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 Military Aviation - News and 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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35335
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 08 Sep 2016 02:03

Pilots Say F-35 Fighter Is A Winner. So Where's The Media Coverage?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... b65c9f4984
And it is doing fine. The cost of both the airframe and the engine is declining in each successive production lot, with the most common variant — the Air Force version — likely to cost no more than the legacy planes it replaces. Each of the fighter’s three variants is delivering all of its promised performance gains in flight testing and operations at eight bases (soon to be 25 bases). Nearly 200 planes have been delivered. 300 pilots and 3,000 maintainers have been trained. To quote Pentagon managers in March testimony before Congress,

The F-35 program is executing well across the entire spectrum of acquisition, to include development and design, flight test, production, fielding and base stand-up, sustainment of fielded aircraft, and building a global sustainment enterprise…Our overall assessment is that the program is making solid progress across the board and shows improvement each day while continuing to manage emerging issues and mitigate programmatic risks.”

And it isn’t just the managers who are singing F-35′s praises. The pilots are impressed. I heard a senior Marine officer say this summer that his service doesn’t like to make pilots in older fighters fly exercises against the F-35 because it’s too demoralizing — the F-35s always win. Navy pilots say landing the highly automated F-35 on a carrier deck is much easier and safer than it was with Cold War planes.

An Air Force pilot quoted in one of the service’s local outlets at Eglin Air Force Base reported that flying against the F-35 in training exercises is like being blindfolded because the plane is invisible to radar: “We turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw [the F-35].” That’s precisely the kind of performance military planners were looking for 20 years ago when they proposed a family of stealthy fighters with integrated sensors and secure networking that could deliver superior situational awareness to pilots.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3820
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 11 Sep 2016 05:34



Is it possible to design this helicopter in 10 ton weight with 3 HTSE-1200 engines and for the sides 2 adour engines?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2016 06:26


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2016 07:20

Cross post from recognition thread
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... -aircraft/
Image
Mwari is a new light, multirole aircraft being developed by Paramount Group for armed forces across the globe. It is a military variant of the Advanced High Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft (AHRLAC).

The Mwari project was unveiled in May 2016. Paramount and Boeing made a cooperation agreement in September 2014 for collaborating on specific projects to be implemented in future. The agreement was extended in May 2016 to jointly develop an advanced mission system for the Mwari aircraft.

The cost-effective Mwari multirole aircraft can be deployed in border patrol, counter insurgency missions, forward air control, forward airdrop and resupply, armed reconnaissance, and electronic intelligence (ELINT) and communication intelligence (COMINT) missions. Other mission capabilities will include internal security, disaster management and maritime patrol.
Mwari aircraft design details

Incorporating a twin-boom design, the Mwari aircraft will feature airframe constructed using meal and composite materials. The longitudinal booms at empennage feature a pair of vertical stabilisers joined by a horizontal stabiliser.

The high-wing design will improve visibility for the crew, while allowing operations from unprepared airfields. The modular design will also support the integration of different mission systems for a range of military operations.

The aircraft will have a length of 10.5m, wing span of 12m and a height of 4m. The maximum take-off weight of the aircraft is 3,800kg and maximum payload capacity with full fuel load will be more than 800kg.

Mwari cockpit features

The aircraft will feature a multi-function IFR glass cockpit, which cockpit accommodates two crew members in tandem seating layout. It can be optionally installed with Martin Baker Mk16 or Mk17 ejection seats.

The cockpit will also feature a large vertical separation and will offer optimum view for the crew.

Armament aboard Mwari

Mwari will be armed with a 20mm cannon integrated into the fuselage. The aircraft will also feature six wing-mounted hard points for carrying a combination of weapons.

The hard points can be added with surface-to-air missiles, rocket launchers and general-purpose bombs.

Sensor / radar equipment

The aircraft will be equipped with Boeing integrated mission system for conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and light attack missions. It will feature a belly-mounted, multi-mission sensor pod.

The adaptable pod systems aboard the aircraft will allow the integration of forward looking infrared (FLIR) cameras, synthetic aperture radars (SARs), active and passive electronic warfare (EW) systems, and ELINT / COMINT payloads.
Engine and landing gear

The single-pusher-engine configuration of Mwari will integrate a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-66B engine driving a single propeller. The flat-rated engine will develop a power of 710kW (950hp).

Mwari will be equipped with retractable tri-cycle landing gear designed for semi-prepared and unprepared runways. The landing gear can be optionally integrated with extra-large high flotation wheels.
Mwari aircraft performance

The short take-off and landing (STOL) capability of the aircraft will allow operations in small airfields with short runways or surfaces.

With full load, the aircraft will require a take-off distance of 550m. It will survive 8g and -4g loads during operations.

Mwari can operate at a maximum altitude of 31,000ft and will have a maximum cruise speed of 272kt. The maximum mission rage and ferry range of the aircraft will be 1,150nmi and 2,000nmi, respectively.



SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35335
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 13 Sep 2016 05:37


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Sep 2016 20:19

Navy Conducts First Live Fire NIFC-CA Test with F-35

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, New Mexico– The Navy hosted its first live fire demonstration to successfully test the integration of F-35 with existing Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture, Sept. 12.

During the test, an unmodified U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from the Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX 1), based in Edwards Air Force Base, acted as an elevated sensor to detect an over-the-horizon threat. The aircraft then sent data through its Multi-Function Advanced Data Link to a ground station connected to USS Desert Ship (LLS-1), a land-based launch facility designed to simulate a ship at sea. Using the latest Aegis Weapon System Baseline 9.C1 and a Standard Missile 6, the system successfully detected and engaged the target.

While the goal of this test was to prove the compatibility of these systems within existing NIFC-CA architecture, this future capability will extend the Navy’s engagement range to detect, analyze and intercept targets in operational settings. Using any variant of the F-35 as a broad area sensor, the aircraft can significantly increase the Aegis capability to detect, track and engage.

"This test was a great opportunity to assess the Navy’s ability to take unrelated technologies and successfully close the fire control loop as well as merge anti-surface and anti-air weapons into a single kill web that shares common sensors, links and weapons," said Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS).

The test was a collaborative effort across the Navy and Marine Corps, White Sands Missile Range and industry partners leveraging a U.S. Marine Corps F-35B and the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Weapon System to support the distributed lethality concept in the Fleet.

"This test represents the start of our exploration into the interoperability of the F-35B with other naval assets," said Lt. Col. Richard Rusnok, VMX-1 F-35B detachment officer in charge. "We believe the F-35B will drastically increase the situational awareness and lethality of the naval forces with which it will deploy in the very near future," he added.

Aegis Baseline 9 delivers a fully open architecture system on U.S. destroyers and is the basis for current and future Aegis Integrated Air and Missile Defense. Baseline 9 is being fielded on in-service destroyers, new construction destroyers and Aegis Ashore. The Aegis Common Source Library enabled derivatives are on the Coast Guard cutters, Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships and will be included on the upcoming frigate ships.

The F-35 Lightning II is a next generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, advanced mission systems, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and cutting-edge sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace various aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, and 11 international countries.

PEO IWS is an affiliated Program Executive Office of the Naval Sea Systems Command. IWS is responsible for spearheading surface ship and submarine combat technologies and systems, and for implementing Navy enterprise solutions across ship platforms.


Edit: An artists depiction -

Image

Video: Successful F-35, SM-6 Live Fire Test Points to Expansion in Networked Naval Warfare


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35335
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Sep 2016 19:25

^simply the most envied platform we have now. IAF and IN should be interested

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Sep 2016 19:29

This is an integrated net-centric capability the USN has taken a long time to build, develop, enhance, test and roll out. Its tied to their open ended AEGIS Baseline 9 and its various iterations which incrementally add sensors and shooters. F-35 provides the open architecture, data link capability and sensor data to plug in using multiple waveforms such as MADL, Link-16 and the future ADL. Its not something that you can transfer with the F-35 since it comes from AEGIS.

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/22/nifcca-expands-sm6-f35

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 14 Sep 2016 20:17

Brar can correct me if I am wrong but F-35 mission data is stored cloud based storage where all the connected systems can access it. It can be used even for IFF. I recently read one report where it was said that even to the chaddi buddies of US, access to this cloud storage is not being given and there is a situation where IFF may fail due to this, since say a US F-35 may not be able to identify UK F35 flying in same theatre as friendly as there wont be any record of that one on the cloud. I don't know how true is it or what is the work around for this. But one thing is very clear that F35 is deeply integrated with rest of the US military systems and vice versa or is being integrated. If we buy F35 they will be severely restricted from intercommunication point of view and as such making them compatible with Indian war machinery may be a big task. And in most probability F35 cannot come without myrids of inter-operability treaties such as CISMOA et al. As I see it, India will never be able to fully exploit the net-centric capabilities of F35, and whatever amount of it can be exploited will come at significant cost. If we make a significant shift towards US based military systems then perhaps we can make use of F35 with effect. But F35 in isolation will not be very useful for India.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Sep 2016 20:21

It will have standard NATO Mode-5 IFF with full capability (either SDD or soon after it). Partners have an option of opting out of using the integrated data handling and logistical servers and doing most of the leg work using traditional systems. Israel will only be using a part of the integrated logistical systems and will be handling the rest of the data in a similar fashion to their F-16I's. Cloud storage mostly applies to logistical aspects from what I understand. IFF is handled by the CNI suite which uses onboard and offboard data. Mission Data Files need to be updated as the labs develop them for future threats since the the volumes are significantly higher given the all aspect multi-spectral detection abilities, but those are developed jointly for now, and delivered to the end-user once they are complete.

You are correct, it as a system has an architecture that is very very closely tied to the US and NATO and non-NATO allies model of information sharing and joint development of capability and it performs best within this model whether it is the interoperability with things like AEGIS, or the teaming up to develop future capability enhancements particularly in the sensitive areas.

Currently, only Israel is the customer that may wish to silo its variant from the partners but none of the partners feel a need to step aside from the joint effort as most are expected to commit to the follow on development program. There is no end-user on the horizon that will have to separate all this to the extent that an Indian-Purchase may look to do, and this is one of the reasons I haven't been bullish on the JSF's prospects in India.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Sep 2016 14:19

X-posting from China Mil thread, since it was OT there.
brar_w wrote:Not specifically but I have in the past come across some stuff. From what I understand, LO requirements / features did add considerable weight on the F119/F135. Should be similar to what they did on the F119 probably minus some of the more sensitive stuff.

See : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 335.0.html

The photo link from page 2 : - http://i66.tinypic.com/n39kso.jpg


Thanks a lot brar for that image. I have been looking around on net for this thing, no clear cut info is there. Looks like same system is installed on both F119 and F135. And from whatever bits and pieces of info I could collect, and the image you gave, it looks like PW has integrated afterburner in the the Turbine Exhaust Case (TEC) vanes. If so I would be really really interested to see how the hell the managed it - active cooling, high temperature materials, some smart ass aero-structures stuff etc etc.

There is one rear view image for F119 from the same thread you gave link to.
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/weichao_chen2/f-22a_91-4003/images/f-22a_91-4003_03_of_30.jpg

Another image from elsewhere.
http://paralay.com/f22/f2221.jpg

See the difference?? What are those radial strip-like like things in the second picture which are not there in the first one?? Radar blocker?? Flame holder??

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Sep 2016 20:14

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016 ... t-orig.cnn

Fighter pilot passes out, jet goes into free fall

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 17 Sep 2016 08:10

^ interesting point at around 51 sec - 'Lockheed Martin and the US Air Force plan to develop similar systems in F22 and F35 jets'

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 17 Sep 2016 08:16

US Air Force grounds F-35 fighter jets

The decision affecting the most expensive weapons system ever was made "due to the discovery of peeling and crumbling insulation in avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks," the Air Force said in a statement, describing the action as a temporary pause in flight operations."


"While nearing completion, the F-35 is still in development and challenges are to be expected," the Air Force said.
Representatives from the Air Force and Lockheed Martin's F-35 program told CNN that the defective cooling lines were not found in all the aircraft. They said the use of the faulty part was limited to one sub-contractor that did not work on all the planes.


The F-35A is the Air Force's version of the jet, the US Marines and Navy will also have their own F-35 variants. Neither of the latter services' aircraft were affected.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 17 Sep 2016 08:30


JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 17 Sep 2016 16:06

^^^ Was referring to this article itself in my previous post.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35335
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 22 Sep 2016 02:09

NASA-Supported Collision Avoidance System Saves Unconscious F-16 Pilot In Fourth Confirmed Rescue
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/ ... _save.html


This is a must have for all! including the civil aviation. thank you NASA

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3529
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby panduranghari » 24 Sep 2016 21:40

http://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-jet ... 1474709401

Boeing’s India President Pratyush Kumar said it was aiming to help India build F/A-18 fighters and develop jets in the long term.

Saab’s plan would have it build a second manufacturing plant in Sweden for its Gripen E jet type, train Indian technicians there, and then dismantle and ship the plant to India, said its Indian country head Jan Widerström. Saab hopes to gain an advantage by offering the blueprints for the Gripen’s advanced radar system, Mr. Widerström said.

Saab and its suppliers could help train 20,000 local technicians in coming years if their bid is successful, and build anywhere from 100 to 200 jets for the Indian air force and export customers in places such as Thailand and Malaysia, said Mr. Widerström.

“We’re offering to set up aerospace capability in India for the next 100 years,” he said.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20210
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 24 Sep 2016 22:17

F35A caught fire prior to takeoff and others have crumbling insulation but what do you expect at $150 million each ?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/f3 ... f-and.html
( DDM cry Bhai)

The Air Force F-35A Lightning II, assigned to the 56th Fighter Wing, experienced what the service said was a “ground emergency” at about 12:20 p.m. eastern Friday at the base, according to a statement.Seven of the stealthy fifth-generation fighters have been at Mountain Home since Sept. 10 to use the base’s range for surface-to-air training, the statement said.The Air Force said the cause of fire is under investigation.Last week, the Air Force ordered a temporary stand-down of 13 out of 104 F-35s in the fleet “due to the discovery of peeling and crumbling insulation in avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks,” according to a statement at the time.Two additional aircraft, belonging to Norway and currently stationed at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, have also been affected.

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

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 24 Sep 2016 22:46

fire is a constant threat on the flight line. they train constantly in how to watch for it and deal with it.

I've had to give a pilot the "lazy 8" hand signal once when I saw smoke coming off the bird's start up turbine engine. turned out it was a false alarm but they had to cank the flight mission much to my chagrin. nobody said anything to me about it though, just showed what to look for next time. :oops:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Sep 2016 03:24

Keep in mind the fleet is now quite large (over 175 aircraft) so you are bound to have incidents across the spectrum (accident/damage class) as opposed to when there were only few dozen aircraft flying with Development-Testing crews instead of operational or training units. By the end of the year, F-35 deliveries would surpass total F-22 production and by the end of 2017 you'll probably have more F-35 total annual fleet hours (all nations) than F-22 ( Current cumulative fleet hours for the F-35 program is in excess of 68,000 ) so you will essentially have statistics catch up to you at some point of time.

As far as the other situations such as faulty parts, that is a genuine concern that will only become more important as they go from 50-55 aircraft deliveries per year (2016) to over twice that in a matter of a few years. They are adding 2nd line and even third line of suppliers and there are rookie suppliers that have very little expereince. The current issue has come up with a supplier that had just ramped up and was brought in to the supply chain. Lockheed hasn't mass produced this many fighters for a long time so it will take them a few years to get everything stabilized and consistent.

From a programatic standpoint, they have accounted for this and have negotiated such costs into their contract with Lockheed and the engine maker. Ever since LRIP-5, the contract covers such costs for things that come up all the way till the conclusion of development-testing around 2018. Lockheed Martin will be paying for replacement (including labor) any airframe related parts that are seen as below-required standards during the conclusion of development and development testing. P&W will be doing the same on the propulsion side.

One could follow other similar ramp ups, particularly the F-16 program to see how changes and complications and bring programs to a screeching halt and ground a lot of aircraft. If you go back into the F-35 thread I had predicted ramp up issues with Lockheed a year or two ago...
Going from 12-20 aircraft deliveries to close to 150 if not more in a matter of single digit years is not an easy task and they haven't delivered those many aircraft at Fort. Worth for a while. Add multiple suppliers (for two reasons, one to eliminate single point of failures, and other to accommodate international agreements with development partners and FMS customers) distributed globally and it becomes a management headache which they'll have to overcome with as few hiccups as possible.

The program always had three kinds of challenges - Political, Technical and Industrial. While the first two are being mitigated as they get closer to officially concluding the SDD phase of the program in 2017-early 2018, the latter is very much an area of pretty decent sized RISK. More to come as they ramp up. This is a 2000+ aircraft program and they haven't produced even 10% (LRIP) of the planned volume. If one does a survey of US total fighter production in the decade starting 2010, one could see the very large ramp up in deliveries in 2020-2030 time-frame. Industry will have to create capacity and that means bringing in lots of new suppliers and that comes with a curve. This isn't the industrial base of the 1980's (Boeing and Northrop grumman have had supplier issues as well with the KC-46 and MQ4C programs) and if you are going to take a capacity pause for a couple of decades you are going to run into signifiant glitches when you are faced with a situation of fleet recapitalizations across the mission-areas that you thought would have been never required because -"peace dividend".

As I have been saying for a while now, watch out when they do a new ICBM...that industrial base has been allowed to atrophy since the last time they did the infrastructure and you will have to go through the pains to getting your industry up to speed.
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Sep 2016 18:40, edited 1 time in total.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Bheeshma » 25 Sep 2016 11:41

Pakis just lost an F-16 and its pilot. Must have imagined IAF locking on it. :rotfl: Don't think they can handle an attack by IAF.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Sep 2016 13:36

Achieving Full Combat Capability with JSF is at Substantial Risk

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -Memo.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Sep 2016 13:37

Why America's New F-35 Would Beat Russian Jets Like 'An Invisible Muhammad Ali'

http://www.maxim.com/news/f-35-muhammad-ali-9-2016

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Sep 2016 18:00

Austin wrote:Achieving Full Combat Capability with JSF is at Substantial Risk

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -Memo.html


The DOTE has has great timings with its reports that end up capturing what they want to showcase but generally are too early to record the remedial measures until the next report-cycle by which time the media is generally not interested. Dr. Gilmore spoke of weapon testing requirements and progress being too slow on the eve of weapon surge when they tested at a rate over this summer that was many times the earlier rate. Similarly, he talks about Aim-9X Charlie integration in August when in late October they'll be flying the fix. The version of ALIS he wanted was not a REQUIREMENT for USAF IOC. USAF determines its IOC criteria and not him, and they did determine what they required back in 2010 when the program was re-baselined. The version he wants, with the fix is coming in November and is expected on time.

Software stability has always been the achilles heel in software-intensive development programs and it took even the F-22 12-18 months over established delivery time-lines to deliver a software load that was stable enough to accomplish mission requirements. The current emphasis, which the DOTE does capture to some extent should be to finish testing so as to not have to go back and change the components of the aircraft and that should be done by early to mid next year. Most of the weapons required for SDD completion would have been cleared by the end of this year. This gives them a full year to 2 years to work just on software stability, final software sub-blocks and making sure that its properly debugged knowing that such things are done incrementally even within each blocks as is industry standard.

He wants upwards of a dozen aircraft for OT&E and will likely see a delay in getting that given the program operates under a CAPPED budget which means they have to get all development and testing done under a fixed budget amount that was allocated to the program in 2010. The Congress will decide whether to infuse more funds to finish development, or to give Dr. Gilmore the OT&E capacity he needs for the USAF to showcase the aircraft to him. Keep in mind that he as the DOTE tests absolutely nothing. He has an army of test-bureaucracy under him but they do not physically test anything - relying on the USAF to do so. Even their reports are mere interpretations of the USAF's own efforts with the only difference being the conclusions being drawn that wildly differs from the pilots, and program-managers at the services, and his office. DOTE has certainly had things right, but overall their record isn't much different from that of any major PEO. Just recently they predicted a certain ship would miserably fail shock trials and successfully lobbied the Congress to move millions of $ to bring forward shock trials. Dr. Gillmore was supposed to be on site, on the ship for the shock trials but cancelled at the last minute. As it turned out the ship passed and actually did better than expected. Their biggest problem of late has been that they treat software the same as hardware..Software development and debugging is an incremental process of development, operationalization, feedback solicitation and further refinement..

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 25 Sep 2016 18:29

Bheeshma wrote:Pakis just lost an F-16 and its pilot. Must have imagined IAF locking on it. :rotfl: Don't think they can handle an attack by IAF.


F-7

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/pakistani-air-force-f-7-jet-aircraft-crashes-killing-pilot-3048094/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Sep 2016 14:58



Prelim. reporting on the fire incident from Aviation Week-

The root cause of the incident is unclear at this time, but initial assessments point to a tailpipe fire due to strong tailwinds as the engine was starting, the sources said. This can happen after an aborted start if there is excess fuel left in the exhaust duct. It was descried as analogous to a gas grill left on too long before lighting.

The wind records from Mountain Home back up this assessment, showing that the event happened close to the maximum wind and gust speeds of the day at 37 mph and 45 mph, respectively. The wind was northwest to west-by-northwest all day.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Sep 2016 15:57

From the Rafale Thread :

Philip wrote:F-35 "turkey or talisman" td was stopped some time ago. Once the aircraft enters regular operations we will see more flaws being found out.At the moment it is still in the sanitised zone of development and initial deployment which has been suspended. The bird needs to fly in the real world. Perhaps the first batch of birds meant for Israel will iron out nagging problems as the IAF will certainly out it through its pacces.


Two USMC units, and One USAF units are operational. Third USMC unit, and 2 more USAF units will be operational in 2017. Over the next 4-5 months the first USMC unit will permanently deploy to Iwakuni Japan and has already gone through one complete RED FLAG in addition to numerous other intense exercises to prepare for it. Later that year the same Marine unit will deploy operationally on an L-Class ship - the first non Developmental or operational test deployment for the aircraft. The US Navy's first squadron has been decided and it will continue to get operational Charlies as that unit builds up for its IOC in 2018. Israel should get its first two aircraft in the next few months but those will primarily be used for development and training work and they will take a good year to 18 months to put together a working operational unit.

As mentioned elsewhere, the aircraft has had a remarkable safety record through its development and operational life given historic programs (F-16, F-22 for example not to go into older ones). The fleet has flown more than 68,000 hours, has deployed to a big deck carrier 3 times now with hundreds of traps and launches, has deployed on the L-Class ships numerous times (and will do so again next month). Neither the F-16, nor the F-22 had to deploy to these boats with varying sea-conditions and sea states and demonstrate vertical landings, short takeoffs and do it over and over again over many days to a week. The next and last one will be the most intense yet under a higher sea-state and with internal and external weapons. Regardless the unique challenges will makes developmental and operational testing a significantly more dangerous affair compared to the Viper, hornet or raptor the F-35 has done as well or much better than all those, and this with more number of aircraft flying more per year than two of the three aircraft during the development phase.

Currently there are more than 175 F-35's out in the field with operational units, in training squadrons, supporting development and operational testing for the 3 services, and training international pilots. This number will climb to close to 250 by the end of next year. By December of this year, total F-35 deliveries would surpass total F-22A production so once you have a sizable fleet out there flying you will have statistics catch up to you with issues requiring solution on the fly. Even established aircraft that have been in service for decades (F-18, F-15 , 16 and F-22) have incidents across the classification spectrum (mishap class), and those are dealt with either technically or by changing practice and procedures and the same will be done here for the F-35 (restart in heavy tail wind) and throughout its operational life as is the case for all aircraft/weapons systems.

At the moment it is still in the sanitised zone of development and initial deployment which has been suspended.


What does that even mean? Frontline USAF and USMC units are detached from the JPO or the program and follow USAF and USMC established rules and regulations, practice etc. That is one advantage of an IOC and why they like to seek it early so that they can fly without program restrictions and get going with learning the aircraft, developing tactics and participating in large force exercises were you cannot show up until and unless the ACC (in the case of the USAF) and the Marine Deputy Commandant for Aviation declares the aircraft operational (which was done in 2015 and in 2016 for the two variants) declares a new aircraft operational.

Do a quick google search for the number of exercises, large, medium and small active F-35 units (not DT or OT birds) have participated in in 2016 and what plans are for 2017..They are going from small units that are filling up to a lot of units over the next 4-5 years. Along the way most of these units will get priority at large force exercises, particularly the US-Only Red Flag that happens every year. The level and intensity of doing this won't plateau out for quite a while given how many new units are expected to be activated over the next 4-5 years. On the USAF side, the USAFWS (Weapons School) got its F-35 last year and are working on tactics and syllabi and would have a first batch of pilots graduate in 2018..Navy's top-gun is probably a couple of years behind but thats just reflective of their later-IOC date.

Regarding kinks and glitches - yes those are bound to be found, and addressed but do note that this is the reason they have two forms of testing before declaring an aircraft or any weapons system fully operational. They have developmental testing followed by operational testing where operational crews are used and operational environments are simulated. Developmental testing has concluded for all three variants while informal operational testing has begun and will continue on over the next year to two before the JPO puts together between 12-24 aircraft and conducts an intense OT before sending the program to the Congress to approve full rate production. The whole point of doing two levels of testing is to sort out major glitches during the SDD phase so that there is very little left that the operational units have to deal with. Its not a perfect system but its what they are comfortable with and it has worked given the amount of data they have when compared to previous developmental programs.

Regarding an earlier comment about throwing money at it and eventually getting it right - that too is not a correct assertion. The SDD phase funding was increased once, when the F-35B was put on probation and a NM breach occurred. Once the JPO along with the three services and the OSD determined a path to recover they received a budget increment for SDD. However since then, i.e. 2010-2011 the program has operated on a fixed RDT&E budge i.e. the JPO has not asked the Congress for even one extra cent in support of Research development test and evaluation and are unlikely to do so through the conclusion of the SDD phase of the program. Even if they did at some point in the future ask for more money, its unlikely that it will be released. They have had their funds capped since 2010 when the program was baselined and that's where they are likely to stay.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2016 01:28

Rudradev wrote:^^ The fact is not mine but from the article I quoted. He provides the following references:

1) $30M F-15E, citation #18: Associciated Press, “U.S. F-15 Fighter Jet Down in Libya, Crew ‘Safe,’” CBS News (March 22, 2011), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-f-15-fig ... rew-safe/; U.S. Air Force, “F-15 Eagle,” (March 14, 2005), http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... eagle.aspx.

This seems about right. F-15E strike eagle costs around $31.1 M according to many sources.

2) $377M F-35, citation #12: Winslow Wheeler, “How Much Does an F-35 Actually Cost?: Up to $337 Million - Apiece - For the Navy Version,” War is Boring (July 27, 2014), https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-mu ... f95d239398.

This may be an exaggeration. Other sources I have seen say between $98M and $160M per unit.

That said, do you contest the premise that (whatever the exact dollar figure) US policymakers find the cost of weapons systems so prohibitive that it constrains their options to more limited conflicts than otherwise?

Since you bring up APUC, URF, and the entire program duration... this may actually bolster the argument the article is making. Since F-35 and F-15 were indigenously developed, the development costs stay within the US economy throughout the program; meaning that the actual unit cost of these aircraft to the US economy may well be less than the face value if you consider investments made into R&D, industry and so on. Yet EVEN with a lower effective cost you still have reluctance to deploy and policies are made accordingly.

How much worse is the effect on India which has to depend on foreign suppliers who need to paid per unit in hard cash? The money is not being recycled into our economy to anywhere near the extent that cost per unit of F-15 or F-35 is into the US economy.


The sources say it all. Look at them and think about why one would go to them? The entire Selected Acquisition Report is avaialble for 2012, 13 ,and and 15. That is the gold-standard of Independent cost estimates and used by budget making process, by the General Accounting office, and the CAPE office to advise across the spectrum of military systems. A SAR is congressionally mandated for all ACAT-1 programs.

The author looks at a loss of an aircraft procured in the 80's or 90's in the 2010's and somehow thinks its a true cost of acquiring that capability in 2016? What sort of math is that? can you replace a lost F-15E for 30 Million if you were to loose one? Look at some of the last few sales for the aircraft, you'd be lucky to get a brand new F-15E/K/SG/SA for lower cost than an F-35A even at LRIP-8 levels, speaking nothing for much further along in the cost curve where the next two contracts will be (Those that currently in advanced negotiations and likely to be announced by the end of the year).

Why not pull out a few F-4s from the boneyard and do a comparison where if lost, they would only constitute a loss of $4 Million instead of $377 million for the F-35? Since the author clearly has a time-machine and can go back into the 70's and pick an F-4 up for exactly the same price the USAF paid for it then. The absolute highest unit cost for an aircraft under the standard reporting protocol is the PAUC since it looks at air-base modernization, construction, aircraft and weapons system development. Even that is 154 or so million. @ 377 Million he is probably adding 3+ decades of operational and upgrade cost i.e. cost of fuel, pilot and crew salaries etc all of which are estimated in the SAR. That is an O&S cost and includes a ton of thigns including estimates on out year fuel costs, and salaries for number of FTE's required to support a squadron. There is a detailed post by me here giving a very detailed description of what the US congressional requirements is for reporting O&S cost. Try to dig it up if you want to break all these costs to the smallest granular details that are publicly available.

Research and Development cost does not need to be repaid when you loose an aircraft and go out to replace it. That is sunk cost. If I go out and need to replace an F-35A lost to an accident or combat loss in 2020 it would cost me approximately $80-90 Million to do so. I would be paying the URF cost to get it. Simialrly, if I need to replace an F-15E lost in 2015 I would not be going back 30 years and paying the unit development cost all over again. I'd simply pay boeing to deliver one F-15E from its production line - that would probably cost me $100 or so million at the current rate for that aircraft.

Even if nothing changed (things like avionics upgrades, material upgrades, new electronics, weight etc) you are still looking at a pure cumulative rate of inflation between 75% and 90% for something produced for $X in 1990 vs 2015. We know capability is not static, so you would for damn obvious reasons not buy something exactly at the same level of capability in 2015 since it would be an idiotic decision (threat advances). Then look at where F-15 production is now. Its at a trickle which means that economies of scale that existed at its peak production do not exist anymore. Just wait a few weeks / months and see what Qatar pays for its F-15E's.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2016 03:24

I don't think the author is contesting that per se. What he seems to say is that replacing a lost F-35 is, in and of itself, a serious challenge in terms of time and budget, even for the US DOD... to the extent that it limits the appetite to deploy F-35s and many other modern weapons systems at all, and thus has a profound impact on overall war doctrine.


I don't care what the author intends on saying when the entire premise and supporting assumptions are so obviously wrong. If I deploy an F-35 and loose it in 2016, it costs me less than $108 Million to pick another one up to replace it from the next production lot. I don't go back and pay the RDT&E cost per unit etc etc. If I go to war and loose an F-15, I would need to go to Boeing and buy a replacement. If its the F-15C, no replacement is in production. If the F-15E, then a new one will cost me $100 or so million if not more.

If the author is talking about strictly write-offs, then yes a lost F-15E that does not need to be replaced would only mean a write off of the residual value of the aircraft. Do however keep in mind that I would have paid many times the procurement cost of that F-15E (say bought in 1990) under the O&S line. 320 hours times 25 makes it 8000+ hours, which in CY$ would mean a total investment of over $250 Million dollars into that aircraft in current year dollars (less in TY$).

Naturally, if one were to simply use an F-4 from the boneyard, or another mothballed type one could get an even better looking analysis. There are some F-16's being retired to the boneyard soon..The original F-16A had an URF of $14 or so million. That makes the absurd comparison look even better than the $30 Million cost the author is attributing to the F-15E. Why not do that? His simple motive was to attribute the highest cost to the F-35, and the lowest to a competitor from the previous generation to reach a totally irrelevant conclusion that has little bearing to how decisions are made.

Reality however is that every generation a different capability was demanded of a fighter to overcome the challenges and meet national security needs. The F-15 was considerably more expensive than the F-4, yet they were bought in quantity because that was what was required to assure air-superiority and strike. No one was dumb enough to get into an argument of residual values when F-4's or even older aircraft purchased for a fifth of the cost decades earlier could be lost leading to much 'loss' in strictly accounting terms.

f we agree that the F-35 is in fact $100 million URF cost per unit, as opposed to $337 million, then the budgetary challenge is ameliorated somewhat relative to what the author claims. (I also don't think he is arguing that the Marines should buy more Harriers to replace the six that were lost, but simply pointing out that there is now a gap in capability represented by the inability to replace them while the F-35 comes up to scratch.)


The URF cost is transparently represented for each service. Its required by LAW and is out in the OPEN for all to see and analyze. Its calculated by an independent authority outside of the service or the program office. Contracts are negotiated based on the SAR, and interestingly as the chart I had earlier posted shows, the last couple of contracts have had a tiny percentage lower cost compared to the SAR URF estimates for some variants.

The Marines can definitely replace the Harriers they have lost with F-35s (and they may well do this through OCO). There is a HUGE capacity sitting in the production line to increase production to get them more aircraft, quicker. The problem is that the annual production rate (50-55 for 2016) is limited by the budget caps (BCA) and the sequestered that is triggered because of them. The development delays further contributed since production ramp ups were moved to the right (by approximately 5 years). The original production rate for 2015 is now expected in 2020-2021. The Marines have competing priorities and their budget is through the US Navy's budget so within a sequestered budget they can only ask for as much as they'll get without having to trim other acquisition priorities.

The loss of one or a few of these systems would be cataclysmic to the U.S., not least because budgets simply will not allow replacement. Therefore, elected officials and military commanders will be forced to weigh potential losses against any possible battlefield and political success.


The F-35 is the 'quantity' fighter produced in large numbers and acquired in signifiant amounts by the USAF, USMC, and USN. At any URF (Pick a number from 2015 through 2038) it will be no less or no more costly than a competing alternative. As a percentage of its capital budget the USAF spends far less than many of its near peers to acquire the JSF. Look at the budget and look at the URF or annual lot costs. France with a much smaller annual budget is spending around $90 million per Rafale, the IAF spent close to $100 Million for the Rafale URF with a much smaller budget. At $108 Million URF to the USAF, the F-35A already outcompetes these aircraft. Same for a $50-100 Million Sukhoi procured by Russia (PAK-FA) which is being procured by Russia, with a much smaller GDP or annual defense budget.

Also, do keep in mind that the F-35A URF at FRP is estimated by the SAR (which has tended to slightly overestimate cost given the last two negotiated batches) to be between 80 and 90 million URF.

Considering not just F-35s but also assets like the Nimitz Class ACCs and LCSs.


The Nimitz Class is an Aircraft carrier and for the capability it really has no alternative. It is mobile and will any day be more cost effective offensive platform that could defend itself compared to a fixed base. You don't have it just because, you have it because there is either no alternative or if there is one it isn't as survivable.

The LCS is a cheap vessel designed to provide presence and thats exactly what it does. Its USN's way of making a navy that has the high end fight and the presence mission covered.

Yet if even they have such concerns, how much more concerned should we be about systems like the Rafale? Rs.700 crore is approximately $100M. We are paying as much for a foreign-made aircraft (none of its development or production costs recycled into the Indian economy) as the US pays for an indigenously produced F-35. If the US finds that the costs of its F-35s (like its ACCs, LCSs etc) are so high, and replacement of lost units so challenging, that they begin to formulate their military doctrine along more limiting parameters... what about India?


This absurd analysis finds it expensive...Don't confuse it with an established fact. As I said, the entire F-35 Design, Development, Testing, Procurement program is $390 Billion spread between 2000 (when contract was awarded) and 2038 when the last aircraft is expected to be delivered. Thats more than 50% of the CAF, 100% of the fighter force for the MAGTF and a sizable chunk of the Navy strike fighter force. Take the US GDP, or annual budget over the 38 or so years and see what fraction cost that $380 Billion is as a percentage.

I agree that import means that India pays F-35 level price for the rafale and as a percentage of its defense spending and acquisition budget it is an astronomically heavy price to pay. But a lot of us here understand this and hence there is quite a bit of enthusiasm for the LCA reversing the cost curve. Hopefully LCA MKII and AMCA can keep on chipping away at this but it is a reality for sure.

Every generation of aircraft are more expensive than the previous generation. The F-86 cost $600,000 per unit, the early F-4's cost $3.5 Million. The F-16, the uber western cheap light weight fighter was still SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the aircraft it was replacing. Do a quick search on articles dating from the early 80's to see how much spending $10-13 Million (First lot of 650 F-16A - Vanilla Vipers) for a fighter meant back then .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5703
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Oct 2016 15:25

From the PAKFA Thread

Cosmo_R wrote:Should we assume the limits of today's missiles to be immutable when batteries are going to be the next big thing? Sorry but this undue emphasis on agility when circumstances call for platforms that can carry intelligent AAMs is a linear assumption much 1980s cell phones


Battery power is not a limiting factor. Hasn't been for some time now. There is a multi-spectral missiles currently in production/operation and others had been planned, some even had seekers tested but never pursued to fruition.

The AAAM saw a multi-mode (X and K band RF) , multi-spectral (IR) seeker survive both GD/Northrop Grumman/Westinghouse internal AOA and the same process by the US Navy's own team that down-selected it. It was considered a legitimate path to take even in the late 80's and early 90's and surely a lot better can be done today with 2016 technology. Same was the case with the Raytheon/Hughes design. Interestingly the USN shortlisted two-missiles and both had a multi-spectral (RF+IR) seeker.

https://s21.postimg.org/4qlj6g2jr/GD_NG.png

https://s9.postimg.org/4oilnm9qn/GD_NG2.png

https://s11.postimg.org/zfff7e7cz/GD_NG3.png

Two industry teams are part-way through a four-year competitive demonstration/validation program, which started in September 1988. The teams have taken radically different approaches. Hughes and Raytheon (H&R), with McDonnell Douglas as their airframe subcontractor, have selected a liquid-fuel ramjet engine with an integral solid booster as a propulsion system, and a dual-mode guidance system combining active radar and infra-red homing.

The GD/Westinghouse AAAM incorporates a number of novel features. It is an all-rocket, tube-launched two-stage missile with thrust-vector control (TVC) on both stages, a two-pulse second-stage motor, and semi-active continuous-wave guidance with IR terminal homing. The two-stage propulsion system is designed to give the missile the maximum possible energy close to the target over a wide band of launch ranges and target altitudes: against a high-altitude target, for example, when thin air limits the effectiveness of aerodynamic controls, the missile will be programed to save its last motor pulse until it is close to the target, allowing it to use TVC for the final interception.


Several GD interests were acquired by Boeing and we know both Raytheon and Boeing have test flown their AMRAAM replacement designs as of 2014. In the 80's you had high technical maturity with Raytheon/Hughes when it came to affordable Active RF seekers..In 2016 Boeing is at par and has an in service active seeker as well. What we don't know is what sort of seeker they have but given the fact that a multi-spectral seeker was proposed and down-selected way back a couple of decades ago, its fairly safe to assume that a few will be offered here as well. Same with the competitor. Raytheon now fully owns Hughes interests and its also fairly safe to assume that they would be exploring a multi-spectral system given that they were testing one decades earlier.

Both the AMRAAM (C and D) and the Meteor concentrated on iteratively improving existing seeker technology and not clean sheet seekers so when they look to do that, one could expect multi-spectral seekers to come into play. The US is going to float out an AMRAAM replacement program over the next year or two and surely Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon and others that may wish to compete will have similar proposals like they were offering even decades earlier. The Dual Range Missile effort again saw participants actively look into similar seeker trades in the late 90's.

The Dual-Range Missile envisaged by the USAF would be able to engage targets in a complete sphere around the parent aircraft. To achieve this, it will have to be highly agile and feature marked improvement in seeker performance over the AIM-9X and AMRAAM types it would replace. Current options centre on a dual-mode infrared (IR) sensor combined with an active conformal-array antenna on the skin of the missile itself.


Currently, the Stunner uses an RF+IR seeker so we already have operational multi-spectral weapons out there.

Regarding the funny USN choice of integrating the IRST on a tank, do note that there is really no way of not doing it on a pod given USN requirements of no CLASS changes to the aircraft. They wanted a sensor fused IRST but did not want the aircraft worked on either at the depot or back at Boeing. The USF has similar requirements but they went with a much simpler, light weight pod with an IRST upfront and data-link antennas in the back - http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... n-pod.html

The same IRST or its predecessor has and can be fitted flush or otherwise permanently mounted on the airframe (F-14, F-15 SA, SG, Advanced Super Hornet etc), put on a standard pod (F-15E, C, F-16) or be strapped on to a centerline pod for the USN that is only buying a couple of hundred IRST's for their 500+ Super Hornet fleet..

The pod on a tank choice was strange to even me at first but then one needs to look at how much they fly without a centerline tank. Its practically negligible since the current mission-radius requirement/demand of the USN means that the centerline tank stays put or else the Rhino won't be able to accomplish its missions (I guess this will only get worst with time given its profile would change as threats advance). If for some reason they can get their carriers closer and don't require the extra combat radius they could simply swap out the IRST and put it onto a pod as the USAF is doing and as the USN does with its A2G sensors.

If the USN asked for the IRST to be a stand along pod, they'd have to carry a centerline tank, an A2G targeting pod and an IRST at the same time.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 01 Aug 2017 17:58


pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby pandyan » 01 Aug 2017 18:10

Boeing creates new in-house avionics unit, reversing years of outsourcing

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... -controls/

Unusual move by boeing going for vertical integration.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 01 Aug 2017 19:01

shiv wrote:A super article
Flying the F-4 Phantom II, British-style


Shiv sir, thanks for sharing. Very interesting article. There is a real quality quickly visible in the person's who are or were actually in the services. A thread which I have observed as common to most if not all of them, irrespective of nationality, is their quiet confidence, their humility and their pragmatism.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 01 Aug 2017 20:06

Manish_P wrote:
shiv wrote:A super article
Flying the F-4 Phantom II, British-style


Shiv sir, thanks for sharing. Very interesting article. There is a real quality quickly visible in the person's who are or were actually in the services. A thread which I have observed as common to most if not all of them, irrespective of nationality, is their quiet confidence, their humility and their pragmatism.

You are blessed for seeing and understanding this. You belong to the minority.


Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4972
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 10 Sep 2017 00:16

shiv wrote:A super article
Flying the F-4 Phantom II, British-style

Manish_P wrote:Shiv sir, thanks for sharing. Very interesting article. There is a real quality quickly visible in the person's who are or were actually in the services. A thread which I have observed as common to most if not all of them, irrespective of nationality, is their quiet confidence, their humility and their pragmatism.

If you guys haven't visited it, I'd strongly recommend the "Aircrew Interviews site (also available on Youtube).

http://www.aircrewinterview.tv/

They've also got an interview with Chris Bolton, the pilot from your hushkit article. He's quite lively in person.

Another interesting one is with Group Captain Dim Jones - flew the Gnat(T), Hunter, Lightning, Phantom, Jaguar and F-16 (the last on exchange with the USAF)


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2017 09:16

Moved the mortar guidance posts to International Military thread as they are not aviation related....

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Sep 2017 18:46

New F-35 Roadmap Would Roll Out Updates Like iPhone

The F-35 program office is seeking to restructure the way it delivers new software capabilities to the fleet, weighing a more fluid strategy not unlike the way iPhone app developers roll out new updates.
But it remains to be seen whether such a plan would speed up follow-on development and fixes to existing software bugs, or merely kick the can down the road.

“Envision in your head: the pilot jumps in a jet, fires it up, the panoramic cockpit display comes up,” said Vice Adm. Mat Winter, F-35 program executive officer, during an event Sept. 6. “Envision a little window that pops up that says, ‘Your latest [electro-optical distributed aperture system] software update is ready for download: yes or no?’ Similar to what you do on your smart phone.”

This new strategy will allow the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to move ahead with follow-on development while still fixing software “deficiencies” that are less urgent to resolve, Winter said.

The program office already has a long list of these deficiencies to resolve—generally minor software bugs that cause, for example, the synthetic aperture radar to take five seconds instead of three seconds to refresh—and expects to find more as testers wrap up work on the final Block 3F software load. But some of the deficiencies may not need to be fixed for the warfighter to field the capability, Winter said.

“This is a very complex system and we expect deficiencies, so the question is, is the deficiency at such a severity that the warfighter can not go take this capability and go fight the fight?” Winter said.

The program office and Lockheed Martin hope to wrap up testing of 3F, which promises to give the F-35 its final combat capability including a full suite of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons, and deliver it to the warfighter by the end of this calendar year.

But even after the F-35’s development period, called System Design and Development (SDD) is officially done, the aircraft still must go through its formal test period, called initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). During this phase, testers may find still more deficiencies that the program office will have to fix.

“I’ve got to give something to OT,” said Winter. “If I keep waiting to correct even the smallest deficiency, it could be a while. We need to get into OT, we need to let them go wring it out in a formal plan.”

The deficiencies are not hardware-related, Winter stressed, adding that the program office is “99.9 %” done with hardware qualifications for all three F-35 variants.

Still, every time the program office finds a new software deficiency, it must re-write many lines of code. This means the JPO will likely continue to deliver new iterations of 3F software even after the fleet is fielding the capability and IOT&E is over.

This move effectively extends SDD past IOT&E, so that it begins to creep into the time period—and the funding stream—allotted for follow-on modernization, called Block 4.

Winter said the program office aims to continue fixing bugs in 3F while beginning work on follow-on modernization.

“We are going to continue to chip away where we have time and it makes sense to enhance and improve the Block 3F capability while starting the design and development for the brand new requirements, and bring them into a blended correction of deficiency and Block 4 development delivery,” Winter said.

Winter said the program office would implement “agile acquisition principles” to more efficiently deliver improvements to the 3F capability, so as not to delay Block 4. However, he did not give specifics on the timeline, or what exactly these steps would look like.

The JPO will seek approval of the new strategy from senior leadership in October, Winter said.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 10 Sep 2017 18:48



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests