potent variant of the Eagle ever developed.
At $29 billion, the program to build 84 fresh new F-15SAs and at the same time rebuild the kingdom’s 68 remaining F-15S Strike Eagles to SA-model standard, is the most valuable Foreign Military Sales contract in U.S. history and will continue the Royal Saudi Air Force’s (RSAF) transformation program.

The F-15SA is among a long list of new types to join the refreshed Saudi inventory, which includes Eurofighter Typhoons, BAE Hawk Mk. 165 jet trainers, Lockheed Martin KC-130J tankers—and it provides a significant leap in combat capability. The aircraft incorporates the APG-63V3 active, electronically scanned array radar, an advanced digital electronic warfare and radar warning suite, and updated cockpit displays. It also carries the Tiger Eyes infrared search-and-track system.

..

But even with a hefty price tag, development of the F-15SA has not been without problems. Key to delivering its new capabilities is a model-based fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system, introduced to offset the destabilizing effect of adding two outboard underwing weapons stations, 1 and 9. The FBW system is also designed to make it easier for Saudi pilots to convert from conventionally controlled F-15s, and it lowers overall aircraft weight, improves reliability and increases sortie generation. However, development of the system has proved to be unexpectedly problematic.

Although Boeing has consistently managed to keep a tight lid on news about the program and its difficulties, the company did acknowledge that challenges were encountered early on during initial envelope expansion tests, which at one point became so problematic that they were suspended in the spring of 2013.

It turns out a significant part of the delay was linked to unanticipated issues encountered during flights to explore the envelope at high angles of attack and Mach numbers. According to program sources, pilots unexpectedly encountered wildly varying yaw rates at higher alpha that were independent of whatever configuration was flown, and that in some cases made further testing unsafe.

In response, Boeing modified the aerodynamic model on which the FCS was based and repeated the tests to compare against the F-15E and determine the cause. Investigations identified a spin recovery mechanism that had been developed for the F-15E and was being emulated by the spin recovery logic of the F-15SA control system.

As the F-15SA system was modeled on the F-15E and overall mold lines and mass properties were so similar between the two versions, developers had seen no requirement for the cost and risk of fitting a spin-recovery chute. Consequently, it was decided just to test spin resistance on the Saudi aircraft rather than conduct actual spin departures or departure recoveries.

Further analysis revealed that as a result of the varying approach to spin testing, there was a subtle but key difference between the high alpha test configurations of the F-15E and the F-15SA.

To minimize the danger of the spin-recovery chute tangling in the vertical tails in the event of a deployment, researchers discovered that the booms on the leading-edge tips of the vertical tails had been temporarily removed from the F-15E during the original high-alpha and spin-test program more than two decades before. The booms are designed to increase flutter margin by minimizing structural modes at high Mach numbers and are part of the standard configuration for all variants, including the F-15SA.

Sources say the F-15SA test team based its evaluation plan on the assumption that these tests had later been completed in the 1990s. However, it turned out the test points had never been finished, resulting in an inaccurate aero model of high alpha and Mach number characteristics and the unexpected F-15SA flight-test findings.
...

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58075
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Feb 2017 08:25

phew .. its like someone coughs and ten people fall down...who would imagine those tiny booms had such an impact.
this means the entire F-15E inventory has this problem of uncompleted tests with the boom.
they can take it from the F-15SA test plan now and mark it complete now - 20 years later :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2017 16:09

Singha wrote:phew .. its like someone coughs and ten people fall down...who would imagine those tiny booms had such an impact.
this means the entire F-15E inventory has this problem of uncompleted tests with the boom.
they can take it from the F-15SA test plan now and mark it complete now - 20 years later :)


Or more like they were given a check on making changes for the AOA testing on the F-15E but there was poor documentation at McD or the USAF. Similar issues had also arisen with the U-2 when they were looking for more radical upgrades. Another problem with the FBW approach on the F-15SA was that Boeing had their own integration and test plan but since this was an FMS deal,

The program was managed by the USAF which essentially meant that they were leading it and vetoed a number of Boeing's plans which they had basked into their time-frame assessment. I read somewhere that the amount of test points required for full certification were increased by roughly a third after the USAF stepped in and had a look at what Boeing was proposing. I don't think the Saudis even wanted to run an systems design analysis on the upgrades..they just kept seeing the goodies and kept piling on the features much the same way the UAE did with the F-16's.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Feb 2017 03:45, edited 3 times in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Feb 2017 23:56

To Libya and Back: Inside a Stealth Bomber Strike Against ISIS

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... inst-isis/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Feb 2017 04:54


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Feb 2017 18:32

Pressure is mounting upon us to finalise the FGA I imagine with this report. It would be truly ironic if India buys either the F-16 hag or Gripen,while Pak acquires the SU-35! Our dalliance with the USA ,which has armed Pak for decades,is forcing the Russians to play in similar fashion. A Russian ASW DDG is taking part in a multi-national naval exercise with Pak for the first time too.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1206088/pak-ru ... -deputy-fm
Pak-Russia talks on delivery of Su-35, Mi-35s underway: Russian Deputy FM
DAWN.COM — UPDATED Sep 10, 2015 03:33pm

Increasing military cooperation between Islamabad and Moscow would not negatively impact Russia's ties with India, Ryabkov said. ─ Reuters/File :?:
NIZHYNY TAGIL: Pakistan and Russia are in talks about the delivery of Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets and previously agreed upon delivery of Mi-35M helicopters, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister (FM) Sergei Ryabkov said, Sputnik reported.

Earlier this year, a draft contract for the delivery of four Mi-35M 'Hind E' combat helicopters was sent to Pakistan from Russia, a source in the Russian military and technical cooperation was quoted by the Russian news agency TASS.

Increasing military cooperation between Islamabad and Moscow would not negatively impact Russia's ties with India, Ryabkov said, adding that Pak-Russia ties were improving in other sectors as well ─ including energy.

The Russian Deputy FM Ryabkov referred to Pakistan as Russia's closest partner and said, "I do not think that the contacts under discussion will cause jealousy on the part of any of the two sides."

The twin-engine Su-35 is a fourth generation multi-role combat aircraft which also incorporates technology from fifth generation jets, according to details available on the Sukhoi company's website. It is also said to be more agile as compared to previous models.

Read: Pakistan, Russia sign landmark defence cooperation agreement

Pakistan and Russia had signed a bilateral defence cooperation agreement aimed at strengthening military-to-military relations in November last year. The deal had to be followed by another ‘technical cooperation agreement’ to pave the way for sale of defence equipment to Pakistan.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15493
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2017 20:38

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

Plan for $10 Billion Chip Plant Shows China’s Growing Pull

Image
Sanjay Jha, the chief executive of GlobalFoundries. The company will build an advanced semiconductor factory in Chengdu, China. Credit Arno Burgi/European Pressphoto Agency

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

HONG KONG — After Intel and Foxconn said they would build advanced factories in America, it might have seemed as if the United States were gaining high-end manufacturing momentum.

But on Friday, the California-based chip maker GlobalFoundries announced a $10 billion project in China, showing how the center of gravity continues to shift across the Pacific.

The new advanced semiconductor factory, in the central Chinese city of Chengdu, is only the most recent in an array of investments, often by major multinationals, into China with the support of the Chinese government. The projects have become markedly more sophisticated, making more modern microchips, memory chips or flat-panel displays.

..................................




Point being there is plenty at play here. A F-16/Su-35 is no longer just a plane to compete with others in the field. Nations are jockying for positions at every turn.

As much as I would like to see India get the FGFA, it will not happen because of some yahoo in Russia trying to sell a Su-35 to the Pakis. And, such a sale will have repercussions down stream - India in 10-20 years will not have a Modi or Madam around. And, a nation that will have a larger eco than Russia.

And, Dawn, Suputnik and a dep FM guy, just should not cut it. Even if Putin, himself, made such a statement (with all due respect), India is bigger than that. However, India does need to get ducks lined up. This eons to make a decision is really unacceptable.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3333
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 11 Feb 2017 05:21

And the A400M's woes just don't seem to end

Germany says only one of 8 A400M transports ready for use

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Feb 2017 17:41

A few interesting slides from this week's IHS Briefing on the USAF T-X competition

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

With lower end of the performance being weeded out by a series of draft Pre-request for proposals what this will ultimately come down to is the embedded and synthetic training solutions offered by the two. That is probably what decides this given that a good chunk of the contract in terms of requirements focused on that aspect.

Still some information is inaccurate or incomplete - From the actual Specifications Document -

Instantaneous Turn Rate -


The aircraft shall perform instantaneous turn rate of at least 18° per second using the following additional performance ground rules: Fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), PA equal to 15,000 feet, Airspeed no greater than 0.9 Mach and Standard Day.


Sustained Turn Rate

The aircraft shall perform sustained turn rate of at least 12.5° per second using the following additional performance ground rules: level flight, fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), PA equal to 15,000 feet, airspeed no greater than 0.9 Mach and Standard Day.


Instantaneous G-onset Rate

The aircraft shall perform high G maneuvering with an instantaneous G-onset rate of at least 6 G per second using the following additional performance ground rules: Fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), pressure altitude (PA) equal to 15,000 feet, Airspeed no greater than 0.9 Mach and Standard Day. The aircraft shall immediately start a return to +1.0 G flight by relaxing the stick force/deflection.


Average G-onset Rate

From a steady +1.5 G trimmed level turn, using an abrupt maximum pitch control step input the aircraft shall traverse from +1.5 G and pass through +7.5 G (or the angle-of-attack for CLmax) in 1.7 seconds without over-G or departure. The aircraft shall immediately start a return to +1.0 G flight by relaxing the stick force/deflection. This shall be achieved using the following additional performance ground rules: Fuel weight at 50% (relative to maximum fuel capacity), PA equal to 15,000 feet, symmetric and planned asymmetric loadings, Standard Day, Corner Speed ±50 KEAS.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Feb 2017 21:15

NRao wrote:
Marten wrote:Where's the money is the right question. Rs 30k crore is IAF annual capital expense. If Solah comes in, where is the money for LCA? Makes far more sense to get Raffys or Lightnings instead of the Solah, Atthara etc. At least capabilities are immensely more.


*Export*.

Soviets survived via export. Russia will struggle if they are unable to sell abroad (FGFA?).

The US has and is surviving via exports - look at F-35, F-16, to a lesser extent F-15 and see what happened to the F-22 (without exports).

France!! Exports, even with the Rafale.

Sweden will survive *only* because of exports.

SK has roped in Malaysia(?).

Japan is teh only one I know that has or is going it alone. But with their laws modified, I am not sure what their plans are.

So, why are Indians thinking in terms of local funding for everything, especially when they do have product/s that others are willing to take a hard look at? I would think 1:1 ratio would be great for India. OK, 1 export for every 5 national use. That is doable.


SoKo is expecting to rope in Indonesia. As for Japan they are still open to exploring outside assistance and floated an RFI to that end last summer. Given the Japanese National Security investments required to modernize over the next couple of decades I feel they will look to modify existing technology either the F-22 or F-35. They have long wanted the F-22, and the entire tooling for that program is preserved. Similarly, as part of the US Navy FA-XX program, Lockheed submitted a white paper that included an option of a highly modified F-35C as a lower cost alternative to a clean sheet (which they also submitted as a proposal). A 5+ Generation counter air aircraft is a 15-20 year effort for Japan.

Alternatively, they could join one of the two US programs that will come out of the AOA stage by 2019 and are broadly also tracking to the same time-frames (2030-2035 in-service). Going alone is going to be costly both in terms of what they will have to invest to get there (even before they buy a single aircraft) but what they would have to give up in terms of alternatives sources of investment towards modernization.

Japan Issues Request For Information On Fighter Options


Japan’s defense ministry is requesting information for its next fighter program, taking an early step toward an acquisition that will shape the country’s air force in the middle of the century and perhaps result in a domestic development effort.
The ministry is seeking information on three alternatives: creating a new fighter type, modifying an existing one or importing. The aim is to replace the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (MHI) F-2.

There are strong reasons to suspect that the ministry would only be satisfied with a new type, since no fighter now in production comes close to concept designs of the past few years that likely show what it really wants: a large, twin-engine aircraft with long endurance and internal carriage of six big air-to-air missiles.

That does not necessarily mean foreign companies will be wasting their time by responding, however. Even a domestic program led by MHI and engine builder IHI Corp., if affordable, would benefit from foreign guidance and technology.

For new designs, the ministry’s acquisition, technology and logistics agency has requested information on respondents’ capabilities and latest technology. For upgrades and straight imports, it wants to know about the current aircraft. In seeking the data, it is not using the conventional term “request for information,” but that is clearly what the exercise amounts to. Responses are due by July 5.

Four categories of companies have been invited to respond: those that have built airframes or engines, those that can show they have knowledge of developing and building them, trading companies and consultancies. The first group, manufacturers, most obviously includes MHI and IHI—and maybe such suppliers as Boeing, BAE Systems, Dassault and Saab, if they are not expected to go through trading companies. The second category appears to create an opening for such companies as Israel Aerospace Industries, which have not built fighters of entirely their own design but know a thing or two about the technology.The trading companies have been invited because they are a routine and peculiar element of Japanese defense equipment importation, acting as local intermediaries. In the F-X program that Lockheed Martin secured in 2011 with the F-35 Lightning, for example, the winning bid’s Japanese trading company was Mitsubishi Corp., while Itochu represented Boeing and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Sumitomo Corp. represented Eurofighter and the Typhoon.

The Japanese government is due to decide by the fiscal year beginning April 2018 how to replace the F-2. A new type’s entry into service around 2030 has been expected, so the chosen type will serve well into the second half of the century.

MHI, IHI and other Japanese companies have been working on laying the technical foundation for a domestic type that would closely fit the ministry’s requirements. That or a gross modification of a foreign aircraft would be called the F-3.

The government would have to vastly increase its defense research and development budget to create an all-new F-3. In no year since 1988 has the country spent more than ¥173 billion ($1.64 billion at today’s exchange rates) on military R&D (see chart). Peak annual spending on F-2 development was about ¥100 billion. The F-3’s expected development cost is unknown, but the U.S. spent $30.4 billion on developing the Lockheed Martin F-22, which is quite comparable to concept designs of the F-3 published by the ministry’s Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI). On the other hand, the F-2, based on—but larger than—the Lockheed Martin F-16, cost only ¥360 billion to develop more than two decades ago.

The F-2 is a strike fighter, but Japan clearly does not want to buy another. TRDI’s concept designs unambiguously emphasize the counterair role. The institute calculates that fighters with long endurance and therefore greater numbers on station would be more useful than those with better flight performance in battle. They would engage targets at great range with internally stowed missiles that, low-resolution drawings suggest, would be ramjet-powered.

TRDI’s concepts also include stealthy airframes.

Among the politically and technically acceptable aircraft that could conceivably be updated or imported unchanged to replace the F-2, the Boeing F-15 has been in Japanese service since the 1980s. It may offer the endurance Japan wants, but it lacks weapon bays and the most demanding stealth features. So does the F/A-18E/F, though limited internal missile capacity in pods has been proposed for both types. The Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen E/F have similar limitations and probably fall short of Japan’s endurance requirement. The stealthy F-35 has only limited internal weapon stowage and is probably also too short-legged.

No foreign development program has a concrete schedule that would supply Japan with an acceptable aircraft, though the U.S. Navy and Air Force have requirements that may approximately match Tokyo’s targeted timing and performance.


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 12 Feb 2017 23:04

a nice video of f-35b on board ship.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhnUv5Axbuo

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2856
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 03:11

Philip, are you happy now?

We will never sell weapons to Pak that can harm India, Su-35 is out of question: Russian Govt
http://defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=250365

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 13 Feb 2017 04:32

When you have that many countries involved, your work share will be reduced to making tyres and cup holders on the plane.

You gonna be doing some high tech designing of a water bottle or something of zero significance.
-------

Italian defence industry angry over broken promises on F-35 work


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... -f-35-work

It seems like some in the Italian defence industry are not happy with the amount of work domestic firms are receiving on the F-35.

Guido Crosetto, the head of Italian aerospace and defence industry association AIAD, told Defense News reporter Tom Kington that the U.S. “had not honored promises” made since Italy joined the program, hurting Italian firms as well as threatening the livelihood of Italy’s fledgling F-35 maintenance center.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15493
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2017 04:45

Israeli F-35 buy-back surpasses $1 billion

According to Avi Dadon, MoD’s deputy director of purchasing, Israeli firms entered into $258 million worth of new contracts during 2016, a 33 percent surge from the previous year.

“The scope of industrial cooperation between [Lockheed Martin] and Israeli industries, just in the past year, illustrates the big, raw potential of this deal to the Israeli economy,” Dadon said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 04:57

Neshant wrote:When you have that many countries involved, your work share will be reduced to making tyres and cup holders on the plane.

You gonna be doing some high tech designing of a water bottle or something of zero significance.
-------

Italian defence industry angry over broken promises on F-35 work




There is no "designing", only manufacturing and/or assembly. Same applies to practically every other large aircraft sold with offsets or workshare agreements. You're not re-designing components ever time a new customer requests local assembly. They manufacture components based on designs provided to you and you do final assembly at check out. Partner nations had partners participate in the design effort but through competition or pre-program industrial partnership. For example, Rolls Royce bought Allison and with it the patents to the lift fan design. Similarly, Lockheed chose a partner contractor for the ejection seat and other components. Terma of Denmark was selected to design and produce the low observable multi-mission pod that is being acquired by a few partners.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 13 Feb 2017 08:00

brar_w wrote:There is no "designing", only manufacturing and/or assembly.



There is designing or supposed to be anyway. It's done at the level of Tier1, Tier 2 and occasionally even Tier 3 subcontractors where designs are made to meet specs put out by LM. Honeywell for instance designed part of the subsystems for the F-35 overseas in counties that paid to be Level 3 partners.

In any case the pie slices are so thin that anyone who jumps onboard the F-35 expecting to do anything of significance will be sorely disappointed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 15:56

There is designing or supposed to be anyway. It's done at the level of Tier1, Tier 2 and occasionally even Tier 3 subcontractors where designs are made to meet specs put out by LM. Honeywell for instance designed part of the subsystems for the F-35 overseas in counties that paid to be Level 3 partners.


What I said :
You're not re-designing components ever time a new customer requests local assembly.


What you say held true for those that have partnered during the development. I drew that distinction in my post. That is not an option anymore. Only route a nation can join is through FMS or perhaps later as a DCS. I've given you a couple of examples of designs myself, and Honeywell has been a part of the team from the beginning.

In any case the pie slices are so thin that anyone who jumps onboard the F-35 expecting to do anything of significance will be sorely disappointed.


You can still obtain industrial work on the program if you are a new customer via the FMS route. You have to field a competitive industry and you will have to pay for it. What you pay will be significantly more and for significantly less amount but if you go by a relative contract amount it will most likely still be competitive to what the other fighters have to offer. Of course going via the DCS or even a hybrid FMS/DCS route allows you to obtain industrial offsets for non F-35 related work as well. Given the companies involved in the program, providing 30 or even 50% contract value offset isn't an issue as it may be for smaller OEM's.

Both Japan and Israel (FMS customers) has obtain significant industrial work on the program, both in its assembly and/or manufacturing and later O&S. Below is an article highlighting some of Israel's industrial work which was a part of the FMS deal they made -

http://www.sldinfo.com/building-wings-f ... apability/



The contract for supplying the outer wing boxes is critical for IAI's bottom line going forward given that it has suffered financial losses this past quarter. Another way an FMS customer can obtain industrial benefits is the Israel unique systems being developed for the F-35 like the External Fuel Tanks where their industry is probably taking the designs lockheed shortlisted forward. No other company is contracted for it yet. Same with Israel unique weapons going forward. Norway is doing it with he JSM and is already looking at export prospects in Australia for example. UAI allows for this and block 4.1 will be when UAI is brought to the F-35.

Both the Norwegian JSM and the Turkish SOM-J are the first UAI compatible missiles that can be accommodated in the weapons bay and while the latter is probably some time away, the former is currently undergoing flight testing in the US and is based on an operational NSM. UAI compatibility makes them plug and play with the entire international fleets of F-35 and F-16's and allows these partners and FMS customers to offer their weapons with zero integration cost.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 17:12

Singha wrote:^^ are you sure ? the irst21 is seen on f15 and now f18 centerline pod. but I recall reading of the YAL1 sensor in AWST around 15 years ago when it was in his heydey. could it be the famed texas instruments IIR pod seen on the 14D bombcat? that fits in more with my timeline
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... yr5jtk.jpg

you are right about the distributed nature of the IR sensor...the roof thing was a ranging laser
https://i1.wp.com/www.jimonlight.com/wp ... /yal11.gif


IRST-21 is an upgraded AN/AAS-42 sensor from the F-14. It was originally designed by GE Aerospace and Lockheed obtained it through Martin Marietta that had purchased this line of business from GE (Now a part of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control). It wasn't called an IRST-21 when it was proposed for the YAL but it's essentially the same thing. Over the years Lockheed has kept to upgrade it with current technology (Through two modernization contracts one in the mid 2000's and one now through the US Navy). The basic design and requirements go back to the F-14 days where they wanted long range detection of Soviet Bombers with active jammer protection hence the decision to not pursue MWIR and instead go for 8-12 µm LWIR, 6-mode scanned linear array.

GE at the time built both an MWIR version and a LWIR version for the joint Navy and Air Force program (Air force wanted it for their F-15's at the time). The Air Force withdrew from the program as they increased their investment in AESA radar programs for the F-15's and soon thereafter the Navy focused on the LWIR version of the pod. Once Lockheed took over, they created a smaller diameter pod for the F-16 but that was never pursued towards an operational requirement since the F-16U was not pursued by the UAE.

After the termination of the Airborne Laser, Lockheed podded the system for Boeing to offer to Singapore on their F-15SG's and later to South Korea for their K's. It later was made into a stand alone pod for US Agressors, Saudi F-15's, and is now part of Boeing's IRST offering for the F/A-18E program and the USAF's open IRST competition where they have integrated it on a modular open systems pod - Legion Pod

Image

Interestingly both the MDA and the US navy have continued to pursue separate BMD IR sensors. The Navy worked with Raytheon to develop a combined infrared search and track and eyesafe laser rangefinder pod for their E-2 program and the MDA has subsequently taken over this effort for their Unmanned programs. MDA"s next airborne laser will likely distribute the sensors in addition to providing this to the main DEW launch aircraft. Currently, they are using these unmanned assets during their BMD tests and there is no word on whether they in the current form will ever be operationalized. USAF on their end have already begun R&D towards an advanced Next Generation IRST system through 2 AFRL and DARPA collaborative programs (One aimed at fighter and fixed wing aircraft applications and another for UAVs). Plus there are the IRST enhancements planned on the EOTS NG for Block 4 F-35, and another when expanded IRST capability is to be added in late 2020s in block 5.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Feb 2017 22:12, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 20:29

Here is the exact IRST set up for the Airborne Laser. There were two IRST's, one was chin (IRST sensor has the red covering) mounted next to a weather radar below the turret and another was in the rear. The active laser range finder mounted on the top was a modified LANTIRN.

Image

Image

Image

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 13 Feb 2017 20:44

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

Plan for $10 Billion Chip Plant Shows China’s Growing Pull

Image
Sanjay Jha, the chief executive of GlobalFoundries. The company will build an advanced semiconductor factory in Chengdu, China. Credit Arno Burgi/European Pressphoto Agency

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

HONG KONG — After Intel and Foxconn said they would build advanced factories in America, it might have seemed as if the United States were gaining high-end manufacturing momentum.

But on Friday, the California-based chip maker GlobalFoundries announced a $10 billion project in China, showing how the center of gravity continues to shift across the Pacific.

The new advanced semiconductor factory, in the central Chinese city of Chengdu, is only the most recent in an array of investments, often by major multinationals, into China with the support of the Chinese government. The projects have become markedly more sophisticated, making more modern microchips, memory chips or flat-panel displays.

..................................


.


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

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5206
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Feb 2017 20:01

Full Article at Source

NASA Moves Closer To Quiet Supersonic Demo


As part of its plan to field a Quiet Supersonic Transport (QueSST) low-boom flight demonstrator at the turn of the decade, NASA has issued a call for interested companies to submit a “capability statement.”
The statement will help the agency prepare the ground for a follow-on request for proposals later this year.

The Low-Boom Flight Demonstration (LBFD) solicitation calls for responses by the end of February and includes new details of project planning, operations, systems and certification requirements. The responses will enable NASA to gauge the interest and capabilities of industry in not only the design, test and build of the aircraft, but also those companies targeting a potential support or collaborative role. The notional timetable calls for contract award in fiscal 2018, critical design review in fiscal 2019, first flight in fiscal 2020 and low boom validation and initial community noise tests the following year.

The overarching goal of the effort is to validate tools and technologies which can be used to develop supersonic aircraft with low-intensity sonic booms. The hope is that by building and testing a subscale demonstrator that can create a shaped sonic boom signature with a loudness level of 75 PLdB (perceived decibels) or less during supersonic cruise at or above Mach 1.4, it will allow lawmakers to lift the ban on supersonic flight over land in the U.S.
Although initially enabling development of supersonic business jets, part of the program’s requirement is that the LBFD ground signature will be traceable to that of future larger supersonic airliners.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, ajacob, brar_w, DrRatnadip, Kakarat, Manish_Sharma, nash, srinebula, suryag, Thakur_B and 54 guests