Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Aerospace Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 08 Jan 2017 23:40

NRao wrote:The F-35 is a FAR closer cousin of NN than Watson is to AI.


I haven't seen any reports of a neural net on the F-35 or anything even approximating it.

The last thing the boon dogglers would attempt is real 5th gen technology when trying to peddle 4th gen stuff.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 08 Jan 2017 23:43

I love the quote :

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program "showcases all that is wrong about our military's vendor-dominated, crony-capitalist procurement system," he said. "Unless dealt with decisively, its massive cost and its lack of capability will have a dramatically negative impact on our military's effectiveness for decades to come."

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 08 Jan 2017 23:53

In other news, the JSF is so bad books are literally being written on why it should be killed.
Can't vouch for the author's solution.
But writing a book to showcase why a plane should be killed has got to be a first.

Kill the F-35

Stairway Press in Las Vegas has just published a book about a problem called the F-35.

The F-35 is so bad that there is no point in proceeding with it. Even if it worked as per the original specifications of the development contract in 2001, that would not be good enough. It is very expensive to build and operate, and there is no role for it on the battlefield. Anything the F-35 can do, something else can do better and more cheaply. It must be kept away from enemy aircraft, which will harry it to death.

It is good practice, when bringing attention to a problem, also to detail the solution to that problem. That is what the book does. It is a discussion of air superiority achieved by aircraft dedicated to that purpose. Without air superiority, the existence of the rest of the military enterprise is fraught, and the human cost of having undefended skies will be considerable.

America’s air superiority is currently provided by a handful of F-22s, which are likely to be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of late-model Chinese fighter aircraft. Once the F-22s are shot down, the rest of the Air Force will be defenseless, even if the F-35 were in service and worked as designed.

The book begins with the background to the way Lockheed Martin engineered the F-35 selection process so that its design would be chosen for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines with the aim of being the sole source of fighter aircraft for decades. The compromises needed to achieve that win in the selection process fatally compromised the product.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 00:00

Both the F-16 and F-18 have long operational service histories, combat histories, established infrastructure, trained personel, a well develop R&D supply chain base and more. Almost all the claims of how the F-35 is so good come from those who stand to financially profit from the selling the plane (no doubt, one fellow in here in particular). Independent analysis of its capabilities from industry veterans draws negative responses which are quickly buried and quietly overlooked.


Right. Pilots that fly it, take it to Red Flag, Northern edge and other large force exercises be damned. All that is required is to simply look at a bunch of forums. No need to listen to the actual airmen flying it, or flying against it.

The P-51 has even longer service history in terms of actual air-combat. Should we produce that compared to F-16's?

This is how all military decisions should be made. After all what does the operator community know about all this. It's not like they are experts.

And BTW, your phantom 5th generation capability possessing aircraft has absolutely ZILCH in terms of combat proven performance, or R&D..It by your standards shouldn't even be contemplated.

In other news, the JSF is so bad books are literally being written on why it should be killed.


Next up, POGO..they have writen many books and articles on how each and every new military program has to be killed. Sprey and Wheeler have been doing back and forth with Sprey even claiming the F-16 is superior to the F-22A when the F-16's get killed in quantity when these things go head to head.

I for one stopped taking this seriously right about the time you spoke of hypersonic-cruise being 5th generation requirement, and what not. But what really sealed the deal was quoting Sprey that we have discussed at length here much earlier.

Those that decide on these matters actually go to SME's and ask for their input.

And please point me to what level of access to the aircraft or program your independent assesses have? based on which their opinion should be treated at a higher level than those that fly the thing, put it up in large force exercises, and take them out to the various range infrastructure that the nation maintains for this very purpose? All you need to do is a search of this forum and see that many of the things mentioned in that article have been addressed by the program. Do you want to do some research to the questions I have requested you to provide answers to? I'm sure quite a few of us would like to know.

Please enlighten us, how would you compare a PROVEN," HAS R&D" investment F-16 to a Sukhoi Su-35, let alone a T-50?

The last thing the boon dogglers would attempt is real 5th gen technology when trying to peddle 4th gen stuff.


Yes, the REAL 5th generation technology "requirement" that you made up a couple of days ago that no one around the world is designing to for some damn obvious reasons..

The irony in all this is that you think the JSF is too expensive and should be hacked, while you want to send the USAF on a wild goose chase with requirements being what you have stated earlier.

Love the " Hey the JSF is too expensive, but let's invest in a mach 5 cruising, laser firing IBM Watson with some flashy Chameleon Skin" argument. It's quite unique. :rotfl:
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jan 2017 00:21, edited 4 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 00:14

Neshant wrote:
NRao wrote:The F-35 is a FAR closer cousin of NN than Watson is to AI.


I haven't seen any reports of a neural net on the F-35 or anything even approximating it.


I agree that Watson understands English better than some humans. :wink:

The last thing the boon dogglers would attempt is real 5th gen technology when trying to peddle 4th gen stuff.


I haven't seen any reports of Watson saying that

Neshant wrote:In other news, the JSF is so bad books are literally being written on why it should be killed.
Can't vouch for the author's solution.
But writing a book to showcase why a plane should be killed has got to be a first.


If he did nto run that by Watson, then it is not a book worth reading.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 09 Jan 2017 00:23

Neshant wrote:In other news, the JSF is so bad books are literally being written on why it should be killed.
Can't vouch for the author's solution.
But writing a book to showcase why a plane should be killed has got to be a first.

I guess it also showcases that someone doesnt have a fulltime job. :rotfl:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 00:29

But writing a book to showcase why a plane should be killed has got to be a first.


Negative press and even dissent has happened before. Some highly experience folks in the 1970s were putting their reputation on the line telling the USAF that the F-16 is going to get pilots killed and they should cancel it and by more F-15A's instead. One was even a recently (at the time) retired 3 star. Here you are telling us we should be buying more of them to take on Su-35's, J-20's and PAKFA's instead of the F-35.

Some of us also have read the case for cancelling the F/A-18 right when it was months from being inducted into the Navy because the Navy discovered some serious design flaws. The rhetoric was quite strong on that one and you can search the net to find out more.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jan 2017 00:35, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 00:30

JayS wrote:
Neshant wrote:In other news, the JSF is so bad books are literally being written on why it should be killed.
Can't vouch for the author's solution.
But writing a book to showcase why a plane should be killed has got to be a first.

I guess it also showcases that someone doesnt have a fulltime job. :rotfl:


Its worse, there is ONLY one source that is clamoring for "Kill the F-35" and it seems to point to this one book on Amazon:

American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare Paperback – December 14, 2016
by David Archibald (Author)
Be the first to review this item
#1 New Releasein Aviation


The rest of the "Blog"s all point to one "Blog".

BET this all false news. And people are falling for it. It should soon appear of rt.com





"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 09 Jan 2017 00:38

brar_w wrote:And BTW, your phantom 5th generation capability possessing aircraft has absolutely ZILCH in terms of combat proven performance, or R&D..It by your standards shouldn't even be contemplated.


The whole point of 5th generation is new technology - AI, optical cloaking, thermal cloaking, direct energy weapondry, hypersonic weapondry.
There already is active research into all such areas.
Peddling old tech and calling it a new generation technology is a fraud.
The only reason LM and a few other large conglomerates get away with it is because they are practically a monopoly in this industry.
They can boon doggle the taxpayer for as much and as long as they want.

Based on which their opinion should be treated at a higher level than those that fly the thing


Those that fly the thing and build the thing are not independent in their views.
Invariably the only thing you quote is the marketing material of LM.

Love the " Hey the JSF is too expensive, but let's invest in a mach 5 cruising, laser firing IBM Watson with some flashy Chameleon Skin" argument. It's quite unique.


Better than peddling a failed fighter plane project with shills hollering & clapping in support to con the crowd.

Before all else, please disclose : What's your financial connection direct or otherwise to this project?
I have none to either this project or its potential competitors.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 00:51

The whole point of 5th generation is new technology - AI, optical cloaking, thermal cloaking, direct energy weapondry, hypersonic weapondry.


No it isn't the whole point. The whole point to move towards 5th generation requirements is to accomplish missions and deal with threats that warrant modernization in the first place i.e. threats that your existing aircraft cannot deal with without unacceptable risk.

That is a reason why you buy the F-22 instead of another F-15C, or buy the F-35 as opposed to another F-16 or F/A-18. Same as why you buy the Sukhoi T-50 instead of more Su-30's, or you buy the AMCA instead of LCA MK2's.

It was the same reason why the French air-force bought the Rafale instead of simply buying more Mirage-2000's or why the world moved towards the F-15, F-16, Su-27 and Mig-29 from the 3rd generation aircraft.

There already is active research into all such areas.


Hence I gave you a chart on TRL and MRL. Nothing that is below TRL 6 can go into a new program as per most standards. The 5th generation timelines was the 2010's for the F-35' and 2000's for the F-22. The capabilities you mentioned won't even be "Military-mass production ready" for decades into the future. See the disconnect that is so damn obvious to most here?

Peddling old tech and calling it a new generation technology is a fraud.


If someone comes up, on the fly with their own definition of combat requirements and then holds everyone around the world accountable to their own definition and standards - that makes the person making the argument a joke, not the rest of the world that designs and develops a product based on a customer/operator furnished requirement. Same applies to LM, Sukhoi, AdA, HAL, Mitsubishi, KAI etc. All these companies and organizations develop a product as per a customer furnished requirement.

I'd love to want a Mach 10 cruising, laser shooting IBM Watson. I'll also love a WARP speed cruising space plane by 2050. I can't have it for many reasons that you need to understand.

Those that fly the thing and build the thing are not independent in their views.
Invariably the only thing you quote is the marketing material of LM.


Ummm NO. I've provided opinion of actual folks in uniform that fly this thing. I ask for perhaps the third time, why should anyone here take your opinion to be gospel but show total disregard for the experts? I've pointed you to pilots that have unique set of experiences of flying thousands of hours in a fourth generation aircraft, and then transitioning into the F-22A before moving into the F-35B. There are only a 3-4 folks in the world that can claim that. We have Norwegian pilot talking about his own experiences with the aircraft and how it compares to what he flew in the past in many areas (including close in fighting).

Why should we believe you instead? Honestly, you're 5th generation fighter requirements effort wouldn't really inspire much confidence.


What's your financial connection direct or otherwise to this project?


None.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jan 2017 01:07, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 09 Jan 2017 00:57

The proliferation of lobbyists and shills to sell this plane is just phenomenal.
_____

Australia's F-35 jet acquisition has hallmarks of Ponzi scheme, inquiry told

Australia’s next-generation jet fighter has been labelled a “jackass of all trades and masterful of none”.

Air Power Australia, an independent military and policy thinktank, is dismissive of the plan to acquire 72 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters from the US.

“Blue sky marketing” was overshadowing big problems with the aircraft, the group’s head, Peter Goon, told the Canberra hearing of a Senate inquiry investigating the acquisition on Tuesday.

“It has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme,” he said.

“When the product fails, recruit as many clients as you can, promote the product as loudly as you can, keep the cash flowing for as long as the market remains blind to its failure.” (why do i get a dejavu feeling listening to the shills here)?

The aircraft was also a risk to the Anzus alliance – Australia’s security pact with the US.

Goon described the aircraft’s computer system as a “digital dog leash”.

Australia is scheduled to bring its first two planes home in 2018. Up to 26 fighters are expected to be operational in 2020, and the number is expected to reach up to 72 by 2023. The project has a $17bn price tag.

Production has been riddled with delays and budget blowouts, as well as problems related to flying during times of lightning and extreme heat.

Chris Mills, a retired wing commander, said Australia would never achieve regional air superiority with the F-35.

The Sir Richard Williams Foundation took an opposing view, saying the aircraft was unique, revolutionary and represented a generational change.

The former RAAF chief Errol J McCormack said the F-35 was the only viable candidate that would meet the full range of Australia’s air superiority needs in 2025 and beyond.

But he acknowledged that Lockheed Martin gave thousands of dollars in sponsorship to fund his organisation’s seminars.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute director of research, Andrew Davies, said the F-35 was still the RAAF’s best choice for air combat capability.

“There is a small but vocal cadre of F-35 opponents who seize upon any bad news as a sure sign that the program is a colossal error,” he told the inquiry.


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... quiry-told

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 00:59

#GroundHogDay. Let's wait till the talk of the APA* cited analysis based on a video-game simulation resurfaces.

*Any moment now....*

NRao wrote:
if you bring up Pierre Sprey, then you must be a high school kid who started googling about ................ a year ago. Std check points need to be followed: does you mom know you are on BR? Is it past your bed time? ..............

Seriously please visit teh Turkey thread for more info on Pierre Sprey. And, please spare the band width of thsi thread and derailing it.

thx.


Spot on. The chain is actually quite similar to that we have seen multiple times here. APA has come up, and I'm sure the Harpoon 3 won't be far off. Next up, POGO, some more David Axe ;). Nothing has been discussed over the 3 or so pages that hasn't already been taken up multiple times over at that thread.

One unique thing being the new 5th generation requirements definition which is quite unique and something none of the major air-forces of the world could think of on their own without some strong medication.


* APA wants RAAF to acquire F-22A, another 4th generation aircraft Lockheed is trying to fool the world into believing that it's a 5th generation one because it clearly does not meet the 5th generation requirements that was created a couple of days ago right here on BR.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 09 Jan 2017 02:30

Pierre Sprey may be controversial. But its sure better listening to him than shills. I listen to all view points and then make up my mind.

Meanwhile, Canadians are desperate to get out of the F-35 program.
The only reason they are paying 35 mil to stay in the program is because LM has a bunch of contract development work in Canada - not all of which is even related to the F-35.

Most likely they will opt for more F-18s as an interm measure to fill in for their ageing CF-18 which is reaching the end of their life span.
Thereafter they will launch a competition for its replacement..

It says a lot when a country is willing to spend hundreds of millions to avoid buying the F-35.

____
Canada’s second thoughts on F-35 Lightning show concerns about plane’s high cost

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 02:52

The only folks that take Sprey seriously are those over at RT/Sputnik (where he's even stopped correcting them every time they wrongly refer to him as the F-16 designer and worst the "designer of the F-15 and F-16"), and Kanye West.

RT use him every time someone needs to come in and bash the typhoon , raptor or the JSF. They don't ask him often to share his thoughts on how the Viper is superior to the Su30 and 35 which he has claimed on quite a few occasions. Another evidence of his claims about air combat being detached from modern reality is the complete absence of a sensor less LWF from the worlds airforce,s modernization plans. But we are to take him seriously on aerospace matters and his claim that the F-22 is inferior to the F-16 when F-22's routinely wipe the floor clean with the Viper and Eagle in large force exercises as per the folks that fly them.

Read this - http://www.fredoneverything.net/ReformersLast.shtml

This forum, and other's that discuss military and aerospace matters have debunked most of his criticism on most modern aircraft. But if you want a comprehensive point by point attempt see this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM

I guess you are confusing the entire operator community as Lockheed shills and would do the same if the IAF jocks defended the MKI when it did well against the Viper of Phoon or claimed how it was superior to their prior aircraft based on actually having flown them. "How dare you say you clubbed Vipers and Phoons..I heard Sprey say it will be superior so you all must be shills for Sukhoi" So what the pilots that fly it, or fly against it say does not matter. When someone points you to a set of technologies, you claim otherwise, when more evidence is pointed you ignore it or provide nothing to counter (As I, JayS, ViV and NRao have shown you) and simply move on.

___

As for Canada they are staying because they will likely split their buy much like the Aussies have done. Their agreement to stay onboard the program and industrial benefit is based to a large part on them acquiring the aircraft. There are no significant non F-35 agreements they have that will suffer as a result of their exit from the program. They are not FMS customers where they have negotiated offset agreements. They are developmental partners so they get program work share commensurate to their investment in the program through RDT&E and Acquisition funding. If either of those don't come through the JPO reserves the right to take that work elsewhere.


Meanwhile, you create your own definition of 5th generation and expect everyone else to follow along and if it doesn't fit they bill it must be crap and 4th generation being passed on as 5th gen. It was funny for a while, particularly some of the random set of requirements you pulled out of thin air. But now it's getting repepetiive. I say agin, find a single person here that subscribes to your standard of 5th generation aircraft in 5th generation timeframes. If you are unable to find one, ask yourself, why this is? Why folks don't take these (below) set of requirements seriously and why Air Force's around the world, staffed with professional airmen not doing what you seem to have crafted. Think about this long and hard.

Neshant wrote:
- AI integrated - i.e. IBM Watson or Google Deep Mind type intelligence
- Hypersonic cruise for some distance
- Direct energy weapons that can take out an aircraft at "long" (5+km) range
- Self sealing/healing airframe or fibres
- Chameleon skin - Aircraft skin which optically cloaks the plane by projecting the background to the foreground.
- Metal 3D printed parts for 25% of the plane.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jan 2017 04:35, edited 12 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 03:14

Is India Buying 200 F-16 Fighter Jets?

Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Dassault Rafale, however, could still be in the runs to become the mainstay of Indian naval aviation. As I explained elsewhere: “Representatives of French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation pitched the naval version of the Dassault Rafale twin-engine, fourth generation multirole fighter to the Indian Navy in early 2016. (The United States has been pushing Lockheed Martin’s F-35c Lightning II and McDonnell Douglas F/A 18 Hornets).”



Hmmmmmm.......

Charlie for IN. A silent roar.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 03:21

Pierre Sprey may be controversial.


There can never be a controversy in logic. "may be"?

What next? Al Gore invented the internet?

And, God forbid, that Julian Assange coined the word "truth"? Julian Assange?






:lol:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 05:50

OK. The news to kill the F-35 has made it to Sputnik International. Now for teh final leg rt.com, then the blessings from Julian and the only remaining step would be the preps for the funeral.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 09 Jan 2017 05:52

brar_w wrote:As for Canada they are staying because they will likely split their buy much like the Aussies have done.


Canada is not going to split their purchase.

At best they are looking to wait until the true cost & performance of the F-35 becomes known.

They got sucked into being a buyer of an aircraft under development and realizing now what they've got themselves into want out.

Super F-18s are likely going to replace their older F-18s for now.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 09 Jan 2017 05:54

The tactic for the F-35 is to flee a dogfight and never attempt one.

Ridiculous for a supposed air superiority fighter.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 06:07

After being pointed to actual pilots trying to explain the AXE interpretation and how got it totally wrong, you again bring the same thing up.

The tactic for the F-35 is to flee a dogfight and never attempt one.

Ridiculous for a supposed air superiority fighter.


A) That is not the F-35's tactics. If so, could you point me to a documents from which you are pulling out CONOPS and tactics? Thanks in advance.

and B ) The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft akin to an F-16 or F/A-18 and not an F-15C, or F-22A.

As to what it will likely do in a furball? Maybe use its performance that it has been designed around?

Image

How air-combat has been changing and how that effects requirements in a post IIR, HOBS/LOAL world has been discussed in academia for years and has been written down on how priorities are changing. Here is a good lit. review on the matter - http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... ility.html

In addition to the weapons, the F-35 has its MMI and is aided by the DAS which acts as a high end blue-red tracker in a large furball. This will be important in a post DIRCM and Defensive DEW world since the latter needs 360 degrees cues and the F-35 comes pre-installed with a sensor capable of providing that.

I would suggest you take a few minutes and read what an actual combat pilot that flies the F-35 has to say. The Norwegian pilot goes into quite detail on how the aircraft handles..
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jan 2017 06:11, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 06:08

Meanwhile, i the real world........................ serious education of the internet zombies is kicked off.

Air Force to Trump: Sorry, but the F-18 Can’t Replace the F-35

It took a few weeks -- possibly to recover from the shock -- but top officials in the Pentagon are finally publicly pushing back against President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal in December to do away with the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and replace the fifth-generation fighter plane with a souped-up version of the F-18 Super Hornet.

The suggestion to completely overhaul the military’s vision for the future of jet fighters was made in a tweet, as with many of Trump’s policy statements. “Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F/A-18 Super Hornet!” Trump wrote.

The suggestion was met with immediate derision within the defense community, but Pentagon officials generally kept their criticism low-key, pointing out that the technology and design differences between the F-18 and F-35 are vast, and that an F-18 that is “comparable” to an F-35 would require such a massive overhaul that it really wouldn’t be an F-18 anymore.

This week, though, some of the criticism got a bit louder. In an interview reported on Thursday by DefenseNews, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said, “The Air Force does not view the F/A-18 and the F-35 to be substitutable at all. They fulfill different requirements. They’re both fine aircraft, don’t get me wrong. But it’s fourth generation, and F-35 is fifth generation.”

On Friday morning, speaking in northern Virginia at a meeting of the Air Force Association, James repeated her criticism. Referring to the F-18, she said, “It's a fine aircraft, it's a different aircraft, it does not fulfill the same requirements ... It's a little bit apples and oranges and I have to believe before any final decision would be made with respect to a final shift, the chief requirements officer would be consulted.”

Others were not as diplomatic. Speaking to Business Insider about the idea that the F-18 could be transformed into something comparable to the F-35, US Marine Corps Lt. Col David "Chip" Berke, a pilot who has flown both planes, called the idea “preposterous” and “laughable.”

Among the most significant differences is that the F-35 was designed from the ground up to be a stealth fighter, meaning that it is extremely difficult to spot using radar. The F-18 is not a stealth aircraft.

“The radar cross-section of an F-18 is the radar cross-section of an F-18 — you can’t change that,” said Air Force Brigadier General Scott Pleus this week, according to Military.com. Pleus directs the F-35 program’s integration office. “Low observable technology, the ability to evade radar if you will, is something that has to be designed into the airplane from the very beginning.”

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 09 Jan 2017 06:08

brar_w wrote:The only folks that take Sprey seriously are those over at RT/Sputnik


Sprey has been dishing it out to the F-35 and has been interviewed on CBC much to the dislike of LM. So far he's been right unlike the shills.
The fact that the plane has to fall back on the "too-big-to-fail" notion to keep it going tells you its already is a failure.

If Sprey is right, only 500 of the planned 2500 planes will be produced before it dawns on the stakeholder that the project needs to be killed.
That is the real reason Canada is trying to find its way out of this project while other countries have scaled back their orders.

I also doubt the F-35 will ever enter a competition with other aircraft from around the world to win a sale.
That's because its flaws would be magnified and publicized in any fighter competition.
Its customer base will largely be restricted to the suckers who signed up right from the start not knowing what they were getting themselves into.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 06:13

Air Force General Challenges Trump Over the F-35

Donald Trump isn’t his commander-in-chief quite yet, so on Monday the U.S. Air Force general in charge of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program pushed back against the president-elect’s comments from last week describing production of the state-of-the-art plane.

Trump had attacked the program on Twitter, saying “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.” The tweet came less than a week after the incoming president attacked another major Air Force contract -- the deal with Boeing to upgrade the presidential plane, Air Force One.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said, “This program is not out of control.” He added, “I would like to explain to the new administration this is a vastly different program from 2011.” {Something I have been saying for a long time. IF these managers had been there from the start the narrative would have been totally diff}

Bogdan was referring to a time when many of the cost overruns with the program peaked. While the program still faces considerable criticism from within and without the Pentagon, Bogdan insisted that it has been dramatically reformed in recent years.

“Since 2011 we have basically been on schedule,” Bogdan said. “Since 2011 we have basically been on budget. We are delivering now today 50+ airplanes a year.”

He went on to predict that when the program is finally operating at capacity (only a relative handful of planes are currently being produced each year) that they are expected “to come down in price significantly … probably somewhere on the order of six to seven percent.”

Bogdan said he was not upset that the incoming administration would be looking for efficiencies in the Defense Department’s procurement system.

“The new administration I believe is putting everyone on notice, not just industry but the Department that it wants better value from its dollar. I applaud the new administration for doing that.”

Also on Monday, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James spoke at a separate event in Washington and said that if Trump thinks he’ll be able to step in and immediately reduce the costs of the F-35 program, he might want to think again.

“It’s not quite as easy as it seems to get these costs down,” James said, a message she indicated her staff is currently trying to make clear to the Trump transition team.
Last edited by NRao on 09 Jan 2017 06:21, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 06:17

Sprey has been dishing it out to the F-35 and has been interviewed on CBC much to the dislike of LM. So far he's been right unlike the shills.
The fact that the plane has to fall back on the "too-big-to-fail" notion to keep it going tells you its already is a failure.


Sprey has been saying the same of the F-22. Even the modern F-16. He wants to go back to the F-16A. Similarly, he thinks the Su-30 is great news for the USAF because it's essentially a bad copy of the F-15 and as long as nations around the world keep buying this the F-16 can keep dominating the skies. He doesn't wan't complex avionics and mission systems - which actually runs contrary to your genius set of requirements highlighted above.

The fact that the plane has to fall back on the "too-big-to-fail" notion to keep it going tells you its already is a failure.


It's too important to fail. It replaces a large chunk of the CAF, USN and USMC assets, and is well liked by those that fly it. It is already proving itself at large force exercises. What else do you want? Approval from Sprey???? as a criteria for a something that should continue?

That is the real reason


And Justin Trudeau has told you this personally? Or did Watson send you a text message?

also doubt the F-35 will ever enter a competition with other aircraft from around the world to win a sale.


It has already done so and has won. Let's get back and see what happens in Canada.

That's because its flaws would be magnified and publicized in any fighter competition.


That you are totally unfamiliar with the program and who has ordered it speaks quite a bit.

Its customer base will largely be restricted to the suckers who signed up right from the start not knowing what they were getting themselves into.


And of course the FMS customers, 3 of which have signed up already, and another that will do so over the next 3-4 years. You could have more than 5 non-development partner nations order the aircraft by the early 2020's. But whatever..stick to your narrative...
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jan 2017 06:47, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 06:19

A) That is not the F-35's tactics.


Logic and sense is not the way of the interneters. They can say anything they want and push it as truth. Julian is an example - the person who wanted transparency is now suggesting opaque means of dealing with the world!!!!!!

IF we had accepted Watson is a Neural Network based system and therefore capable of contributing to designing a "5th Gen" plane, we would have never heard of Sprey. Someone we spent pages and pages on a FEW YEARS AGO.

Internet for you.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Jan 2017 06:42

Bulgaria and India are buying new fighter jets — and unlike Canada, it won’t take them 10 years

:lol:

How times change.

A change in management WRT the F-35 and in India changed everything!!!

And, now Canada has a new Gov.

India and Bulgaria have launched competitions to buy new fighter jets, but unlike Canada they expect the process to take just a couple of years.

The speedy purchase of much-needed jets for those countries has raised questions about why it will take the Canadian government more than 10 years to replace the military’s aging fleet of CF-18s.

India announced Tuesday it expects to choose a supplier for 200 planes and sign a deal by 2020, with a request for bids going out in 2018. In December, Bulgaria announced it was seeking bids for up to eight jets, with more to follow. The winning bid for that program will be selected in 2018.

By contrast, the Liberal government expects it will take until the end of the 2020s — or perhaps even until 2032 — before it can acquire replacements for its CF-18s.

“There is no reason why any competition should take that long,” said Conservative Party defence critic James Bezan. “Most of the work is already done and the capabilities of various planes are already known,” he added, referring to the efforts by the Canadian military over the last seven years to examine potential replacement candidates.

But Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said the lengthy period is needed ensure the proper choice is made.

In the meantime, the Liberals will first buy 18 Super Hornet jets that will be used to fill what they say is a fighter-jet capability gap. The government does not know when those planes will be purchased or ready for the flight line. The Liberals will meanwhile launch a competition to find a permanent replacement for the CF-18s. A choice is expected in the late 2020s, but Sajjan has said the CF-18s could be still flying in 2032.

Privately, however, military officers say there is no need to take more than a decade to determine what aircraft is best for Canada and purchase it.

Alan Williams, the former head of procurement for the Department of National Defence, has questioned why the Canadian government would first purchase Super Hornets for an “interim” role. He noted that Canadian procurement officials already have a significant amount of information on various fighter jets and a competition to acquire a permanent replacement for the CF-18s could probably be run over a one-year period.

Bezan pointed out that both Norway and Denmark selected new planes in a much shorter period. The Canadian process, he said, “is all about politics and the Liberal government.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has previously said his government would not buy the F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives wanted, claiming last year the F-35 was not working. But U.S. military units are now using the F-35s and Canadian government insiders concede there is concern in the Liberal ranks the plane could win the competition and be selected the best replacement for the CF-18s — a result that would be very embarrassing for Trudeau, they add.

It is expected that Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, will enter an upgraded version of its F-16 in the Indian competition while Saab of Sweden will pitch the Gripen.

Gripens and Typhoons are among the aircraft that Canada has looked at to replace the CF-18s.

Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said the single-engine fighter jets would be built in India and the procurement process would be fast-tracked.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 06:55

NRao wrote:
A) That is not the F-35's tactics.


Logic and sense is not the way of the interneters. They can say anything they want and push it as truth. Julian is an example - the person who wanted transparency is now suggesting opaque means of dealing with the world!!!!!!

IF we had accepted Watson is a Neural Network based system and therefore capable of contributing to designing a "5th Gen" plane, we would have never heard of Sprey. Someone we spent pages and pages on a FEW YEARS AGO.

Internet for you.


Hey maybe he's seen an early draft of the manuals at the FWS or he's getting his information directly from Luke pilots (quite unlikely). Or it could be that they are being pulled from the same source that claims Watson like abilities coupled with a Hypersonic cruiser are 5th generation defining characteristics (most likely).

“Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account

Keep in mind that his knowledge is quite limited. His only expertise is that he flies this thing and has flown (and against) a few fourth generation types. It's not like he converses with Watson at night in his sleep.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4789
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 09 Jan 2017 07:17

Neshant wrote:I also doubt the F-35 will ever enter a competition with other aircraft from around the world to win a sale.
That's because its flaws would be magnified and publicized in any fighter competition.

Danish Ministry of Defence, 2016

Image

Image
______________________________________

Image
______________________________________

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 07:33

Viv, i was going to let him do the research, but now that you have started it ;)

The Japanese Defense Ministry announced recently that F-35 Lightening II had won the competition over Boeing's [BA] F/A-18 and Eurofighter's Typhoon. Lockheed Martin will build 42 of the planes with delivery starting in 2016 at a unit cost of 9 billion yen ($115 million), including spare parts. - Defense Daily International, 2011


In March, the South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration (Dapa) selected F-35 aircraft for the Republic of Korea Air Force's (ROKAF) F-X III fighter project, over the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon.


At times Google fu can be hard [- trillion has been "spent", - then Canada has left the program,- it has never taken part in a multi-nation / multi-aircraft competition because of fears that things will come out etc etc etc].

Here is a bit of exercise for Watson - Name a multi-aircraft competition (vendors from different nations) that the JSF has lost.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5026
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2017 23:24

Department of Defense Announces Successful Micro-Drone Demonstration

In one of the most significant tests of autonomous systems under development by the Department of Defense, the Strategic Capabilities Office, partnering with Naval Air Systems Command, successfully demonstrated one of the world’s largest micro-drone swarms at China Lake, California. The test, conducted in October 2016 and documented on Sunday’s CBS News program “60 Minutes”, consisted of 103 Perdix drones launched from three F/A-18 Super Hornets. The micro-drones demonstrated advanced swarm behaviors such as collective decision-making, adaptive formation flying, and self-healing.

“I congratulate the Strategic Capabilities Office for this successful demonstration,” said Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who created SCO in 2012. “This is the kind of cutting-edge innovation that will keep us a step ahead of our adversaries. This demonstration will advance our development of autonomous systems.”

“Due to the complex nature of combat, Perdix are not pre-programmed synchronized individuals, they are a collective organism, sharing one distributed brain for decision-making and adapting to each other like swarms in nature,” said SCO Director William Roper. “Because every Perdix communicates and collaborates with every other Perdix, the swarm has no leader and can gracefully adapt to drones entering or exiting the team.”

The demonstration is one of the first examples of the Pentagon using teams of small, inexpensive, autonomous systems to perform missions once achieved only by large, expensive ones. Roper stressed the department’s conception of the future battle network is one where humans will always be in the loop. Machines and the autonomous systems being developed by the DoD, such as the micro-drones, will empower humans to make better decisions faster.

Originally designed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering students, the Perdix drone was modified for military use by the scientists and engineers of MIT Lincoln Laboratory starting in 2013. Drawing inspiration from the commercial smartphone industry, Perdix software and hardware has been continually updated in successive design generations. Now in its sixth generation, October's test confirmed the reliability of the current all-commercial-component design under potential deployment conditions—speeds of Mach 0.6, temperatures of minus 10 degrees Celsius, and large shocks—encountered during ejection from fighter flare dispensers.

The “60 Minutes” segment also featured other new technology from across the Department of Defense such as the Navy’s unmanned ocean-going vessel, the Sea Hunter, and the Marine Corps’ Unmanned Tactical Control and Collaboration program.

As SCO works with the military Services to transition Perdix into existing programs of record, it is also partnering with the Defense Industrial Unit-Experimental, or DIUx, to find companies capable of accurately replicating Perdix using the MIT Lincoln Laboratory design. Its goal is to produce Perdix at scale in batches of up to 1,000.



Video - https://www.dvidshub.net/video/504622/p ... o-oct-2016

From the SCO data sheet -


PAST TESTS 

In September 2014, Perdix was first air‐dropped from F‐16 flare canisters by the 
Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base.  
In  September  2015,  90  Perdix  missions  were  flown  during  U.S.  Pacific 
Command’s  Northern  Edge  exercise  in  Alaska.  These  included  ground  and 
maritime surveillance missions, as well as one of the first swarms containing 20 
drones.

SWARMING VICE SYNCHRONIZING 

Perdix  are  not  preprogrammed,  synchronized  individuals.  They  share  a 
distributed  brain  for  decision‐making  and  adapt  to  each  other,  and  the 
environment, much like swarms in nature. Because every Perdix communicates 
and  collaborates  with  every  other  Perdix,  the  swarm  has  no  leader  and  can 
gracefully  adapt  to  changes  in  drone  numbers. This allows  this team  of  small 
inexpensive drones to perform missions once done by large expensive ones. 

Details

Propellers: 2.6 in 
  Body: 6.5 in 
  Wing span: 11.8 in 
  Weight: 290 g 
  Endurance: >20 min 
  Air speed: >40‐60 kts 

Image



Last edited by brar_w on 10 Jan 2017 00:21, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2808
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 09 Jan 2017 23:27

brar_w: can you please visit the Indian Navy News & Discussion thread. Your input is welcome :)

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 10 Jan 2017 07:40

brar_w wrote:And Justin Trudeau has told you this personally?


You should take time out in-between shilling for this failed plane to actually read the news. :)
Justin Trudeau election campaign was based on cancelling the F-35 for Canada.
This as a result of bogus technological & financial claims that were made when Canada signed on to the project.

Canada’s second thoughts on F-35 Lightning show concerns about plane’s high cost

O, Canada, land of “peace, order and good government.” Land of compromise and polite politics. Land of turmoil over whether to buy the F-35.

As in the United States, the fighter plane has become a rancorous political issue. What once looked like a sure buy of 65 planes has been bogged down by infighting and un-Canadian vitriol, and the purchase is on hold while Canadian officials consider whether to buy another plane.

The F-35 Lightning II is a U.S. plane, made by a U.S. company for the U.S. military. But if the cost for U.S. taxpayers is going to come down to levels that make the plane affordable in the long term, the Pentagon is depending on foreign governments to buy the F-35 as well.

From the beginning of the program, Defense Department officials signed up eight international partners, including Canada. Since then, they’ve crossed the globe looking for additional foreign government customers with some success. Japan and Israel have agreed to buy some of the planes, while South Korea appears likely to make the F-35 its next fighter jet as well.

But as Canada shows, not everyone is sold on what has become the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history. In addition to being a symbol of power, might and mind-bending technology, the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter has, to some, come to represent waste and unwieldiness — in the United States and abroad.

Many thought that by now Canada would have decided whether to buy the planes — a move that would help drive down costs in the nearly $400 billion program — or instead force the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, to compete for its business. But it’s now unclear when that will happen.

Some fear that if nations such as Canada balk, there could be questions about the long-term affordability of the program. Meanwhile, Boeing, one of Lockheed Martin’s fiercest competitors, has pounced on what it sees as an opportunity in Canada and other countries to tout its F/A-18 Super Hornet as a proven, affordable alternative.

Facing budget constraints, Italy and the Netherlands have already curtailed the number of F-35s they said they plan to buy. Denmark is holding a competition that would pit the F-35 against other fighters. Meanwhile, the production line at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant has been limited to a little over 30 the past two years, as tightened U.S. budgets and technical problems have forced the Pentagon to significantly slow its procurement as well.

“The program is stuck in low production rates and high costs,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst for the Teal Group. “The production rates are low because costs are high and costs are high because production is low.”

Currently, the plane’s so-called “flyaway cost,” which doesn’t include research and development, among other things, is approximately $110 million apiece for the Air Force’s model, the company says. But Lockheed and Pentagon officials say it could be lowered to less than $80 million by the end of the decade. Lockheed and some of its subcontractors are investing $170 million to reduce the price.

Still, the Government Accountability Office recently said that affordability “remains a significant concern” and that “the program is likely to be challenged” to meet cost reduction goals.

While ramping up production would bring the per-plane cost down, it would be unwise to build too many too soon because not all of the necessary testing has been done on the aircraft, said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Additional testing will inevitably reveal problems that need to be fixed, which then cost money to repair, he said. For years, critics of the program, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have said that the United States should never have committed to buying the plane while it was still being developed, saying it violated one of the basic rules of airplane acquisition: “fly before you buy.”

“It gets to the fundamental tension within the JSF — you want to buy more of them because the quicker we buy them, the cost will come down,” Harrison said. “But the faster we buy them, that just increases the concurrency in the program. We’re buying planes that haven’t completed testing and are going to require modifications.”

The slowed production rate could have another consequence he said.

“One of the concerns has been as we’ve reduced the production rate, people have floated the idea of cutting back on the number of planes the U.S. is going to buy. Then you spook the allies.”

But with the relatively large numbers of aircraft the United States plans to buy, he said, “the fate of the program is up to us, not them.” Though the Pentagon initially planned to buy 2,852 planes, it has for years remained consistent with its commitment to buy 2,443. Britain, which plans to buy 138 planes, the most of any other nation, also said its confidence in the program remains strong even though the F-35 was grounded after a recent engine fire and missed its international debut at a pair of air shows in England last month.

And at a recent “rollout” event in Fort Worth, Australian and U.S. officials celebrated the anticipated delivery of its first two planes. During the ceremony, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, chief of the Royal Australian Air Force, called the F-35 a “revolution” and said it will cause a “step change in the way we prepare for and conduct operations into the future.”

Lockheed Martin officials are confident that more countries will sign on in the years to come as the need to replace their fighter fleets becomes more urgent. The F-35 is designed to supplant several different legacy aircraft, from the F-16 to the F/A 18 and the A-10.

“This is the airplane that’s going to replace all those airplanes and create a capability for the next 50-plus years,” said Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of international strategy and business development.

Replacement of the F-16 alone creates a huge market for the F-35, he said. More than 4,500 F-16s have been built, and nearly 30 countries use the aircraft.

And while not all of those F-16s will be replaced, “the potential is significant,” he said.

Potential customers are one thing. Signed contracts are another.

It initially appeared as if Canada was definitely going to buy. Defense officials praised the F-35’s speed and stealth. At a news conference announcing the purchase to buy 65 F-35s in 2010, then-Defense Minister Peter MacKay called it “the best that we can provide our men and women in uniform.”

But two years later, the government put the acquisition on hold after an auditor general’s report suggested the government misled Parliament, saying that key costs over the course of the fleet’s life were much higher than previously stated.

Liberals attacked the conservative government. John McKay, a member of Parliament, called it “deceit and incompetence at the highest levels.” Another member, Ralph Goodale, wrote that the “F-35 fiasco exposes dishonesty and incompetence.”

As a result, the Harper administration, while denying it misled Parliament, put the purchase on hold and appointed a National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to ensure the Canadian military acquires the right plane.

But Goodale thinks that the government will put off any decision until after the upcoming elections. “This is a hot potato for them,” he said. “Their process up to now has been terribly flawed, and they have very little public support for how they’ve gone about this.”

The cost has been a big issue, and there was also “concern here in some circles that the F-35 was the anointed choice without having gone through the formality of a competitive process,” said Martin Shadwick, a Canadian defense analyst and a professor at York University.

Still, he said, “My personal anticipation is that we’ll still buy.”

But Boeing is doing everything it can to change minds.

“We certainly believe the Super Hornet is very well-suited for the unique environment and geographical challenges faced by the Royal Canadian Air Force,” said Howard Berry, Boeing’s F/A-18 international business development team leader. “We continue our battle rhythm. We continue to engage our political colleagues on both sides of the aisle.”

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57215
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 » 10 Jan 2017 07:48

suppose a boxy VLO weapons carrier missile launches a swarm of 50 drones some 10km out from a vital radar target ... i figure swarm has more chance to get through badminton nets and other defences and causing havoc than a single missile which will surely attract SAM shots and CIWS bursts. these mosquitoes would be vlo and plasticy but fly in the weeds , even wait and hide for a while until a go order comes from scouts and 3rd party sensors.

will surely cause a lot of confusion. CIWS could be guys with nets and badminton bats now though to swat the bees down :lol: they could easily id specific things like oil tankers or toilets and water storages from basic image processing and damage these to make life hard.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 10 Jan 2017 07:54

brar_w wrote:The Japanese Defense Ministry announced recently that F-35 Lightening II had won


Japan agreed to make a "purchase" of the failing F-35 in 2011.

The decision was made at the time when other nations were jumping ship on the plane and the entire F-35 program looked like it was circling the drain of cancellation.

The only reason for Japan's purchase was to bolster international confidence in the purchase of the plane and the viability of the program.

This isn't a purchase that highlights how great the F-35 plane is because it was made at a time when the F-35 was in the dumps.

LM threatened Canada with loss of manufacturing & contracting work should they decide to exit the F-35 program.

Why the need for these strong arm tactics if the plane is so good?


The Ministry of Defense opted for the F-35 in December 2011 at a cost of about $8 billion to replace 1970s vintage F-4 Phantoms, following a detailed RFP and reportedly severe competition from the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-18 Super Hornet. The decision was, for many domestic commentators, highly controversial, given the F-35's well-publicized development difficulties and climbing price tag.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2017 08:04

Singha wrote:suppose a boxy VLO weapons carrier missile launches a swarm of 50 drones some 10km out from a vital radar target ... i figure swarm has more chance to get through badminton nets and other defences and causing havoc than a single missile which will surely attract SAM shots and CIWS bursts. these mosquitoes would be vlo and plasticy but fly in the weeds , even wait and hide for a while until a go order comes from scouts and 3rd party sensors.

will surely cause a lot of confusion. CIWS could be guys with nets and badminton bats now though to swat the bees down :lol: they could easily id specific things like oil tankers or toilets and water storages from basic image processing and damage these to make life hard.


The operative word is

In one of the most significant tests of autonomous systems under development by the Department of Defense


One that Watson would understand, but would be part of the audience, unable to participate.

That the swarm is made up of very small units is material, of course, but not the focus.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2017 08:17

Talking of Artificial Intelligence .............

Artificial intelligence will allow fighter jet pilots to control drones

The USAF Chief Scientist. This is no Canadian PM. Serious stuff folks, not politics.

F-35 pilots will eventually be able to control a small group of drones flying nearby from the air, performing sensing, reconnaissance and targeting functions, according to Air Force Chief Scientist Greg Zacharias.

Currently the flight path, sensor payload and weapons disposal of airborne drones such as Predators and Reapers are coordinated from ground control stations. In the future, however, drones may be fully operated from the cockpit of advanced fighter jets such as the Joint Strike Fighter or F-22, Zacharias said several months ago in an interview.

The more autonomy and intelligence you can put on these vehicles, the more useful they will become,” he said.

This development could greatly enhance mission scope, flexibility and effectiveness by enabling a fighter jet to conduct a mission with more weapons, sensors, targeting technology and cargo, Zacharias explained.

For instance, real-time video feeds from the electro-optical/infrared sensors on board a Predator, Reaper or Global Hawk drone could go directly into an F-35 cockpit, without needing to go to a ground control station. This could speed up targeting and tactical input from drones on reconnaissance missions in the vicinity of where a fighter pilot might want to attack. In fast-moving combat involving both air-to-air and air-to-ground threats, increased speed could make a large difference.

“It’s almost inevitable people will be saying, ‘I want more missiles on board to get through defenses or I need some EW [electronic warfare] countermeasures because I don't have the payload to carry a super big pod,’” he explained. “A high-powered microwave may have some potential that will require a dedicated platform. The negative side is you have to watch out that you don’t overload the pilot,” Zacharias added.




In addition, drones could be programmed to fly into heavily defended or high-risk areas ahead of manned fighter jets in order to assess enemy air defenses and reduce risk to pilots.

Advances in computer power, processing speed and areas referred to as artificial intelligence are rapidly changing the scope of what platforms are able to perform without needing human intervention. This is mostly developing in the form of what Zacharias referred to as “decision aide support,” meaning machines will be able to better interpret, organize, analyze and communicate information to a much greater extent -- without have humans manage each individual task.



“Decision aides will be in cockpit or on the ground and [in] more platform-oriented autonomous systems,” he said.

“A person comes in and does command and control while having a drone execute functions. The resource allocation will be done by humans,” Zacharias said.

The early phases of this kind of technology are already operational in the F-35 cockpit through what is called “sensor-fusion.” This allows the avionics technology and aircraft computer to simultaneously organize incoming information for a variety of different sensors – and display the data on a single integrated screen for the pilot. As a result, a pilot does not have the challenge of looking at multiple screens to view digital map displays, targeting information or sensory input, among other things.

Another advantage of these technological advances is that one human may be able to control multiple drones and perform a command and control function – while drones execute various tasks such as sensor functions, targeting, weapons transport or electronic warfare activities.

At the moment, several humans are often needed to control a single drone, but new algorithms increasing autonomy for drones could greatly change this ratio. Zacharias explained a potential future scenario wherein one human is able to control 10-- or even 100 -- drones.

Algorithms could progress to the point where a drone, such as a Predator or a Reaper, might be able to follow a fighter aircraft by itself -- without needing its flight path navigated from human direction from the ground.

Unlike ground robotics wherein autonomy algorithms have to contend with an ability to move quickly in relation to unanticipated developments and other moving objects, simple autonomous flight guidance from the air is much more manageable to accomplish.

Since there are often fewer obstacles in the air compared with the ground, drones above the ground can be programmed more easily to fly toward certain predetermined locations, often called “way-points.”

At the same time, unanticipated movements, objects or combat circumstances can easily occur in the skies as well, Zacharias said.

“The hardest thing is ground robotics. I think that is really tough. I think the air basically is today effectively a solved problem. The question is what happens when you have to react more to your environment and a threat is coming after you,” he said.

As a result, scientists are now working on advancing autonomy to the point where a drone can, for example, be programmed to spoof a radar system, see where threats are and more quickly identify targets independently.

“We will get beyond simple guidance and control and will get into tactics and execution,” Zacharias added.

Wargames, exercises and simulations are one of the ways the Air Force is working to advance autonomous technologies.

“Right now we are using lots of bandwidth to send our real-time video. One of the things that we have is a smarter on-board processor. These systems can learn over time and be a force multiplier. There's plenty of opportunity to go beyond the code base of an original designer and work on a greater ability to sense your environment or sense what your teammate might be telling you as a human,” he said.

For example, with advances in computer technology, autonomy and artificial intelligence, drones will be able to stay above a certain area and identify particular identified relevant objects or targets at certain times, without needing a human operator, Zacharias added.

This is particularly relevant because the massive amount of ISR video collected needs organizing algorithms and technology to sift through the vast volumes of gathered footage – in order to pinpoint and communicate what is tactically relevant.

“With image processing and pattern recognition, you could just send a signal instead of using up all this bandwidth saying ‘Hey, I just saw something 30-seconds ago you might want to look at the video feed I am sending right now,’” he explained.

The Army has advanced manned-unmanned teaming technology in its helicopter fleet --successfully engineering Apache and Kiowa air crews to control UAS flight paths and sensor payloads from the air in the cockpit. Army officials say this technology has yielded successful combat results in Afghanistan.

Senior Air Force leaders have said that the services' new next-generation bomber program, Long Range Strike Bomber or LRS-B, will be engineered to fly manned and unmanned missions.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has said that the service's carrier-launched F-35C will be the last manned fighter produced, given the progress of autonomy and algorithms allowing for rapid maneuvering. The Air Force, however, has not said something similar despite the service's obvious continued interest in further developing autonomy and unmanned flight.

Also, in September of 2013, the Air Force and Boeing flew an unmanned F-16 Falcon at supersonic speeds for the first time at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. The unmanned fighter was able to launch, maneuver and return to base without a pilot.

At the same time, despite the speed at which unmanned technology is progressing, many scientists and weapons’ developers consider human pilots will still be needed -- given the speed at which the human brain can quickly respond to unanticipated developments.

There is often a two-second lag time before a UAS in the air can respond to or implement directions from a remote pilot in a ground station, a circumstance which underscores the need for manned pilots when it comes to fighter jets, Air Force officials said.

Therefore, while cargo planes or bombers with less of a need to maneuver in the skies might be more easily able to embrace autonomous flight, fighter jets will still greatly benefit from human piloting, Air Force scientists have said.

While computer processing speed and algorithms continue to evolve at an alarming pace, it still remains difficult to engineer a machine able to instantly respond to other moving objects or emerging circumstances, Air Force scientists have argued.

However, sensor technology is progressing quickly to the point where fighter pilots will increasingly be able to identify threats at much greater distances, therefore removing the need to dogfight. As a result, there may be room for an unmanned fighter jet in the not-too-distant future, given the pace of improving autonomous technology.
Last edited by NRao on 10 Jan 2017 08:19, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 10 Jan 2017 08:18

Viv S wrote:Danish Ministry of Defence, 2016


Denmark cut its order of F-35 from 48 to 27 planes - one of many satisfied customers.
Denmark was one of the original Tier-3 partners eager to purchase all 48 planes until they found out what they were getting themselves into.

Meanwhile "competition" from which the F-35 supposedly emerged the winner itself looks phony.
The competitors were disqualified on the basis they did not submit answers to technical questions before a deadline.

If you notice, controversy follows this failed project like BO.
No customer has ever selected this plane willingly (including the USAF) and at every turn, there is a shill trying to con suckers left & right.

--

Technical Foul: Denmark Omits Important Data to Secure F-35 Deal

With passions around Denmark's controversial decision to strike a costly warplane deal with the US still seething, the Danish Defense Ministry was recently found out to have omitted important details on the F-35's rivals under a false pretext. Therefore, foul play is suspected on Copenhagen's part.

In May, Denmark finally settled on 27 Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets, thus wrecking the chances of the two other candidates, Boeing's Super Hornet and Airbus's Eurofighter Typhoon. However, the objectivity of the Defense Ministry in connection with the 8 billion dollar deal is now in question, as vital information on the F-35's rivals was reportedly left out on purpose.

According to recent reports, the Defense Ministry omitted information about the flight performance of the Boeing and Airbus planes on the grounds that they supposedly failed to meet the deadline and provide the details in time, a claim both aircraft manufacturers strongly deny. "The German Defense Ministry and US industry delivered the answers to the technical questions before the deadline on April 6. Therefore, we expected of course the submitted data to be taken into account the in the final report report," Lars Jørgensen Illum, sales chief for Airbus in Denmark, said.

According to Eva Flyvholm of the Red-Green Alliance, which has been very critical of Copenhagen's participation in the "arms race," the revelation has enhanced the impression that the stage was set for the F-35 from the very beginning.

According to aircraft expert Andreas Krog, it is very unfortunate, that the report that laid the foundation for a costly warplane deal is being questioned once again.

Meanwhile, the ink is still drying on the political agreement for the update of the fighter aircraft fleet. The discussion ended in a deal between the Social Democrats, the Social Liberals, the Liberal Alliance and the Danish People's Party to buy a total of 21 F-35 fighters, while retaining the option to buy six extra warplanes should the budget be able to handle it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2017 08:31


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Neshant » 10 Jan 2017 08:36

NRao wrote:Talking of Artificial Intelligence .............


As much as F-35 would like to take the credit for such AI, the AI is inherent in the drone itself - namely identifying targets or patterns in scanned images. The amount of imaged data (image/lidar) is too huge to be transmitted in real time for post-processing and AI analysis.

Receiving information is what any aircraft can be made to do.

In any case, what's the need for Watson type AI when you can sell overpriced, crap planes like F-35 with shills.

The F-35 can't even enter a dogfight with a 40 yr old plane doing CAP overhead. So there is no purpose in transmitting that data to it. At best its just an expensive long range weapon launching platform.

Transmit it to F-16s, A-10s, Apaches and ground units that can actually do the job.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Jan 2017 08:44

Putin's Christmas Wish: Pain For The U.S. Aircraft Industry

Dec 26, 2016.

Here in Costa Rica for Christmas, watching my kids play with their presents, I wonder what many must be wondering: “What does Vladimir Putin want for Christmas?” And I think I know the answer: “For bad things to happen to the U.S. aircraft industry.”

The technological and economic differential between the American aircraft industry and Russia’s is enormous. It’s far greater than the difference between any of the two country’s other industries, defense or commercial. This gives the U.S. a profound economic advantage, particularly in export markets. Russia has become a resource extraction state, with almost no value-added industries such as civil aerospace.


Just as importantly, this aircraft industry superiority gives the U.S. a profound strategic advantage. No matter what happens in Eastern Europe, Syria, the Baltic states, or anywhere else where Russia might apply covert or overt force, the West enjoys guaranteed air superiority. This air superiority would likely ensure victory in any outright conflict. For Putin, who wants nothing more than to be seen as an equal power on the world stage, this reality is profoundly painful.

So, for Christmas, Putin would love to see resources diverted away from advanced aerospace systems, where the U.S. enjoys a strong lead, and towards weaponry that would be used to fight mutual enemies such as ISIS in the Middle East. And he’d like to see less emphasis on U.S. air power, which directly threatens Russia, and more emphasis on greatly building up the U.S. Navy, which would be primarily aimed at China.


Putin’s latest comments on nuclear weapons can be understood in this context. Beyond a certain point, the quantity of these weapons is irrelevant. More importantly, compared with aircraft, there’s little difference in nuclear technology between the U.S. and Russia. There is also a very low chance of these weapons actually being used, other than in an apocalyptic scenario. So, diverting U.S. defense resources away from aircraft and towards a much less useful and differentiated weapon is to Russia’s advantage. Arguing that the U.S. “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability” is likely music to Putin’s ears.


Putin would love it too if Air Force One were scaled back massively. Since the late 1950s, these planes have symbolized U.S. global power and reach, and the President’s ability to manage crises or even manage a global war from a flying command post. Boeing’s 747, of course, is another global icon, even if it will likely end production in the next few years.


By contrast, Putin is forced to fly around in an Ilyushin Il-96. Other than the U.S., Russia is the only country to ever build a twin aisle jet on its own. But the U.S. has built over 6,000 widebody jets in six different families; Russia has built fewer than 150 Il-86/96s, by comparison a miserable jetliner.

On top of that, Putin would love to weaken the vastly superior U.S. aerospace industry by indirect means. Many U.S. aerospace companies enjoy funding and technology derived from the commercial market, where Russia’s aerospace industry plays almost no global role. If the U.S. imposes threatened import tariffs on Chinese goods, that would guarantee retaliation against U.S. jetliners, killing the industry’s largest export market and helping Putin get what he wants. Reimposing Iranian sanctions would kill that U.S. jetliner export market too.

But the world’s biggest military aircraft program, Lockheed Martin’s tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is probably Putin’s biggest target. The F-35 is far from a superweapon. It’s late, way over budget, and stubbornly expensive. It’s not the best fighter ever built; that honor goes to the F-22, which was killed primarily because of the Iraq War, and its enormous diversion of resources. The F-35 survives as the most advanced plane left.

But the F-35 represents two things that Putin doesn’t have: an aerospace industry that produces amazing systems and technologies, and a global network of allies and partners that help build and purchase aircraft. Anything from the U.S. government that casts doubt about the F-35 program helps make Putin’s day, week, and year.


First, the F-35 contains a remarkable collection of onboard systems and sensors that make it a noteworthy combat aircraft. From the electronically scanned radar and other targeting systems to the electronic warfare suite to the electro-optical Distributed Aperture System, to the jet’s sensor fusion capabilities, these components represent the height of the Western world’s aerospace technology. They also make the F-35 the most effective Western fighter in production today.

By comparison, Russia’s latest fighter, Sukhoi’s T-50, is basically a collection of systems used on the existing Su-30 series, wrapped in a new airframe. While new equipment is under development for the T-50, the roadmap for these systems is far from clear. Worse, in terms of radars, engines, and other key technologies, Russia’s aerospace industrial base can only dream of the F-35’s capabilities.

As an aside, if the F-35 were to die, it would gravely damage all the companies behind these systems. That means harm to almost every single Western aerospace company, which is surely in Putin’s interest too.

Second, the F-35 is being built with, and purchased by, almost every allied country in the world. Yes, Canada is vacillating; but the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and Denmark have either taken delivery of their first F-35s, or will do so soon. Many others, particularly in the Mideast, would love to buy F-35s but are not yet permitted to do so.


The F-35 partners also all build parts and systems for the plane, and have contributed to its development. Putin also knows that these countries are, for the most part, opposed to his interests and ambitions, and part of an aerospace alliance that wants almost nothing to with his nation’s aerospace industry. Putin also knows that killing or crippling the F-35 would reinforce the message that alliances no longer mean anything to the U.S., whether formal defense alliances or military industrial alliances.

This global network of partners and customers is something Putin can only dream of for Russia’s industry. Belarus and Assad’s Syria aren’t exactly lining up to buy or co-develop the latest Russian weapons. Of Russia’s two important weapons clients, China is increasingly going its own way with indigenous programs, and India is looking to the West for imported aircraft (perhaps even F-35s within a few years). Nobody in the world is going to help Russia bridge the technology gap between Russian systems and the F-35’s capabilities. For these reasons, damaging the F-35 program is at the top of Putin’s wish list.

Given the economic and strategic stakes involved, Putin can be expected to use all his leverage to try to erode the massive lead of the U.S. aircraft industry. Will Putin get what he wants for Christmas, with the F-35 and other U.S. aircraft industry programs and interests? I guess we’ll see.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrRatnadip, Gagan, Google Feedfetcher and 40 guests