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: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2017 22:09

UAE THAAD Site Reaches Milestone

Satellite imagery shows that the UAE Air Force and Air Defence has deployed the AN/TPY-2 radar along with its THAAD battery operating near the coast. The UAE operationally deployed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system for the first time in 2016, a review of satellite imagery suggests. The U.S.-built system was co-located at a recently constructed Patriot site, positioned immediately to the south of the UAE Naval College.

The THAAD site, constructed in 2014-2015, features four hardened munitions shelters, a support area and six prepared firing positions. All launch positions have been occupied with the unit’s transporter erector launchers (or TELs) since early 2016. In the most recent imagery in Google Earth, several additional TELs have been noted in the support area.

The THAAD system—designed to intercept short-range, medium-range, and some intermediate-range ballistic missiles—works in concert with the country’s existing assets including the Patriot PAC-3s, Hawk batteries and other associated radar elements. Together, they form a multilayered missile defense network protecting population centers and critical infrastructure.

In 2011, the UAE became the first international customer to procure the advanced missile defense system as a Foreign Military Sale under the Arms Export Control Act. According to the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the initial contract, estimated $1.135 billion, included 48 missiles, 9 TELs and two Radars.

Initial deliveries were made to the Middle Eastern country in late 2015. Around the same time, 81 Emirati air defenders graduated from the first foreign THAAD Operator/Maintainer course at Fort Bliss; a 2nd class graduated in May 2016.The same year in October, the system reached a milestone when it was observed with the X-band AN/TPY-2 fire control radar. Prior to the radar’s employment, the system was likely operational, as it’s capable of utilizing fire control cues from other deployed sensors, including those potentially linked by allies protecting the region. (Previous imagery, for example, shows various TELs on alert, with missile canisters elevated in the launch position.)

When not deployed as a fire control radar, the AN/TPY-2 can operate in “Forward Based Mode” relaying tracking and IFF data to remote missile defense systems. However, switching between the two modes can take up to 8 hours. (A discussion of the radar’s ranges in both modes as publicly reported, can be found here.)

In total, a THAAD battery consists of six truck-mounted M1075 launchers, 48 interceptors (8 per launcher), a THAAD Fire Control and Communications (TFCC) unit aka Tactical Station Group (TSG), and one AN/TPY-2 radar. The truck platform used for THAAD is the Oshkosh M1120 HEMTT LHS.

Outside of the UAE, the U.S. Army has deployed a battery to the U.S. territory of Guam and has plans to setup a THAAD site in South Korea. A Qatari order was also in the works but has since been delayed due to the country’s declining hydrocarbon revenue.


They stood up their first patriot battery only in 2012 so it's quite a capable lower and upper tier system that they now have in place. They were also the first non US patriot unit to exclusively field PAC-3's that ups the number of interceptor tied to a firing unit to 64.

Given that both are recent systems they may actually employ a higher Patriot and THAAD configurations than what the US Army does in some places at the moment.

From their Graduation ceremony a couple of years ago

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 22 Feb 2017 00:21, edited 4 times in total.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 56464
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 » 21 Feb 2017 22:35

al masdar news:

Russia and Turkey are currently negotiating a deal concerning purchases of S-400 Triumf missile systems, Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov said Monday according to Sputnik.

“The negotiations are underway, the question of financing is being discussed right now,” Chemezov said.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1372
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 22 Feb 2017 00:47

http://www.thenational.ae/business/econ ... ighter-jet

Russia plans to develop a fifth generation joint light fighter aircraft with the UAE as Moscow seeks to boost its military exports to the region.

Sergey Chemezov, the chief executive of Rostec, the country’s largest military complex, said an initial agreement has been signed and work was expected to start on the "long-term project" as early as next year.

. . . .

The fifth generation aircraft that is set to be developed with the UAE is expected to be a variation of the MiG-29 fighter jet.


So Russia is now developing the T-50, a 'completely different' FGFA with India and yet another '5th gen' fighter with the UAE (possibly a MiG-29 variant)

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9619
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Gagan » 22 Feb 2017 01:47

Vityaz single engined 5th gen plane with UAE?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16020
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Feb 2017 12:12

Some time ago I speculated upon MIG developing a stealth lightweight fighter with us,proposing that HAL could use the LCA experience/platform for further development. It now looks like the UAE has beaten us to it. There is currently no global replacement for the magnificent MIG-21,built in the thousands,still flying with us in Bison avatar,which still bettered larger US aircraft in Indo-US exercises. MIG has unveiled the MIG-35,the latest avatar of the Fulcrum,and a smaller stealth bird could very easily complement the larger T-50 just as the F-22 and JSF do with each other .A smaller stealth bid would also be cheaper to build and operate and the demand for it would be huge,as JSF costs-the only other global option apart from the unknown performance of the Chinese birds,

Meanwhile the woes of the F-18 in the USN continue.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... oken-19505
The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Squadrons Are Broken

ashthor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 11:35

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ashthor » 22 Feb 2017 12:39

Philip saar Tejas and is a magnificent replacement to the MIG-21 and with this govt. i am sure it will be sold in thousands.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1817
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 22 Feb 2017 12:59

Anyone, what's the plan for F35B/C if its engine fails over the sea..?? I mean you could have as much reliability as possible, at least one engine will fail somewhere down the line when hundreds of those are operating around the world. Bailout seems only option if engine refuses to start for whatever reason. Just being curious.

Chinmay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 22 Feb 2017 13:09

Philip wrote:Some time ago I speculated upon MIG developing a stealth lightweight fighter with us,proposing that HAL could use the LCA experience/platform for further development. It now looks like the UAE has beaten us to it. There is currently no global replacement for the magnificent MIG-21,built in the thousands,still flying with us in Bison avatar,which still bettered larger US aircraft in Indo-US exercises. MIG has unveiled the MIG-35,the latest avatar of the Fulcrum,and a smaller stealth bird could very easily complement the larger T-50 just as the F-22 and JSF do with each other .A smaller stealth bid would also be cheaper to build and operate and the demand for it would be huge,as JSF costs-the only other global option apart from the unknown performance of the Chinese birds,

Meanwhile the woes of the F-18 in the USN continue.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... oken-19505
The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Squadrons Are Broken


As has been pointed out before, any new stealth fighter will take atleast 15 years to IOC. The UAE has no aerospace R&D in place, unlike US, UK,France, Russia, China, India etc. So all work will be done by the Russians. The cost of the aircraft also depends on the demand, and it is unlikely that this plane will have any demand 15 years down the line, as it competes with a mature F-35, mature J-31 etc. So this Arab-Russki fun prject is going nowhere.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16020
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Feb 2017 13:31

Will the JSF get hurt by the Donald? The verdict is still not yet out despite the Donald's remarks,as it will upset the fortunes of many in the Mil-ind. complex,and his cabinet packed with so many ex-mil members will want it to move forward.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201612 ... t-program/

XCpts:
F-16 Designer: Applauds Trump, Says Each F-35 ‘Harms American Air Power
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
23:06 14.12.2016(updated 03:43 15.12.2016) Get short URL31222448911
After President-elect Donald Trump commented that he thought that the cost of the beleaguered F-35 jet program was too high, the stock of its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, plummeted. Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear speaks with Pierre Sprey, formerly with the F-16 design team, about the F-35's systemic problems and whether Trump can overcome them.

Coming behind US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter‘s visit to Israel, during a delivery of the first two F-35s, Trump tweeted, "The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th."

I would suspect that he has some advisors that know something about defense and the F-35 has been the leading scandal in the entire defense budget for 10 years.” he replied. “Remember, this is the world’s largest military procurement program ever. Completely dwarfs the development of the atomic bomb, the development of intercontinental missiles, nothing has ever cost as much."

Sprey pointed out that just the purchase price of the jets will cost American taxpayers some $400 billion, and that by the end of the F-35’s lifespan the program will have cost an estimated $1.5 trillion.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Feb 2017 15:42

^^ Back to Sprey, who "designed" the F-16 we go. :rotfl: Sputnik is doing him some serious injustice by not attributing the F-15 and A-10 designs to him as well. Basically he designed all of the US current TacAir fleet. But now he does music and hangs out with Kanye West.

Meanwhile the woes of the F-18 in the USN continue.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... oken-19505
The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Squadrons Are Broken


More than 15 years of higher tempo deployments in support of combat operations, and depot capacity issues as a result of that will do that to you. The US Navy is a tiered readiness force in that the deploying squadrons get first pick when it comes to parts and other resources so they aren't that much affected as the Marines are vis-a-vis their harriers and Hornets since the Marines are by law required to maintain readiness numbers.

Plus the US Navy is saved by the young Super Hornets that are filling in the gaps for the Hornets down times (at their own higher airframe life depletion). It's the USMC data that is more alarming but now they seem to have presented a plan to entirely replace the Hornets by 2026-2026 instead of 2030 as would happen had they bought the F-35 B at a Obama's rate.

Those Hornets leaving will lessen the burden on the hornet fleet that remains in terms of spares and manpower so overall under this plan, availability will improve amongst the hornets that remain in the early 2020's. This is the advantage of a "hot" production line, much the same way the USN has benefited immensely from a "hot" super hornet line.

Top Marine Corps aviator wants F-35Bs faster than planned


JayS wrote:Anyone, what's the plan for F35B/C if its engine fails over the sea..?? I mean you could have as much reliability as possible, at least one engine will fail somewhere down the line when hundreds of those are operating around the world. Bailout seems only option if engine refuses to start for whatever reason. Just being curious.


It really depends upon how the engine fails. Catastrophic engine failures with significant damage leads to basically a dip in the pond even on a twin engine naval fighter and the US Navy , USMC and RAF has vast experience using single engine fighters in the past so one assumes they'll use the same CONOPS as they have in the past but naturally factoring in the higher reliability of modern FADEC engines.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18467
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Feb 2017 17:01

Understanding Saab Gripen's control surfaces during all phases of the flight

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 23 Feb 2017 02:01

From AW&ST

Image
Image
ABU DHABI—Embraer has completed the first dry refueling contact of a receiver aircraft with its KC-390 in a milestone test for the new airlifter’s aerial refueling system.

A Brazilian air force F-5 Tiger plugged into both refueling hoses being tested from one of the prototype KC-390s during a sortie near Santa Cruz airbase, Rio de Janeiro, on Feb. 19, the company announced on Feb 20 at the IDEX defense show here. The trial follows proximity testing with two F-5s in late 2016.
..

The two prototypes have now completed 850 flying hours, opening the flight envelope at speeds of 0.8 Mach up to 36,000 ft. The company has also completed flutter testing and confirmed the capabilities of the fly-by-wire flight control system in “normal” mode with the envelope protections in place.

Embraer has also begun assembling the first series production aircraft on the assembly line at Gaviao Peixoto. The second aircraft is following close behind. Both will be delivered to the Brazilian air force in 2018. Later this year, the company will undertake artificial icing assessments at McKinley Climatic Laboratory at Eglin AFB, Florida, while a series of cross-wind trials will be performed at Punta Arenas at the southern tip of Chile.

..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 23 Feb 2017 03:15

Austin wrote:Understanding Saab Gripen's control surfaces during all phases of the flight

Image


26 deg AoA. The max AoA for the Gripen.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 23 Feb 2017 06:06

Military plane cost hits Airbus profits

Should find a few bargains.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1740
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 23 Feb 2017 06:39

7 out of 8 are sitting on tarmac unable to fly. They are bargain alright.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 23 Feb 2017 06:56

Austria to sue Airbus over Eurofighter deal!

Austria to sue Airbus over Eurofighter deal

Austria has announced it is launching a lawsuit worth up to EUR1.1 billion (USD1.17 billion) against Airbus over allegations relating to the sale of Eurofighter aircraft to the country in 2003.

The Austrian government published a 130-page legal action against Airbus on 16 February, outlining its claims against the company - the result of an investigation begun in 2012 by a dedicated Federal Ministry for National Defence and Sport (BMLVS) task force. The BMLVS is suing as an adjunct.

In response Airbus denied the accusations and called the legal offensive by Vienna's authorities "a political manoeuvre".

Austria's allegations are twofold. Firstly, that the company (then known as EADS) included EUR183 million in unnecessary future offset-related additional costs as part of the contract. Austrian defence minister Hans Peter Doskozil alleged these funds were distributed to a "criminal network" via a now-dissolved shell company registered in London called Vector Aerospace (unrelated to the Canadian company of the same name). These allegations seem linked to the raids conducted since November 2012 by German, Italian, and Austrian police investigating alleged bribery in securing the Austrian Eurofighter deal.

The second allegation is that Airbus knew it could never have met the 2007 timeline for delivering Tranche 2/Block 8 aircraft to Austria. Despite having placed their own BMLVS quality inspectors at the Airbus Eurofighter assembly line in Manching, Germany, Austria today alleges that the Eurofighter bid would not have been successful if it was known that this deadline would be missed.

Austria originally decided to buy 18 Tranche 2/Block 8 aircraft, although the first six would be Tranche 1/Block 5 aircraft. These were by contract due to later be upgraded to the T2/B8 standard; however the Austrian government is now convinced this upgrade would have been immensely costly and Airbus never actually planned to carry it out.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 24 Feb 2017 05:48

Israel reviews unused weapons carriage after fatal F-16I crash

The Israeli air force is to change its procedures for performing asymmetric landings with fighters, following an investigation into a fatal accident involving a Lockheed Martin F-16I “Sufa” on 5 October 2016.

After conducting an air strike against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, the two-seat F-16I caught fire while on approach to land at Ramon air base in the south of Israel.

The crew decided to eject after they experiencing a loss of control just before landing. The rear crew member was injured and was taken to hospital, but the pilot was killed. The ejection seat and some recorders were sent to the USA for examination, and the investigation found that the pilot had ejected 0.4s after his colleague.

As a result of the mishap, the air force intends to change its procedures related to asymmetric flight towards landing, instructing pilots to drop unused weapons into the sea in order to stabilise their aircraft.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 24 Feb 2017 06:44

Leonardo sets sights on strike roled M-346FA

Leonardo has used the IDEX exhibition in Abu Dhabi to unveil plans to produce a new fighter/attack (FA) version of Aermacchi M-346, to be available from next year.

“The new version has been conceived to take advantage of the performances and the introduction of an enhanced mission configuration, based on the proven Grifo-346 multimode radar, to accomplish air-to-air and air-to-surface operations," says Leonardo aircraft division marketing and sales representative Eduardo Munhos De Campos. “The fighter/attack model will be available from the end of 2018,” he adds.

Munhos De Campos says the new model will benefit from Leonardo’s activities to take the M-346 advanced jet trainer to a new fighter trainer (FT) version, capable of conducting training and operational missions. Retaining the baseline type's avionics, in-flight refuelling capability and five external hardpoints, the FT version is being certified to drop guided and unguided bombs and carry gun pods, short-range air-to-air missiles and Rafael's Reccelite reconnaissance and targeting pods.

...


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Feb 2017 08:04

Philip wrote:Will the JSF get hurt by the Donald? The verdict is still not yet out despite the Donald's remarks,as it will upset the fortunes of many in the Mil-ind. complex,and his cabinet packed with so many ex-mil members will want it to move forward.


I'm pretty sure LM knows this is an over-priced & design deficient plane which is why they are in a hurry to get these planes out the door & collect payment.
I also suspect LM's concept of concurrent manufacturing which they promoted for the F-35 (which sets about manufacturing plane parts even before the design is complete) was meant to make the program "too-big-to-fail". i.e. If a whole lot of parts have been created at great expense, it forces the govt to go ahead with the program even if they want to pull out.

There's a lesson to be learnt somewhere in there.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Feb 2017 08:17

Lockheed is not pushing these planes out before "anyone finds out". Check the original delivery schedule, and acquisition plan. They are hundreds of aircrafts behind and won't be where they wanted to be in 2017 (production rates) till the early 2020s. Also, Concurrency model is not something Lockheed brought up, it has been a practice in US programs for decades and was how they developed the F-16 as well. Essentially, you are trading sub 2% program cost for higher volume production to drive acquisition cost lower and get past your manufacturing learning curves.

They are also not following a classic concurrency model here because the US and partner/FMS customers are not paying concurrency costs in totality. They did so during the highest risk production i.e. LRIP 1 ( Only single digit aircraft ) to LRIP 5 ( 32 aircraft) when discoveries in hardware were significant.

Post LRIP-5 all deals signed on behalf of all customers by the JPO include a cost sharing agreement i.e. all costs associated with known changes are split 50:50 by the contractor and the JPO while new discoveries over a set amount are introduced as customer furnished upgrades. The cost in these blocks was actually getting already identified concurrency changes incorporated into the production process and this arrangement incentivized the contractor (P&W and LMA) in doing it at the fastest possible pace since it affected their bottom line and profit.

The JPO went into a bump---Sustain---Bump model because of this since they wanted design and concurrency stability to be demonstrated before production was raised to higher LRIP levels. Latter LRIP ( 8,9, 10 signed in the last few years with significant production numbers) blocks have sub $1 Million concurrency cost for a $100 Million dollar aircraft which is deemed acceptable given what increasing production rates does to acquisition cost and fleet recapitalization. Most of the deficiencies have to do with Block 3F software and its associated systems and not physical hardware designs (C variant aside).

Majority of the hardware testing part of Developmental testing is actually complete...what they are doing now is going over the final block 3f systems before dealing it mature enough for fleet release. Just as a reminder, developmental testing assures a version or iteration (software and hardware) is safe for fleet release. A prerequisite to full-rate-produciton is completion of developmental testing and either start, or completion of OT&E. Developmental testing on the F-35B and F-35A is scheduled to be completed this year at which point they will release the block capability to their units (Block 3F), while OT&E could begin early next year. Current Block 3F fleet release time-lines are October-Novemnber of this year.

The C has a year of "discovery" and "corrections" but then the number of Charlies bound to squadron service is quite small at the moment as the Navy does not ramp up till later this decade.

At least get the basics right.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Feb 2017 08:38, edited 1 time in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Feb 2017 08:36

The F-35 is being built concurrently in large numbers and put into service without meeting baseline objectives. The F-16 was never in such a mess when its started ramping up production concurrently. The reason LM heavily promoted concurrent design was to make the program too big to fail. Once past a certain point, they knew they could gouge the govt for every penny in sight because its become impossible to curtail the program let alone shut it down. That's how costs ballooned.

Trump is focusing on the wrong thing - which is up front price. What he really should be focusing is on the life cycle cost including the retrofit costs that will have to be performed an unknown number of times to F-35 already in service. To date, even LM does not know what the price of all that shit is going to be.

The F-35 is a run away train when it comes to costs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Feb 2017 08:43

The F-35 is being built concurrently in large numbers and put into service without meeting baseline objectives. [B]The F-16 was never in such a mess when its started ramping up production concurrently.[B]


Are you serious? Care to check how many damn blocks and configurations the F-16's had before they got out of the rut and finally arrived to a stable configuration and how long it took them to get all the aircraft already produced to that standard. Care to see how many F-16's crashed in testing while production in the factory was ongoing? How many were grounded, how many times due to engine, FBW and other issues? There were XXXX number of F-16's produced before the aircraft could replicate some basic and much warranted capability of the much older F-4's.

The reason LM heavily promoted concurrent design was to make the program too big to fail.


Could you point me to any recent program in the US acquisition system that did not incorporate the concurrency model? Lockheed does not decide the production and acquisition model, it was decided at the time of the program conception, in line with standard practice prevailing at the time. Why don't you look into the Concurrency program not he F/A-18 program including the last version i.e. Super Hornet. And as mentioned they are following a Hybrid concurrency model where the risk is shared and not owned by the customer alone.

Trump is focusing on the wrong thing - which is up front price. What he really should be focusing is on the life cycle cost including the retrofit costs that will have to be performed an unknown number of times to F-35 already in service. To date, even LM does not know what the price of all that shit is going to be.


VIV already provided you the retrofit cost of the program over its LRIP phase. As I have repeatedly pointed out it is a tiny fraction of the acquisition cost. It's been posted here multiple times. Use the search feature and you will find it.

Edit: Below is the Concurrency chart by Lot. As long as one reads the chart right, one will see that concurrency in higher production blocks is extremely low for many reasons. One being that A and B designs became largely stable after finishing most of the heavy testing, fatigue testing and flight envelope expansion. While F-35C was late to the testing scene (as was planned) and has some concurrency changes yet to be incorporated (such as wing tips) the numbers are so small that those changes won't drive lot concurrency costs significantly high. For example out of the 90 aircraft ordered in LRIP-10, just 2 are F-35C's.

Image

There are non concurrency related costs such as upgrades that are a part of the program design. This aircraft will not have a traditional Mid-Life Upgrade. Instead, hardware and software will be upgraded in a tic-tock cycle with a software upgrade, followed by a hardware upgrade followed by additional weapon certifications. Block 2B to Block 3I will see adoption of Technology Refresh package that upgrades mission computers and some radar hardware. Following that block 3F provides increased software for full weapons and performance envelope. Similarly, first 2 block 4 upgrades concentrate on software and weapons followed by 2 sub blocks of hardware changes including yet another technology refresh of mission computers, electronic warfare and expanded weapon may to support 6 Aim-120 Missiles. That is not concurrency but how the program is going to be kept relevant over its design life.

To date, even LM does not know what the price of all that shit is going to be.


No one cares whether and what Lockheed knows. What is important is that the JPO signs a fixed price contract for the production lots with both Lockheed and Pratt and Whitney has done so for the last several years.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Feb 2017 09:00, edited 1 time in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 24 Feb 2017 08:57

F-16 had no where near the issues the F-35 does when production was ramped up. It was the weapon of choice for the Israelis in striking Osirak and this was back in 1981 not long after its introduction. This despite the fact that Israelis had F-15s on hand.

Second, the claimed costs for retrofitting the F-35 are a total lie. Who believes this aircraft's retrofit costs are $750,000? That's the cost of flying the plane into the stables and prepping it for retrofit - which will be one of many. Its one of many lies told by LM stretching all the way back to the plane's development costs.

LM puts more money into marketing shills than it does into fulfilling its claims.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Feb 2017 09:07

F-16 had no where near the issues the F-35 does when production was ramped up. It was the weapon of choice for the Israelis in striking Osirak and this was back in 1981 not long after its introduction. This despite the fact that Israelis had F-15s on hand.


Luckily there are books on the F-16 and there is one F-16C design team member still active on internet forums. But for most of this one need not even look into that. All one needs to do is go into history and see how many sub-blocks and sub-variants existed before a stable block 30 configuration was agreed upon and how many aircraft had been produced till then that required hardware changes and frequently back to the factory trips to be brought up to a standard that provided the basic capability that the older fighters had.

That number was well over a 1000. As a contrast, just over 200 operational F-35's (meant for operational or operational training squadrons) have been produced till date and we are months away from completing developmental testing. In fact post 2016 they have stopped tracking F-35 A and B concurrency changes because there are no new discoveries since only developmental testing that remains is weapons carriage envelope and software related. What remains is work on the F-35C that was late to start and always had a slower ramp up given where the Navy would like to fit its acquisition between managing their procurement and that of the Marines which they fund.

It is well known fact that you can research into, or reach out to F-16 historians, design team members and pilots that do post occasionally on other aviation boards.

On the other hand, do you what the program did on the F-35 when they figured out that it had to be re-baselined and will take 5-7 years longer to complete at an added $13-$15 Billion of RDT&E expenditure spread over 3 variants? They checked the hybrid concurrency model by moving production to the right i.e. procurement and buy rate ramp up all moved till close to or well after the completion of developmental testing. This obviously does not fit your "Lockheed created the concurrency model" myth because had it been up to LMA they would have liked to stick to schedule and would have produced well over 500 aircraft by now.

By how much did they move production to the right? For this I would like to point you and others to two documents that are available via google. They are the 2009, and 2015 SAR. As they will show the USAF alone was expected to buy 373 F-35A's between FY 2010 and FY17. As soon as Lt. Generation Bogdon stepped in, re-baselined the program he changed that to just 90 (75% reduction) over the same period.

^ This was done primarily to keep concurrency costs (to the program and three US services) low, reduce the burden of retrofitting hundreds of aircraft with ECO's thereby stressing individual service depot capacity and having 3 different configurations of aircraft flying all of which would have a substantial number. The net result was that the total US services concurrency bill will likely be below $ 2 Billion and production ramp ups in Lot-9 and 10 are happening at a point where they aren't expecting any major change in the F-35A or B since most of the airframe testing on these variants has finished. In fact all developmental testing on these variants would be complete by the time LRIP-10 (most recent orders) final assembly even begins. This is yet another reason why the curves go lower and lower for ECO's at higher Lot numbers.

The 50:50 cost-sharing model forces the industry to do all in its power to introduce changes as they are discovered right into the production process. They can reduce their 50% burden if they bake the changes into the very next lot they are building. As a result, previous discoveries are being baked into production so that they do not have to correct after the jets are produced. New discoveries will obviously need to be but as the program matured there weren't as many significant new discoveries that added a significant concurrency cost. The Engine fire was the last major design concurrency with the retrofits but after a JPO funded desgin ndmodification testing, Pratt and Whitney paid for the installation of those fixes on all previous aircraft and were able to bake in the changes into their production process the very same year. I have provided evidence in support of this on the dedicated JSF thread but here it is again -

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the Pentagon's F-35 program chief, told the conference that Pratt had agreed to pay for the cost of fixing the 156 engines already delivered once officials agreed to a proposed design change.

Bogdan said the retrofits should be relatively easy and inexpensive to carry out since the engine is built in modules, which will allow mechanics to swap out the entire fan section.

He said Pratt had also agreed to share the cost of any future design changes with the government. Talks about the next two batches of engines should finish soon, he said.


In fact front line aircraft that are delivered to the squadrons have the concurrency ECO's already built in at the factory. They won't be going back to the depot (except the C) for concurrency changes. They will simply get a software upgrade with the full, bug free Block 3F once developmental testing on it is complete, and all bugs and glitches are sorted out. These are the so called "deficiencies" that the media is reporting..They have to do with Block 3F and as far as the F-35A and B are concerned they pertain to the software configuration and these "deficiencies" are perfectly NORMAL for this stage of testing. The entire point of developmental testing is to test ---> Discover ----> Correct ----> Test. This is what is happening and what was reported a few months ago. It is for this purpose that 3F is only flying on the test jets and would not be released to the fleet until it has a developmental testing completion certificate which is now expected to come in two phases for the F-35A and B - One in October for the full mission system, minus Aim-9X software, and another in November-December that adds the software version that supports Aim-9X.

Sorry that you were expecting a GIANT concurrency number but the GAO reporting on concurrency is for all to see and aviation and defense media have reported on it. You can see how those numbers changed over time and have now stabilized at or below the $2 Billion mark. Again, that $2 Billion is what the US services pay...actual cost to execute these changes is higher but industry shares the burden as described in the document above.

Second, the claimed costs for retrofitting the F-35 are a total lie. Who believes this aircraft's retrofit costs are $750,000?


A total lie. How the heck are you going to prove that? As you can see, the retrofit costs are on a curve. A downward sloping curve i.e. the earlier production lots required higher number of ECO's while the later production lots require fewer. This is common sense, as you get closer and closer to developmental testing completion you have less number of hardware discoveries that require retrofits. Those that you do find don't tend to be major so as to rake up a huge bill. You are obviously entitled to filing a FOIA request or taking the US Government to court if you believe it is all a lie. You could cite all your Sputnik articles in support of your argument.

Another point that I have mentioned, but you seemed to have not grasped is that these are US Concurrency costs i.e. it is the cost the JPO pays. It is not the total cost of concurrency. As the chart explains, they have a concurrency arrangement in place where they split concurrency costs with the contractors 50:50 (hence this is a hybrid arrangement as I had previously mentioned).

Total US Concurrency cost as reported by the GAO is iirc in the sub $2 Billion range (US cost with a cost sharing arrangement) which comes to less than 1% of the US acquisition cost. This may not be what you would like to hear but it is the case. Some may think $2 Billion is too much, and many would agree if put that way but then this is a $394 Billion acquisition program so $2 Billion is a tiny fraction of that especially when it is paid over 10 years. What you get in return is a high production rate and early fleet recapitalization and production stability.

And BTW, I'm sorry no one flies the jet back to Lockheed to get the changes. All Concurrency Changes are engineered at the depot. Same with the developmental cost or schedule. Lockheed does not develop the aircraft as in, they ask for a bill and timeframe at the end of which they hand over the keys. The aircraft is developed as part of an EMD/SDD program, lead by the government team that manages all contractor activity. It is not easy to estimate development cost over 10+ years for a high risk aerospace program. There are only a few recent examples where costs have been estimated with very high degree of accuracy. Hence, undertakings of this magnitude are always performed through a Cost Plus contracting mechanism where risk is shared by the customer given the uncertainties. The Government certainly did not go to Lockheed and asked them how much it would cost to develop. You are naive and honestly acting foolishly if you are trying to push through this argument. Most here are reasonably well versed with how large military projects work to know the difference and call BS on this much like your own version of 5th generation requirements that every known 5th generation design in the world fails to meet.

Its one of many lies told by LM stretching all the way back to the plane's development costs.


Lockheed does not report on or release concurrency cost date. It is the US Government that does so.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Feb 2017 16:58, edited 7 times in total.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 24 Feb 2017 11:25

the f-16 nick name used by US Air force pilots when first introduced was "yard dart" for obvious reasons. :(

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Feb 2017 16:52

TSJones wrote:the f-16 nick name used by US Air force pilots when first introduced was "yard dart" for obvious reasons. :(


Yup not the first Lawn Dart. They kept producing aircraft as UTC developed changes to their propulsion to add reliability. Same with the mission systems. The early blocks were not even as capable in mission scope as the customers wanted but they kept producing them anyway. When the block 30 arrived they had to retrofit something like 1500 aircraft that had already been produced earlier without meeting the combat requirements. They couldn't even deploy the Sparrow Missile which had at the time become standard in the USAF. The F-16 program at the hight of the cold war was the epitome of concurrent production. They were producing variants and sometimes changing sub-variants within months of sanctioning the last one. The idea was to get a tremendous number of 4th generation aircraft out into front line service and then make necessary changes to get them full combat capable.

A casualty of this was the NEP (Not to Exceed Price), standardized block that met combat system requirements of the warfighter (that did not really come until block 30). They would have done the same with the F-35 had the cold war not ended and we would have had hundreds of block 2 aircraft, a hundreds of block 3I aircraft flying today. Instead they delivered around 150-160 block 2B aircraft including the few dozen that will never see operational use (testing, and training squadrons) and production ramp up only occurred once the contractor began delivering block 3I capability.

They did eventually under pressure test fire a few shots but they basically ended up waiting until the AMRAAM came in and back fitted that capability to previous iterations. It required physical changes to the aircraft to support BVR combat. Just imagine if the F-35 today was fielded without BVR capability as part of the SDD phase. Or like the Rafale if a multi-role (or Omni role) F-35 showed up lacking a targeting pod and any way to self designate using LGB's.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1345
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby ldev » 25 Feb 2017 11:01

Now this is called a rocket!!

NASA studies adding crew to super rocket test flight

Last Updated Feb 24, 2017 3:59 PM EST

NASA managers said Friday they hope to know within a month or so whether it might be feasible -- or advisable -- to put two astronauts on board the first test flight of a huge 322-foot-tall Space Launch System super booster scheduled for its maiden launch late next year.

The study, requested by the Trump administration, already is underway, but William Hill, deputy associate administrator for Exploration Systems Development at NASA Headquarters, said major technical challenges will need to be resolved, and the agency will need more money to make it happen.


If Trump want's US astronauts to fly again, he will make sure it happens in his first term as President i.e. before the November 2020 elections.

The current plan calls for launching a “Block 1” SLS rocket in late 2018 -- Exploration Mission 1, or EM-1 -- to boost an unpiloted Orion capsule on a three-week flight beyond the moon and back to a high-speed re-entry and splashdown.


That is doing it in style... a test flight beyond the moon and back.

Even in its initial configuration, the giant SLS rocket will generate a ground-shaking 8.8 million pounds of thrust -- 15 percent more than NASA’s legendary Saturn 5 moon rocket -- enough to boost the 5.75 million-pound rocket out of the dense lower atmosphere. Together with the second stage engine, the SLS Block 1 will be able to put 154,000 pounds into low-Earth orbit.


154,000 pounds to LEO is 70 tons!! And the entire rocket including all stages and the payload weighs 5.75 million pounds i.e. 2600 tons, that is more than 4x the last GSLV test flight. That is a monster.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby TSJones » 26 Feb 2017 11:28

I really don't see them putting a crew on its first launch. I know they are talking about it but I think cooler heads will prevail.

for one thing the Orion's human support systems haven't been tested by an empty launch yet. they weren't included on Orion's test launch on an Atlas V rocket a few years ago. just basic systems were checked on that launch......everything worked OK on it but still.....

the SLS first launch is around the moon......I'm not sure that everyone completely groks that.

human support systems are paramount.......

In about three years the commercial launches will take over earth orbit manned space and things should cool down after that.

ESA must be consulted as they are building the Orion service modules for first three SLS launches.

http://spacenews.com/esa-deal-hinges-on ... ght-plans/

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Feb 2017 13:34

A 2009 article on what went into the skin of the F-35.

Skinning the F-35 fighter

Note the emphasis on cost.

Such types of articles should provide an insight into the challenges faced by the AMCA team.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Feb 2017 17:28

Indranil wrote:This is absolutely true. There are similar stories of the Mig-29s, Su-27s and any other legendary aircraft that is out there. We should remember these lessons to define what is truly "Make in India".


It is good to look at history and see the previous generation of airmen, engineers, designers and mangers dealt with problems. One problem in defense media reporting these days is that most of the reporters frame of reference does not go back more than a decade or so. Post Vietnam the US Military Aviation was severely damaged with worn out airframes, high depot backlog and lack of flying hours. Even though capability existed on paper it was not very effective on account of a "tired" aviation component.

At the time this was dubbed a "hollow force" that had equipment that looked good on paper but it lacked both readiness and the ability to sustain persistent combat operations. Both the F-16 and F-18 programs was their "get out of the rut card" and the USAF and USN took it. It still took them a decade or more to get out of it but the F-16 was really built in blocks and no one was happy with it as a combat system until the Block 30 configuration was made a standard. What the pilots did get with earlier aircraft was a young airframe that could give them the flight hours allowing for trained crews on high readiness. Had they kept production low while still developing the aircraft to actually be useful, they would have further damaged readiness at an important time of the cold war.

But my point was that they really did not take this approach on the F-35. We did not have hundreds of block 1's, hundreds of block 2s and hundreds of block 3s. Out of the 200+ aircraft delivered till date the vast majority are block 2B or 3I some of these 2B jets have already been converted to block 3, while only the first few batches were block 1, all block 1 aircraft have been either converted to block 2 or block 3. Block 3 was cut into production towards the end of 2014 and all subsequent deliveries have been/will be in either block 3I or block 3F configuration (you only need a software upgrade to get from 3I to 3F).

While a hybrid concurrency model was followed on the F-35, their aim was not (unlike the F-16) to keep producing regardless hence upon rebaselining the production schedule was moved SIGNIFICANTLY to the right and a higher ramp rate was not introduced until block 3 configuration was well into or towards the end of developmental testing. Similarly, a yet another bump in production (LRIP-10 - 90 aircraft a year) was only sanctioned once block 3F was nearing completion of its developmental testing program. Although they did sign for the 90 aircraft LRIP-10 recently, the aircrafts themselves would not go into final assembly till after the developmental testing on the entire program is complete so they have been balancing production with technical risk and the ramp up, sustain, ramp up approach is a sharp contrast to the production curve on the F-16 program. Concurrency on the JSF program is for the US less than 1% of their acquisition cost. What they get in return for that 1% is a hot production line that has gone through its glitches, learning curves and can deliver up to 60 aircraft a year to the USAF alone in the early 2020s.

Here I would like to correct myself from an earlier comment. The SAR difference from 2009 production schedule to 2015 production schedule is not 75% as I had previously mentioned but 44% for the USAF. More if you factor in USN, USMC and Partner Nation schedules. Essentially production rates during the developmental testing period (that was extended by 5-6 years) were cut in half to reduce the impact of concurrency on the acquiring customers. On top of this contractor was asked to sign a concurrency clause making them own up to 50% of concurrency cost for Leve-1 changes being baked into future lots and this meant an additional reduction.

Another contrast between the F-16 and F-35 programs is the capability demanded. No one sought a WVR daytime fighter with the F-35. Either block 2B, 3I or 3F, all of these IOC blocks had multi-mission/role capability, could use its ESM suite, could perform electronic attack, and could do both air to air and air to ground, self-designate etc etc. Block 2B and 3I restricted this to internal bays and the USMC and USAF were happy with it, since it is a giant leap for the Marines compared to the Harrier and the USAF could fully divest from its F-117 commitments (that had to be kept in "bring back" condition as was mandated by Congress) since now it had a penetrating tactical strike aircraft that could self-defend. Hence they agreed to do an IOC with internal weapons a few years ahead of FOC. The Navy has a limited sized air wing so they wanted to wait till full 3F before they declared IOC which meant a late 2018 date. 3F is IOC for the US Navy and FOC for all three services.

Anyhow. Instead of going by memory i actually went into each document and pulled the exact numbers this time -

Image

That 19 to 28 production bump for the USAF came only after block 3I was baked into the production line. The highest acquisition rate that the USAF expected to hit starting FY16 was moved right and is now not expected until FY21/22.

Another sharp contrast between the F-16 and F-35 is how the aircraft are ordered. F-35 is ordered annually, and the JPO along with the 3 US services must go to congress, show developmental advances and technical stability before asking for an increase in production. As the SAR shows the USAF held at 18-19 for 2-3 order batches as 2B/3I was being fully tested by the Dev.Test team.

Compare this again to the F16, where they place a nearly 200 aircraft sized order with General Dynamics just 3-4 years after the YF-16 first flew. A bulk F-35 order would not come till 2018-19 after the entire Systems Development portion of the program is finally FINISHED and IOTE is either in advanced stage or finished. It does require some research and digging into the past but the contrast is crystal clear and the hybrid model followed on the JSF was done to balance volume production risk with technical stability hence they only increased ramp rates once a stable hardware configuration was achieved and negotiated a concurrency cost arrangement with the contractor so that they don't have to produce identified_concurrency changes for future batches and cut them right into production.

NRao wrote:A 2009 article on what went into the skin of the F-35.

Skinning the F-35 fighter

Note the emphasis on cost.

Such types of articles should provide an insight into the challenges faced by the AMCA team.



One of the biggest challenges for the suppliers is/was the production rate. As a contrast to the F-22A, the F-35's mid Low Rate Initial Production (not peak LRIP rate) is/was higher than the achieved full rate of production on the F-22A program. They are currently in the final lots of LRIP (only 2-3 left) and are at 90 aircraft a year already. This guided a lot production strategies. Below is a clip from mid-2013 when deliveries were still low (relative to the program) but you can see the line in Fort Worth was packed.

Last edited by brar_w on 26 Feb 2017 21:51, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Feb 2017 19:47

More on short memories and lack of brushing up on history. Perhaps more folks aren't aware of this because Sputnik did not exist in the 1980s. Come to think of it, if more than a dozen F-35's had crashed I seriously doubt the program would have survived let alone gone into advanced production. I wonder if Sputnik ever asked Sprey why the aircraft he, and only he "designed" crashed so much so frequently during its early days.

Image

This report is from 1982. As a reference, 2 large orders for the aircraft had already been placed by then and they were at high production rates.One of those large orders was in fact placed in 1982, and it was for additional US jets. To be exact, the order was for 534 aircraft at a production rate of approximately 15 aircraft a month. Right after that was signed, they began working on yet another block buy after the 534 aircraft were delivered. It was this order that took them to a operationally stable configuration that made it a true multi-role fighter that met enough combat mission needs that legacy aircraft already performed. This order was for 700+ aircraft and it was negotiated in 1985 for deliveries in the 1986-1989 at a production rate of approximately 20 aircraft a month.

Developing high end capability and managing and delivering large aerospace programs was hard back then, and is still hard now and will remain hard in the future as well. Important to reach into history and see how the previous generation problem solved and managed risk with production.

On a side note, while digging into F-16 production contract awards, I ran into this picture of the Tomahawk assembly from the mid 1980s -

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2017 03:11


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3990
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 27 Feb 2017 06:56

The F-16s problems were mundane relative to its development cost. And as history goes, it was destined to be one of the great fighter planes of world. Its potential as a fighter was recognized early on primarily because its design was a leap ahead - the first modern air-to-air dogfighter. Prior to that, none of the aircraft could dogfight well - not the F-15, the F-14, the Phantom..etc.

It was lucky in the sense its engine upgrades kept pace with its expanding role.

F-35 is half gimmicks (i.e. see through cockpit where you can't turn your head, full dashboard display but which offers no increase in value over traditional MFD), half false technical claims (i.e. a fighter where the pilot is advised to avoid a dog fight) and half unqualified new stuff (i.e. weak engine that has caught fire).

Somewhere along the line they messed up the design because the folks at LM are out to convince everyone that the plane need not be maneuverable because it is stealthy. In that aspect, it is a step backwards from 4 generation aircraft.

Trump should have asked LM to absorb all price escalations due to retrofit both now & in the future - and then watch LM NOT sign on the dotted line.

Even the Russian FGFA is running into rough weather. India and even the Russian AF is not convinced of its claim to being a 5th gen plane. Its turning out to be a repackaged 4+ gen plane in a fancy angled air-frame. Its not stealthy only looks to be so, its engines cannot super-cruise, it has nothing new in terms of avionics or weapondry which cannot already be fitted onto the Su-30MKI. In many ways, its the Russian equivalent of the F-35 mess except not as much money has gone down that rat hole.

All this leads to the question - what is a 5th gen plane and what makes it a great advantage over 4+gen?
That has never been clarified even as aircraft companies have drained hundreds of billions from the govt.

Indian GAUment better get that definition straight before launching the AMCA project. They are hurriedly rushing into building the AMCA project just on the buzzword that it will be a "5th gen aircraft". The US govt trusted LM claims that F-35 would be a revolutionary game changer, opened up its wallet and the net result has been nothing of that sort.

As of now, in all round capability and cost, the best fighter-bomber in the world remains the Su-30MKI.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Feb 2017 06:59

Neshant wrote:The F-16s problems were mundane relative to its development cost.


Wrong again just like above when you claim that the F-16 had no where near the problem at its ramp up. The program and the aircraft came in beyond all NEP estimates and was a huge bump from the previous generation of aircraft it was replacing. Dig into it, the information is not going to be hard to find.

Unless one is totally ignorant of the history of previous programs, or is deliberately trying to mislead one cannot ignore the size, scope of the concurrency rut the F-16 program was associated with.

I guess the "problems" really need to be defined here. For some (perhaps you) nearly 20 crashes in early development and/or operational usage may be a relatively mundane but for others they may not. Similarly, one class-A incident over 60,000-70,000 fleet hours (that include more than 500 land and sea based Vertical landing and short take offs) will probably be a very very good safety and reliability record for most developmental programs anywhere in the world, but for some (perhaps you or RT/Sputnik) it may not.

Same with the development cost. Even though what they got up front was a largely a day time dogfighter the R&D expenditure, climbed by close to a 1/3 which isn't much different from what happened on the JSF for example. Of course more money was spent a few years later to create two additional variants, one that had enough capability to take over the CONUS air defense mission (which the original F-16 was designed to do but could not) and the other to make it remotely useful as a multi-role aircraft so that it could begin to do the tasks that the aircraft it meant to replace were doing for years. Of course in keeping with the concurrency model the program was designed with, aircraft delivered to the USAF and partners were soon retrofitted to make them capable of performing these missions.

As previously explained the concurrency model on the Viper was followed to expedite delivery to front line squadrons that were hurting post Vietnam when it came to readiness. How quickly did the USAF want their aircraft? Here are some timelines the floated -

YF16 first flight - January 1974
Production (USAF) F-16A first flight - August 1978
100th F-16A delivery to USAF - May 1980

They were still sorting out, and solving issues with the FBW, Engine reliability, and getting the safety record in line with expectations throughout the early to mid 1980's, all the while producing aircraft at 10-15 units a month ramping up to 20 a month by the mid to late 1980s.

The first large orders on the production F-16s actually came through in the late 1970s, followed by the 500+ aircraft order from the USAF in 1982, which was immediately followed by yet another bulk buy of 700+ aircraft in 1985-86.

As a contrast, no F-35 bulk order for Program partners (excluding the US) will happen till 2018 at the earliest, and no US bulk purchase will happen until the entire SDD phase of the program concludes and OT&E is completed and Milestone-C issued.


Luckily, we have documents, news reports and even official public records from back then that can back things up in case someone tries to sugar coat or mislead and claim that the F-16 program did not include a very very high degree of concurrent production or that it was trouble free.

ndian GAUment better get that definition straight before launching the AMCA project. They are hurriedly rushing into building the AMCA project just on the buzzword that it will be a "5th gen aircraft". The US govt trusted LM claims that F-35 would be a revolutionary game changer, opened up its wallet and the net result has been nothing of that sort.


Let's hope the AMCA design team is reading this forum.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Feb 2017 17:02, edited 21 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2017 07:43

Neshant wrote:The F-16s problems were mundane relative to its development cost. And as history goes, it was destined to be one of the great fighter planes of world. Its potential as a fighter was recognized early on primarily because its design was a leap ahead - the first modern air-to-air dogfighter. Prior to that, none of the aircraft could dogfight well - not the F-15, the F-14, the Phantom..etc.


The F-16's claim to fame was "Fly By Wire" - a brick that flies. C++ came into being after that plane.

F-35 is half gimmicks (i.e. see through cockpit where you can't turn your head, full dashboard display but which offers no increase in value over traditional MFD), half false technical claims (i.e. a fighter where the pilot is advised to avoid a dog fight) and half unqualified new stuff (i.e. weak engine that has caught fire).


Multiple points here:

* The "5th Gen" thread started long back and in parallel. And, it goes through planes like the F-117, B-2 and F-22. Just like the F-16 was a pioneer in FBW, these planes were pioneers in computational aspects. The more powerful a computer at your disposal, the better the product you have - check out the planes I mention

* Anyone stuck with a 4th Gen being great, then yes, that person will consider the F-35 a gimmick. Just ask Pierre. He has even made it to RT/rbth!!! A great feather to have I guess

Somewhere along the line they messed up the design because the folks at LM are out to convince everyone that the plane need not be maneuverable because it is stealthy. In that aspect, it is a step backwards from 4 generation aircraft.


Refer above.

Trump should have asked LM to absorb all price escalations due to retrofit both now & in the future - and then watch LM NOT sign on the dotted line.


If he is still around.

Even the Russian FGFA is running into rough weather. India and even the Russian AF is not convinced of its claim to being a 5th gen plane. Its turning out to be a repackaged 4+ gen plane in a fancy angled air-frame. Its not stealthy only looks to be so, its engines cannot super-cruise, it has nothing new in terms of avionics or weapondry which cannot already be fitted onto the Su-30MKI. In many ways, its the Russian equivalent of the F-35 mess except not as much money has gone down that rat hole.


I had said, about 2 years ago, Russia will not deliver. There are many good reasons. First 5th Gen plane (the US had some 4/5 planes under their belt). Funds. Expectations - ALL AFs will expect the gold standard, that is natural. Hwever, everyone will never have the means to deliver it. Point being a 5th Gen is not just a plane.



Google, plenty of material there.

ndian GAUment better get that definition straight before launching the AMCA project. They are hurriedly rushing into building the AMCA project just on the buzzword that it will be a "5th gen aircraft". The US govt trusted LM claims that F-35 would be a revolutionary game changer, opened up its wallet and the net result has been nothing of that sort.


Will post in the AMCA thread - some time. A couple of points here:

* The AMCA is rather mature. A few of the newer techs will impact its delivery date
* Please do NOT compare it to any other "5th Gen" plane. Each "5th Gen" is a stand alone effort

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1278
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 27 Feb 2017 22:45

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/02/chinas-claim-it-has-quantum-radar-may.html

A photon is a particle with wavelike properties that carries energy without mass. We usually hear of it in terms of light, but it is the basis of all electromagnetic radiation.

Where radar sends out a beam of photons as radio waves, quantum radar uses entangled photons.

Put simply, entangled photons are two separate photons that share a deep quantum link. The upshot is the photons mirror each other's behavior when one of them is influenced in some way.


While the photons are separated by their beam, they retain their quantum link.

Attempting to break that link would be a giveaway. And any attempt to distort the behavior of one of the pair would be equally noticeable.

The same applies to advanced materials.

Where modern composites can 'trap' radio waves within their molecular structure, whatever happens to an entangled photon would be replicated - and measured - in its paired mate back at the radar site.


Despite the ominous sounding properties of this unbeatable radar, the foibles of quantum mechanics make the actual exploitation of such technology incredibly difficult.

Photon pairs degrade. The longer one photon remains in the outside environment, the more stress is placed on the link with its partner. It's called quantum incoherence.

This has implications for a quantum radar's maximum range: keeping the photons paired for the time it takes one to cover 100 km represents an enormous technical challenge.


100km for photons is like nano seconds, deriving an identifiable signature is a longer process

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4967
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Feb 2017 22:53

Good. Breakthroughs have finally made the J--20, J-31, and most of China's Unmanned stealthy configurations obsolete overnight. Expect all those Low Observable configurations to be dumped.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1278
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 27 Feb 2017 23:05

Physics seems right, engineering may not be there yet else they would have been bombed by now.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2017 23:09

vasu raya wrote:Physics seems right, engineering may not be there yet else they would have been bombed by now.


There is this argument - has been for a long time - that there is a diff between "Physics" and "Quantum Physics".

Perhaps a Physicist among us can chime in.

BTW, the Chinese have also sent up a couple of quantum based sats. Based on the same principles of QPhysics, they can never be hacked or tampered with. So they claim. :wink:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15360
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 Feb 2017 23:17

vasu raya wrote:http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/02/chinas-claim-it-has-quantum-radar-may.html

While the photons are separated by their beam, they retain their quantum link.

Attempting to break that link would be a giveaway. And any attempt to distort the behavior of one of the pair would be equally noticeable.

The same applies to advanced materials.

Where modern composites can 'trap' radio waves within their molecular structure, whatever happens to an entangled photon would be replicated - and measured - in its paired mate back at the radar site.


100km for photons is like nano seconds, deriving an identifiable signature is a longer process


Yeah. Same story repeating itself. When radar first came out they had these cat and mouse game that has today terminated with "stealth". This is the evolutionary step.

OK. What if I am able to sub a photon and mimic the "entangled photon"?

That would be teh next step.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests