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.
deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3502
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby deejay » 03 Jul 2015 19:18

Nice Article on different generations of fighters, posting a substantial portion here. The bolded portion is a chin up for the IAF. :D

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=171&sf10558179=1

Generation Gap
By Walter Boyne Posted 4 June 2015

....

The First Generation: Early Jets

The first generation of jets included experimental aircraft not intended for combat. Germany was the first country to enter the jet age with the first flight of the Heinkel He-178. Flown on 27 August 1939, the He 178 was powered by an engine developed by Dr. Hans von Ohain and built by a special department of the Heinkel aircraft company. Earlier in Great Britain, Frank Whittle had begun work on the jet engine but failed to receive sufficient government support to complete his design before the flight of the He-178. Once government support became available, Whittle's engine powered the flight of the first Allied jet, the Gloster E. 28/39 on 15 May 1941.

While both early flights furthered jet aviation, the first flight of a third experimental aircraft received credit for being the first jet flight. This aircraft, Italy's Caproni-Campini CC-2, was first flown on 27 August 1940. A hybrid, it used a 900 hp Isotta Fraschini L.121/R.C.40 internal combustion engine to drive a compressor with a primitive afterburner fitted aft of the compressor. The Caproni-Campini flight was recognized as the first jet to fly by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, the international aviation record sanctioning body, as the first flight date of the He-178, made in secret, was not known until after World War II.

The first true jet fighter was the twin-engine Heinkel He-280, first flown 30 March 1941. The He-280 featured such advances as a tricycle landing gear and a compressed-air ejection seat, but its airframe belonged to the piston-engine era. It was distinguished only by its HeS 8A centrifugal flow turbojets, replaced in later aircraft by the Junkers Jumo 004. Although the He-280 handily defeated a Focke-Wulf Fw-190 in mock combat, the Luftwaffe canceled the program to proceed with the world's first operational jet aircraft, the more capable Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe (Swallow).

The Me-262 was originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft with the engines mounted through the wing, much like those of the Gloster Meteor. When the engine diameter grew, the engines had to be placed in nacelles mounted under the wing. The weight and balance problem resulting from that redesign was resolved by sweeping the wings back twenty-three degrees. This engineering fix gave the aircraft a modern look as well as an aerodynamic advantage.

The Me-262, with its 540-mph top speed and heavy armament of four 30 mm cannons, could easily have made it the best combat fighter in World War II. But slow delivery of the Junkers Jumo 004 jet engine and other factors delayed the Me-262's combat entrance until late summer 1944. Of the 1,300 or so Me-262s built, only about 300 ever saw combat. As a result, the Me-262 had little effect on the outcome of the war.

Great Britain's first operational jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor, had its first flight on 5 March 1943. The prototype was powered by de Havilland Halford H.1 turbojets, but production aircraft used the Rolls-Royce version of the Whittle W.2 design. The Meteor engaged in the first jet-versus-jet combat when it battled an unpiloted Fiesler Fi-103 "V-1" Buzz Bomb. To the disappointment of historians, the Meteor and the Me-262 never met in combat.

In 1942, the US Army Air Corps forfeited a chance to participate in the earliest rounds of the jet age by rejecting a Lockheed proposal for the L-133. A Kelly Johnson design, the L-133 featured a blended wing and body, canard-surfaced jet fighter powered by two axial flow turbojet engines.

Instead of the L-133, the first American jet fighter was the less-than-lethal Bell XP-59A Airacomet. The Bell design was flown for the first time 1 October 1942. Powered by two General Electric Type 1A turbojets, developed from Whittle's work, the aircraft's poor performance relegated it to training duties only.

The Army Air Corps did turn to Lockheed for its first production jet fighter, the P-80. The first product of Skunk Works, the XP-80 took its maiden flight on 8 January 1944. While three P-80s arrived in Europe before the war ended, none saw action. Korea presented action aplenty, however, where the P-80 Shooting Star, redesignated F-80 in 1948, distinguished itself in ground attack and reconnaissance roles. The basic design then extended to include the T-33 trainer and F-94 Starfire interceptor aircraft.

The Next Generations

Even before World War II ended, designers sought to maximize fighter performance by tailoring the airframe to the potential of the jet engine. The most important new development of the second-generation jet fighter was true swept wings specifically designed to delay the onset of drag associated with high Mach numbers.

Such aircraft as the F-86, MiG-15, Saab J-29, Hawker Hunter, and Grumman F9F Panther and Cougar were optimized for transonic speeds. These beefed-up airframes required new types of boosted controls, improved ejection seats, better cockpit pressurization, and the refinement of aerodynamics so that the fighter provided a stable gun platform at high speeds and high-g loads.

The Saab J-29 Tunnan ("Flying Barrel") built by Sweden was the first swept wing fighter to enter service in Western Europe. It was flown for the first time on 1 September 1948. Saab built some 660 J-29s, which illustrates that a small country can field a first-line jet fighter with performance comparable to the best of its era.

The third-generation of jet fighters heralded a proliferation of new designs and capabilities: supersonic speeds, sophisticated missiles, and high-output turbojet or early turbo-fan engines.

This third generation also included the remarkable Century series, which began with the first operational American supersonic fighter, the North American F-100. Within six years (from 1951 through 1956), fighter and engine design took a giant leap the world over. In that time, at least eleven world-class fighters debuted: the F-100, Convair F-102 and F-106, Lockheed F-104, McDonnell F-101, MiG-17 and -19, Dassault Etendard and Mirage III, Saab Draken, and the English Electric Lightning.

This sudden flowering of jet design incorporated many advances: delta wings, more highly swept wings, more powerful yet more fuel-efficient engines, sophisticated fire control and navigation systems, and in-flight refueling. Later aircraft of this generation were far more sophisticated and possessed much greater capability. The Republic F-105, MiG-21 and -25, McDonnell F-4, and the Saab Viggen belong in this generation.

Even as speed, altitude, and firepower increased, jet fighters still faced hard combat lessons in Vietnam and in the Middle East. Vietnam War politics restrained US forces and enabled a relatively few older MiG-17s and -19s along with the newer MiG-21s to dictate terms of combat. The result was a discouraging victory ratio for US forces that ranged from a low of one victory to two losses to a high of four victories to one loss.

These wartime lessons meshed with the emerging computer age as digital electronics were incorporated into the design and production process as well as into the new aircraft designs. What resulted was a tidal wave of technological advances in fourth-generation jet fighters: the General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) F-16, Grumman F-14, McDonnell Douglas F-15 and F/A-18, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, MiG-23 and -29, Saab Gripen, and Sukhoi Su-27.

These vastly superior aircraft generally possessed high-output turbo-fan engines, infinitely more capable and reliable electronics, fly-by-wire control systems, zero-altitude ejection capability, improved ordnance, and an ever-increasing number of onboard computers.

Another development was that companies and even countries teamed to reduce research and development risk and enhance fighter capabilities. The Lockheed F-104 pioneered these efforts during the 1950s; the F-16 cemented international cooperation in the 1970s.

The increased cost of these latest fighters strained military budgets everywhere and dictated the aircraft be adapted to both air-to-air and ground attack roles.

Among these fourth-generation aircraft, the F-15 and F-16 emerged earlier than their foreign equivalents and established a reputation for air dominance unchallenged for years. As foreign-built fourth-generation contenders emerged, their US counterparts maintained their lead with significant advances in radar and engine performance as well as improved air-to-ground capabilities, including night, all-weather, and precision attack.

Even with these improvements, fourth-generation fighters fielded by the United States and its allies face serious competition by such aircraft as the Su-27, MiG-29, and MiG-35. For example, the advantages of US F-15 fighters were put in question by highly motivated, well-trained Su-30K pilots of the Indian Air Force during Cope India exercises in 2004. Fourth-generation fighters also face more advanced ground threats in the form of "double-digit" (e.g., SA-14) surface-to-air missiles.

On the Eastern front, China is rapidly moving toward an indigenous air-and-space capability suitable for a superpower. It is plausible that China will build aircraft and missiles in numbers compatible with its population and growing wealth and will create training programs to produce pilots with skills to match their Western—and Indian— counterparts.

The Fifth Generation

The overriding characteristic of fifth-generation fighters is integrated very low observable, or VLO, stealth. Stealth relies on shape, materials, and internal weapon carriage. The result is a very low radar cross section even when fully configured for combat.

The fifth-generation fighter takes advantage of the previous generations of stealth technology developed and matured for the B-2 bomber and AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile to become more than just a fighter generational evolution. This combination of near-invisibility to an enemy along with fighter maneuverability establishes fifth-generation platforms as more a part of a revolution than an evolution.

A particularly important advance of fifth-generation stealth is its ease of maintenance. Stealth maintenance on the early F-117As required fifty man-hours per flight hour; at maturity, stealth maintenance on the fifth-generation aircraft will require minutes of maintenance per flying hour.

Fifth-generation fighters combine stealth with huge improvements in integrated avionics and supportability. Stealth, agility, performance, fused-information, improved situational awareness, and network-enabled operations all combine to create advantages never seen before in previous fighter evolutions.

Other critical factors include an emphasis on reliability, maintainability, and sustainability — the capability to fight day after day without extensive maintenance. Fifth-generation maintenance requirements will be one-third the maintenance requirements of the legacy aircraft they replace. They also have the ability to deploy more rapidly.

The fifth generation, therefore, is really defined by two fighters, the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. By fielding a fifth generation of jet fighters, the United States establishes a true generation gap unapproachable by a single power or a combination of powers. The F-22 and F-35 offer obvious complementary advantages.

Both have all the features that define fifth-generation fighters, but the F-22 adds the unique features of high-altitude supercruise and extraordinary agility. These attributes allow it to more efficiently secure immediate air dominance in any environment.

Among all fighters—current as well as future, including the F-35—the F-22's ability to supercruise (fly at greater than Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner) adds to the kinetic energy imparted to its missiles at launch while simultaneously denying the enemy time in which to respond. Supercruise also allows for increased supersonic persistence and decreased adversary reaction times.

In combat, the integrated avionics system gives a God's eye view of the combat scene to every pilot in a data-linked flight of F-22s, raising the concept of situational awareness to a universal level. This universal situational awareness enables Raptor pilots to concentrate on tactics. They don't have to spend time integrating separate data inputs from multiple sensors. The F-22 enables pilots to see and destroy enemy fighters and missile sites before either is aware of the Raptor's presence. If a threat gets within dogfighting range, the incredible agility of the thrust-vectored Raptor ensures close-in success.

A less-obvious relationship between the F-22 and the F-35 is their unprecedented exchange of technology. Lessons learned on the F-22 are built into the F-35, while advances from the F-35 can be retrofitted into the Raptor fleet.

The extraordinary performance of the two aircraft is dependent upon their powerplants, and these are inextricably linked. The F-22 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney F119 engines with about 35,000 pounds of thrust each. The core section of the F119 was used to develop the P&W F135 for the F-35.

The F-35 adds its own unique features that focus on basing flexibility, as its three versions are individually designed to operate from carriers, conventional runways, or extremely short austere strips. With both good-range and high-payload capacity in nonstealth mode, the F-35 will be able to secure immediate strike dominance.

The F-35A is optimized for the US Air Force; the F-35B offers short takeoff and vertical landing for the US Marine Corps and Allied countries; and the F-35C operates off large aircraft carriers. The F-35B is the world's first stealthy, supersonic, STOVL strike fighter.

The design of the F-35 incorporates advances in electronics not immediately available to the F-22. These advances — fourth-generation active electronically scanned array radar with half the weight, half the cost, and twice the reliability of the third-generation F-22 AESA — will be retrofitted to later-block F-22s. The active and passive capabilities of the F-35's radar exceed any previous radar and can generate long-range, high-resolution synthetic aperture radar maps of unprecedented size.

Other advances featured in the F-35 include a distributed aperture system, which acts as an infrared sensor and provides a protective sphere around the aircraft to alert the pilot to any threat; an internally mounted electro-optical targeting system that provides long-range, high-resolution target recognition; an integrated communications, navigation, and identification avionics suite, which provides lethal beyond-visual-range recognition and intraflight data exchange; an advanced electronic warfare and countermeasures system; and a helmet-mounted display with the most advanced head-tracking system available.

These systems combine to optimize fighter tactics through the OODA loop — observe, orient, detect, and act — as defined by fighter tactics guru John Boyd. These systems depend on the aircraft's integrated core processor, which presents all incoming information to the pilot in an optimized form.

There is also an X factor. Ingenious future aviators will use the capability of these aircraft beyond the standard air-to-air and air-to-ground regimes. Examples could include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and advanced electronic attack, both of which show promise to radically change the use of tactical aircraft.

The F-22 and the F-35 will stand alone for decades to come. No other fifth-generation fighters exist and none appear on the horizon. The fifth generation will be with us for decades, and one can only speculate about the advances to be found in the sixth generation and beyond. Weapons will change over time, with directed energy coming to the fore, along with satellite-linked missiles.

And, as much as pilots may hate the idea, a generation of stealthy, agile, and lethal unmanned fighters may someday be flying under the control of pilots in sixty-year-old F-22s and forty-year-old F-35s.



Walter Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, is a retired Air Force colonel with more than 5,000 hours in a score of different aircraft. He is also an aviation author and historian who has written more than 400 articles and forty-seven books on aviation topics

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20342
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 03 Jul 2015 23:34

DARPA's Hypersonic Jet Project Marches Forward As Russia Teases Mach 5 Missiles [VIDEO]
http://www.ibtimes.com/darpas-hypersoni ... ign=buffer

The U.S. Air Force and DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, are putting their minds together to develop a new hypersonic jet by 2023 that could conduct missions at five times the speed of sound. While few details of the plan have gone public, the development aims to build on a successful hypersonic flight test that occurred over the Pacific Ocean in 2013.Planning began shortly after the X-51A, a Boeing Waverider, flew at a speed of Mach 5 (or 3,806 mph) for 240 seconds before burning through all of its fuel and crashing into the ocean two years ago. The military is now working to improve upon that test, with better defense technology as the ultimate goal.DARPA is working on a number of hypersonic projects. In 2012, the agency made headlines when it flew an unmanned vehicle at Mach 20, or 13,000 mph, for a short time before losing control.

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

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 04 Jul 2015 08:31

f-16 shooting down drone....

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/03/rd ... deo-livex/

where da machine gun?

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 04 Jul 2015 18:04

Rafale has good wing payload capacity :)

Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15849
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 04 Jul 2015 18:10

Nick_S wrote:Rafale has good wing payload capacity :)

Image


or are they hinting that ........................ :)

The umbrellas were an overkill.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Jul 2015 18:28

TSJones wrote:f-16 shooting down drone....

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/03/rd ... deo-livex/

where da machine gun?


Much better

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

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 04 Jul 2015 19:59

Oh, those never work. They haven't improved them at all in the last 45 years.

Besides, the SU-30 has the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-301 30mm machine gun which fires at a rate of 1500 rounds per minute.

the SU-30 carries 150 rounds of ammo.

that's 6 seconds of firing the gun!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60360
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jul 2015 20:42

its been reported todays fighter pilots are way inferior in gun skills to ww2 and korean war vets for whom gun was the only weapon and they trained very seriously for it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 05 Jul 2015 02:26

Simple as to why..Modern fighter pilots devote their 200-250 hours per annum to multiple mission sets and must cover many times more training compared to WW2 pilots and aircrafts....

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 05 Jul 2015 05:49

Nick_S wrote:Rafale has good wing payload capacity :)

[img...]http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads//2015/07/Rafale-deixa-Salao-Le-Bourget-2015-foto-2-Dassault.jpg[/img]

Repetitive loads? Never mind ...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17608
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Jul 2015 12:45

If not posted earlier
Why the Indonesian air force wants the Su-35

May 13, 2015 Rakesh Krishnan Simha, special to RBTH

The Indonesian air force has asked Jakarta to greenlight the purchase of advanced Russian Su-35 fighters. Here’s why it’s a sensible decision.
Why the Indonesian air force wants the Su-35

Sukhoi classifies Su-35 as a 4++ generation aircraft, which places it just below fifth generation stealth aircraft. Source: Sukhoi

The Indonesian air force wants to replace its outdated American built F-5 fighters with the brand new Russian Su-35 Super Flanker, but the country’s political leadership is unable to act quickly because the U.S. is pitching in with its F-16 and F-18 jets.

The Indonesians operate both American F-16s and Russian made Flankers – five Su-27s and 11 Su-30s. How Russian aircraft ended up in the air force of an American ally is interesting. “Indonesia’s turn toward Russian fighters stemmed partly from necessity,” explains Defense Industry Daily (DID).. Its 12 remaining F-16A/Bs and 16 remaining F-5E/F fighters experienced severe maintenance problems in the wake of a U.S. embargo.”

The embargo was imposed after Australia started meddling in Indonesia’s civil war in East Timor, and the U.S. accused Jakarta of human rights violations.

In order to address the problems created by the U.S. embargo, in 2003 Indonesia signed a $192 million contract with Russia to supply Sukhoi multi-role fighters through Rosoboronexport. The induction of Russian fighters gave the Southeast Asian country some sort of parity with its neighbors, including China and Australia.

Four years later, at the MAKS 2007 air show in Moscow, Indonesia and Russia signed a follow-up $300 million deal to supply more Sukhoi Flankers. What makes Indonesia’s purchase of Russian military hardware remarkable is that it is happening in the backdrop of close security cooperation between Washington and Jakarta. “It does not reflect Indonesia's current geopolitical orientation. It is certainly a tribute to the attractiveness of the Sukhoi aircraft,” says foreign affair commentator Martin Sieff of UPI.

According to DID, both the Su-27 SK and Su-30 variants the Indonesians are currently flying “share the Sukhoi Flanker family’s combination of long range, large payloads, and air to air performance that can match any American fighter except the F-22A Raptor. Those capabilities, and Russia’s policy of avoiding political conditions on its weapon sales, nudged Indonesia into a tilt toward Russia as a weapons supplier”.

The arrival of the Sukhois has evened the odds in the Asia Pacific theatre. Australian pilots, who considered themselves top guns flying their F-18 Hornets, are now having to faceoff with the Flankers that are superior in almost every aspect. According to Air Power Australia, “The acquisition of Russian designed Sukhoi Su-27SK and Su-30MK series fighters by most regional nations now presents an environment where the F/A-18A/B/F is outclassed in all key performance parameters by widely available fighters.”

Technological leap forward

The Su-35 Super Flanker, which the Indonesia air force is eyeing, is certainly more advanced. Sukhoi classifies it as a 4++ generation aircraft, which places it just below fifth generation stealth aircraft. Compared with the F-16 and F-18, which are based on 1970s technology, the Su-35 is only just entering the Russian Air Force. China has also inked a multi-billion deal to acquire 24 Super Flankers, and Chinese pilots have begun arriving in Russia for training.

According to Air Force Technology, the Su-35 “has high maneuverability (+9g) with a high angle of attack, and is equipped with high-capability weapon systems that contribute to the new aircraft's exceptional dogfighting capability. The maximum level speed is 2,390km/h or Mach 2.25.”

The magazine says the Su-35 is capable of carrying numerous air-to-air, air-to-surface and anti-ship missiles. It also says the airplane can be armed with various guided bombs, and that its sensors “can detect and track up to 30 airborne targets with a radar cross section (RCS) of 3m² at ranges of 400km using track-while-scan mode”.

Reporting for Aviation Week from the 2013 Paris Air Show, legendary aviation writer Bill Sweetman writes that the high agility demonstrated by the Sukhoi Su-35 is rooted in a Russian concept in which close-range, low-speed air combat remains important.

“The aircraft, equipped with three-axis thrust-vectoring and fully integrated flight and propulsion control, performed maneuvers here which no other operational fighter can match,” Sweetman writes.

Sweetman then quotes Sukhoi chief test pilot Sergey Bogdan: “Most of the fighters we have available today with vectored thrust, the Su-30MKI and MKM, can perform these maneuvers. Where this aircraft is different is that it has more thrust, so when it performs the 'bell' maneuver, it can stand still, with afterburning on, and can sustain flight at 120-140 kph.”

The emphasis on “supermaneuverability” runs counter to much western air combat doctrine, which stresses high speed, the avoidance of the slower “merge” and tactics that do not lose the aircraft's energy. Bogdan, however, says supermaneuverability can be essential.

“The classical air combat starts at high speed, but if you miss on the first shot—and the probability is there because there are maneuvers to avoid missiles—the combat will be more prolonged,” he says. “After maneuvering, the aircraft will be at a lower speed, but both aircraft may be in a position where they cannot shoot. But supermaneuverability allows an aircraft to turn within three seconds and take another shot.”

As for the doctrine that energy should be conserved, Bogdan notes: “The theory of air combat has always evolved. In the 1940s and 1950s, the first priority was height, then speed, then maneuver and then firepower. Then with the third and fourth generation, it was speed, then height and then maneuver. Supermaneuverability adds to this. It's the knife in the soldier's pocket.”

And despite not having any stealth capability, the Su-35 can under certain conditions become invisible to enemy radar. Sweetman explains that the “rapid change in velocity can cause a Doppler fire-control radar to break lock. The maneuver is more useful on the Su-35S because the pilot can fly the aircraft out in any direction”.

Su-35S overtakes American F-22 in terms ‘intellect’

With Australia planning to acquire 72 F-35 stealth fighters by the end of this decade, Indonesia needs to look at counter measures. Russia’s T-50 seems like the most ideal candidate but in the meantime the Su-35 can fill the interim and also take on the F-35 threat.

Dave Majumdar of the National Interest says a US Air Force official with experience on the F-35 believes the Su-35 could pose a serious challenge for the new American jet. The F-35 was built primarily as a strike fighter and does not have the sheer speed or altitude capability of the Su-35 or F-22. “The Su's ability to go high and fast is a big concern, including for F-35,” the Air Force official said.

According to Majumdar, “As an air-superiority fighter, its major advantages are its combination of high altitude capability and blistering speed—which allow the fighter to impart the maximum possible amount of launch energy to its arsenal of long-range air-to-air missiles.

“The Su-35 would be launching its weapons from high supersonic speeds around Mach 1.5 at altitudes greater than 45,000 ft; the F-35 would primarily be operating in the 30,000-ft range at speeds around Mach 0.9.”

Sergey Ptichkin of Rossiyskaya Gazeta says the Su-35S is almost identical to the Russian T-50 in terms of the on board electronics suite, control systems and armament. “Therefore it will not prove difficult for pilots to convert to the classic fifth generation fighter with its obligatory stealth technology: any pilot who has assimilated the Su-35S can easily convert to the T-50,” he says.

The upshot: Indonesian pilots will have had a head start when it comes to flying fifth generation stealth aircraft in the next decade.

Training with the aces

In October 2013, India agreed to train and support the Indonesian air force in operating its fleet of Sukhoi fighters. According to the agreement, which was arrived at during the Indian defence minister’s trip to Jakarta, India and Indonesia will cooperate in the areas of training, technical help and spares support.

In the past Jakarta had a pact with China to train its pilots and provide technical support for its Flanker fleet. But Jakarta has now veered round to the view that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is an ideal mentor. For, the IAF has earned a worldwide reputation as a dogfight duke after beating the powerful US Air Force in a series of Cope India air exercises. Plus, in three wars – in 1965, 1971 and 1999 – it routed the Pakistan Air Force.

If Indonesia decides to grow its Flanker force, ample support is available in the region.

No strings attached

The most pressing argument to go with Russian weapons is that unlike other major powers, Moscow has never imposed an embargo in the midst of a conflict. After all, to first sell weapons to a country and then apply a choke on supplies during war is like a stab in the back. The US embargo during the East Timor crisis was clearly aimed at giving the Australians the advantage. In any future crisis involving Indonesia and Australia, the outcome won’t be markedly different. The Indonesian political leadership might well consider that when they take a final call on the fighter purchase.

- http://asia.rbth.com/why_the_indonesian ... 45943.html)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60360
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Jul 2015 14:45

good video of a danish airforce f16 shooting a drone first with a amraam and then a aim9
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/0 ... -air-force

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Jul 2015 16:47

“The Su-35 would be launching its weapons from high supersonic speeds around Mach 1.5 at altitudes greater than 45,000 ft; the F-35 would primarily be operating in the 30,000-ft range at speeds around Mach 0.9.”


What sort of logic is that??? The F-35 has its operational altitude of 30,000- 35,000 feet because that is the altitude the electro optical sensors perform best for air to ground missions. If one digs up the block 4.1 to block 4.4 schedule for the F-35 it gets its air to air specific load out then including the ability to carry 6 internal AMRAAM's. There is no reason why the F-35 would be operating at 30,000 feet in an all AMRAAAM or a mixed a2a weapon loadout. That is for a mixed air to air and air to ground mission with a couple of bombs and a couple of self-defense missiles. This also applies to the F-16, when F-16's are perforing the CAP mission for example they do not do so at 25-30,000 feet but much higher, however unlike the F-16 with the USAF the USAF actually has a plan to up the capability of the F-35 so that it can hang around along with the F-15C and F-22A at 45-50,000 feet given both the short term thrust increments and the long term adaptive engines.

The same applies to SEAD/DEAD, the F-35 will most likely be using its SAR and passive EW suite to get targets from higher to give the longest range to the SDBII.

Additionally neither the Su-35, nor the F-35 are Mach 1.5 super-cruisers at 45,000 feet with any respectable fuel or weapons load. Both in this case will have to use their burners to get to that state and both can do so if required. However, a stealthy fighter always has that advantage due to its low RCS, especially when it has a powerful 1500+ T/R module AESA radar and the AN/ASQ-239 (among others)..Given the sort of RCS numbers we are talking about for the Flanker with a load, the F-35 can operate in LPI mode and enjoy considerable freedom at long range. There is a reason the Russians are developing the T-50, have plans to develop a PAKFA -N, and have future long term plans to develop a stealthy fighter to replace the Mig29. A stealth on non-stealth engagement forces the non-stealth aircraft to play "defense" until the other aircraft gets a lot lot closer, much like the dogfighters did against BVR fighters back in the day (since the dogfighters lacked long range sensors or weapons)..Only problem is that VLO air frames and the SA provided through the sensor suite allows the pilot to stay at medium ranges and constantly harass the opponent because he has very sophisticated track on his emissions due to both the high quality of the -94 and AN/ASQ-239 type systems but also due to the basic tactics that the legacy aircraft must adopt i.e. use their sensors to pick up stealth aircraft...a track on the emissions coupled with LPI EMCON can allow these aircraft to use tactics that allow it to stay outside the sensor 'sweetspot' of non-stealthy birds and thereby continue to execute the mission from medium to long ranges..

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35360
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 20 Oct 2015 16:19

JSF is a turkey!

Lighter weight pilots banned from F-35 over faulty ejection seat
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 445280046/

"Air Force leaders decided that as an interim solution, no pilot less than 136 pounds will be allowed to fly the aircraft until the problem is resolved. As a result, one pilot was impacted."

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Oct 2015 17:22

So they set seat metrics that were completely unconventional from other programs and the thing impacts 1 USAF pilot, ZERO Navy pilots, ZERO USMC pilots, ZERO Norwegian pilots and this is roster wide not just those that are expected to fly the aircraft pre SDD (outside of the JSF). How does this make the aircraft a turkey? How many 60 Kg pilots in most air-forces? In the USN and USMC you cannot even fly a fighter jet if you weigh less than 61 Kg. Also, the fix will be out soon and the current restrictions have next to nothing in terms of the impact to the program either in training mainstream pilots or testing the jet through its SDD phases. But they'll still get it done through a host of measures that they have already outlines. Some if it could be through software adjusted chute deployment timing, and other could be to adjust the weight distribution and CG etc. When you go through testet points, some fail or don't perform to the mark this was one such thing. The seat had been constantly tested in its routine envelope and they then began going towards the extremes, what they found was that under some slow speed conditions a very light weight combat pilot (60 kg) would face severe injuries. Measures to correct that are being designed and plans to implement that into the seat are expected by next year. Meanwhile there is only 1 pilot out of hundred if not thousands that is going to be impacted in the interim. Even the first Female pilot is not impacted.

Its a seat issue that impacts just one pilot and that is well on its way to be sorted out before the SDD (Systems development) phase is completed and is not going to impact a single program milestone. Using that and calling the aircraft a turkey is similarly absurd to using the Su-30 seat ejection issue as a means to calling the MKI a turkey.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-417937/

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60360
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Oct 2015 10:04

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xcamVTE3Y

has footage of mock dogfight between malaysia flanker and f18.
has few seconds of HUD footage from the flanker/another f18 as the target f18 kind of struggles for vertical climb it looks like.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3562
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby srai » 21 Oct 2015 11:21

Singha wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xcamVTE3Y

has footage of mock dogfight between malaysia flanker and f18.
has few seconds of HUD footage from the flanker/another f18 as the target f18 kind of struggles for vertical climb it looks like.


One of the things from that infamous USAF Colonel speaking event where he bashed IAF's Su-30MKIs was that one of the tactics to use against TVC fighters is if you see them using their TVC to turn-into you (hence bleeding energy) you go for a vertical climb and then come down guns on the energy-depleted TVC fighter which would be rapidly losing altitude (or would need to dive to regain energy).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Oct 2015 21:33

Can anyone help me loacte the old Turkey thread please? Thanks.

Meanwhile another data point (this is an ad from LM, so ...............):

How the fantasy of invisibility becomes reality in the sky



When asked, “What kind of superpower would you like to have,” most of us say “invisibility.” Even Derek Jeter. Invisibility, like the ability to fly, is the stuff of childhood dreams. And for decades, cloaking devices have been a favorite plot device of science-fiction and fantasy classics like “Star Trek,” “Harry Potter” and “Doctor Who.”

Today, the F-35 strike fighter jet makes this fantasy a reality, as it navigates airspace with the most advanced powers of hide and seek. Its multiple stealth devices – radar-absorbing materials and internal infrared sensors – comprise the ultimate invisibility cloak. In the F-35 and elsewhere, stealth and cloaking technologies have become more comprehensive and durable, with applications for military and other industries. This is what happens when science meets imagination.

“With improvements, tanks or planes can be cloaked from human observation, car trunks can be made see-through, blind spots can be cloaked to be seen easily or cloaking can even be used as art or included for architectural effects,” said Joseph Choi, a researcher with the University of Rochester’s Institute of Optics.

Cloaking, which makes objects partly or wholly invisible, manipulates the direction of visible and near-infrared light or electromagnetic waves around an object as if it weren’t there. For an invisibility cloak or shield to work, the material needs to curve waves completely around all dimensions of an object, and work with all backgrounds and angles of view.

Image
The F-35’s electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) is built into the fuselage.

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California recently created an ultrathin invisibility cloak – a thin film of magnesium fluoride topped by small gold antennae – that can flexibly wrap light waves around any shape and create illusions to match different backgrounds. It does that by controlling how reflected light is scattered, and therefore what the viewer sees. The cloak’s creators say it can be draped over any object to obscure it or make it look like something else.

Cloaking with specifically engineered, artificial materials to bend light waves – or metamaterials – also holds great promise for electromagnetic field cloaking. “For more practical cloaking that can make large objects disappear for the human eye and work for all visible colors (frequencies), we think using standard optics (lenses and mirrors) has a lot of potential,” Choi said.

Late last year, Choi and John Howell at the University of Rochester investigated invisibility principles in optical spatial cloaking. They produced a scalable cloaking device that uses four standard optical lenses to manipulate light waves to hide objects, no matter the position of the viewer.

“Currently, the Rochester Cloak works for small angles, but as designs that work for much larger angles are developed, and the design becomes more portable, this option can be quite useful,” Choi said.

The scientific understanding of cloaking devices has made exponential leaps in the last few years. Previous two-dimensional cloaking technologies lost their invisible power as a viewer changed angles, and were difficult to scale for larger objects. The Rochester team’s solution is three-dimensional and multidirectional. By adjusting the lens type, power and precise distance, there is no discontinuity as the viewer changes positions.

In the F-35 Lightning II, invisibility is not just about hiding from the enemy, but also about locating and attacking. With its infrared sensors, the F-35’s integrated airframe design allows it to skirt detectability by enemy radar while it stealthily identifies and tracks targets from long ranges. It does this with its advanced electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), the world’s first sensor to combine forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality.

Image
EOTS increases F-35 pilots’ recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance.

This infrared imaging system is a passive sensor that is housed in a small, low-profile window. Among its other functions, EOTS tracks targets without emitting radar – allowing the plane to operate with stealth.

“The military services see infrared as an absolute necessity. It became a mantra that the U.S. military owned the night because of this technology,” said Don Bolling, director of business development at Lockheed Martin’s missiles and fire control division.

The F-35’s fused sensor solution and cloaking techniques have broader military and commercial applications – they can be deployed in automobiles and energy efficiency systems, and in infrared cameras and night vision devices.

Invisibility is power. By being invisible to enemy radar, F-35 pilots can “identify friend from foe and make difficult decisions in challenging situations,” Bolling said.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 22 Oct 2015 17:53

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /74350928/

McCain: 'Have To' Reduce F-35 Total Buy

For years, the Pentagon and backers in Congress have fiercely guarded the 2,443 figure for the F-35, quickly shooting down talk that the number could be reduced.

That seemed to change earlier this year, when Gen. Joseph Dunford, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in testimony that the Pentagon is "presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number."

That was followed by similar written comments from Adm. John Richardson, who, during his hearing to be named Chief Naval Officer, wrote that he would work to "re-validate the appropriate number of aircraft the Navy requires."

The Pentagon has since denied that there is a major review of the F-35 buy underway – but acknowledged that, with budget uncertainty, all programs may be up for review.

Combined, the comments seem to have opened the door for a discussion – one that McCain, a critic of the F-35 program, appears eager to open wider.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2015 01:34

Deleted
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Oct 2015 03:21, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2015 01:34

It will be a decision taken well after Mccain has most likely left office. Any reduction in planned F-35 buy will only come from a restructure of the fighter to bomber strength or a draw-down of COCOM demand unless Unmanned strike aircraft can come up in a big big way. In the absence of such measures the only way you can not buy more strike fighters yet still have 'business as usual' is to put pilots in old, and unsafe aircraft that have blown past their life-cycle fatigue models due to more than 10 years of flying without some peacetime restrictions and of course active theater deployments. But even doing so would require hundreds of millions in pure logistical investment since the depot capacity does not exist to handle so many mass SLEP's especially when they are offer questionable value (too few added hours, but still a high cost). Moreover unlike the F-15C and F-15E that has physical air-frame space for avionics, antennas, apertures and cooling to add things like a brand new 360 degrees EW suite, the F-16 DOES NOT so you are left with at best a radar upgrade, faster processors and more PODS that do nothing for payload flexibility. I don't see this happening with the F-16 or the Navy Hornet's, so aside from a shrinking of the CAF and a re-shaping of its core mission there is no way you can get away without making an active recapitalization investment to replace the aging F-16's and retiring A-10's. The Navy is burning through its strike fighters at around 350-400 hours per annum..The First Super Hornet is going to reach the end of its scheduled life in 2017 (6000 hours), and they'll take it to 10-12,000 through overhauls, SLEPS and adding new structures but even still there will be a big bubble in strike fighter inventory around the middle to end of next decade so you can't really slow significantly from the 165 odd F-35 production per year and still get away with meeting your obligations to replace outgoing capability.

As it is these decisions will be for the leadership in the Pentagon, White house, and Congress in the 2025-2035 time-frame. At the moment the F-35 replaces the F-16 and A-10 in the USAF, the F/A-18 and AV-8 in the USN and USMC. Future fighter programs will replace the F-18E/F and EA-18G in the Navy, F-15C and F-22A in the USAF and by their very nature would be too expensive (sixth generation, high end performance etc) to be the bread and butter type that can also replace large numbers of F-16's. There would be no serious impact on the fly-away cost of the aircraft if the numbers are reduced as long as the number is still large and the ramp rates are maintained so if the program can continue on the current path of cost-reduction, and ramp up over the next 5 years it would be a tempting proposition going into the next decade when the real price / burden of future generation fighters falls upon the leadership (political and military)..

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17608
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Oct 2015 19:04

$IM extra is small beer for an F-35,if Canada leaves the programme after electing a new PM,but what would be more worrisome is if other partner nations also take a leaf out of Canada's book-if it cancels its JSF options.With the eco downturn and the EU besieged by its refugee problems,money is going to be scarce on critical gold-plated items.
Pentagon expects USD1 million unit price increase if Canada leaves F-35 programme

Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
22 October 2015

Canadian Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, who is set to become prime minister on 4 November, has said he would cancel the country's F-35 procurement effort if elected.
Such a move could increase the aircraft's unit cost by USD1 million for the remaining customers, according to the Pentagon. Source: Lockheed Martin

Key Points
•The F-35's cost could increase by USD1 million per aircraft if Canada cancels its order
•Canada's prime minister designate has said he would not buy the F-35 if elected

Canada's threatened departure from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II combat aircraft programme could raise the price of the stealthy jets for the remaining customers, according to US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the Pentagon's F-35 programme manager.

Lt Gen Bogdan told lawmakers on 21 October that "if any partner, or any service, moves airplanes to the right, takes airplanes out, the price of the airplane for all the other partners and all the other services goes up".

He said, in the case of Canada's potential termination, his office has estimated the increase in price at 0.7% to 1% or "about a million dollars a copy".

International partners would also be obligated to absorb Canada's 2.1% share in the cost of sustainment and follow-on modernisation, the general added. However, there would be no impact to the F-35 development effort, which ends in 2017.

Canadian prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau promised to end participation in the F-35 programme while campaigning this year. He has said that he would instead replace Canada's ageing fleet of Boeing CF-18s with a less costly alternative, arguing that the F-35 is not needed to defend Canada. Ottawa has not yet announced a policy decision.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Oct 2015 19:16

The $1 million is small (actual impact may be even less) because since Canada's non committal on firm orders, FMS customers have come in and scooped up some of the available delivery slots. Japan, South Korea and Israel have indicated through their actions a willingness to order fairly solid numbers even in LRIP production slots (compared to their overall orders of course) with Japan actually assembling their own aircraft. Do note that outside of discussion forums, and poorly informed or agenda driven reporting the impact of overall cost of the program on a reduced production run is immaterial as sunk cost is well sunk. What impacts the fly-away cost the most is the production rate and how close it is to the design i.e. the sweet spot for the production process design. As I have previously mentioned, if you produce 200 fighters a year on a production line not designed for such you will be producing at a non-optimum production cost, and this also applies to producing 50 fighters a year from a line and process designed for 150 a year. The most important indicator of per unit cost (fly away cost) would be how quickly they reach the 167 odd aircraft production plans per year. If they reach that then Canada dropping out will have negligible impact.

Others have already committed to a strong JSF procurement. Turkey, Australia, Norway and the UK have solid plans to both procure and participate In block 4 follow on development and no other committed partner has so far indicated reluctance to pony up the cash for follow on development.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2015 03:01



Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1492
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 28 Oct 2015 06:08

brar_w wrote:


Really really really impressive.

Goes on to show how much energy, dedication, infrastructure and investment is required to move on to next level. Not piddly pennies we kept counting we spent on GTRE.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Oct 2015 06:27



Goes to show what may have been valued. Northrop grumman took the NUCAS, JUCAS and look the front runners in the UCLASS because of their considerable capability in integration and sub-system development that no doubt their string of acquisitions over the last 10 or so years have helped. They produce everything from electro-optical sensors, to antenna arrays, to electronic warfare components and they were the first company to do an entire aircraft with CAD before CATIA came online. They also have one of the longest stealth legacies but it was widely believed that Boeing had some remarkable breakthroughs in stealth in the early 2000's (which received strong praises from the USAF at the time). Northrop Grumman also brought their B-2 lead back from retirement in Australia to help them with their NGB and LRS bids. They were consistent in that they declined to partner up either for industrial or political reasons for either of those programs. Some bit of risk by Wes Bush that seems to have paid off big time for them.

LRS-B: Why Northrop Grumman Won Next U.S. Bomber

Northrop Grumman is the winner of the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) contest, beating a rival team with six times its annual sales.

The U.S. Air Force announced Oct. 27 that Northrop Grumman beat a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team in a competition to develop and build 100 of the bombers, which are expected to reach initial operational capability in the mid-2020s. The Pentagon says the next phase of the work, engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), should cost $21.4 billion in 2010 dollars, including the delivery of an unspecified number of test aircraft.

Another $1.9 billion has already been spent on risk reduction, bringing both competing teams through the initial design phase. In 2016 dollars, the estimated EMD cost is $23.5 billion, the Pentagon says. The B-2 cost $37.2 billion to develop in 2016 dollars.

The Air Force also says that the average procurement unit cost for the Northrop Grumman bomber (which does not have a formal designation yet) will be $511 million in 2010 dollars, assuming a 100-aircraft buy ($564 million in 2016 dollars). This figure, the result of two independent Pentagon estimates, is lower than the $550 million (2010 dollars) goal that was set in 2011, when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved the start if the program.

Northrop Grumman’s contract includes fixed-price incentive options for the first five batches of low-rate initial production aircraft, comprising 21 bombers. The price for those aircraft (which will be higher than the average) has not been disclosed. Through production, the program has been estimated to represent $80 billion in business. The LRS-B is expected to be operational in the mid-2020s. The exact date will depend on initial operational capability criteria, such as a certain number of aircraft in service, which are still to be determined by the Air Force’s Global Strike Command.

The stakes for LRS-B were so huge that industry analysts have long predicted that the losing bidder would protest the award. Boeing is no stranger to that tactic. In 2008, the company successfully protested the Air Force’s 2008 award of a contract for refueling tankers to a Northrop-EADS team and ultimately won the contract in a second competition. Boeing and Lockheed Martin said in a joint statement that they were “disappointed by today’s announcement (and) interested in knowing how the competition was scored in terms of price and risk.” The Air Force says it will start debriefing the loser on Friday, and there is a 100-day period in which to lodge a protest.

“The Air Force has made the right decision for our nation’s security,” said Wes Bush, Northrop Grumman president, chairman and CEO. “Our team has the resources in place to execute this important program.”

For the time being, however, the make-up of Northrop Grumman’s team is a secret, as are most attributes of the program. Not even the engine subcontractor is disclosed, although the Air Force said today that all major subsystems have been selected. Although most analysts agree it is overwhelmingly likely that the bomber will resemble a smaller cousin of the B-2, a blended wing-body aircraft with two engines and an unrefueled radius of action of around 2,500 nm, no such details have been confirmed.

Details of the selection process also remain highly classified, but it is likely that the winning bid rested on Northrop Grumman's operational experience with wide-band, all-aspect stealth technology on the B-2 bomber and the still-secret RQ-180 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) unmanned air vehicle.But the winning formula was most likely not just a question of delivering more stealth or more range. In LRS-B, the winner had to meet a complex set of requirements that stress risk reduction, an open systems architecture, agile management and manufacturing technology.

The LRS-B contest was unique in three particularly important ways. First, the requirement had emerged from the ashes of the previous Next-Generation Bomber program (NGB), canceled in April 2009, with its goals scaled down and schedule stretched out, and unit cost as a key performance parameter (KPP).

Second, rather than funding demonstration programs, the Pentagon supported two teams through preliminary design review (PDR), probably for almost two years, 2013-15.

A third key feature of the LRS-B is that its management has been assigned to the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), which, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said Oct. 21, has “an incredible track record of delivering eye-watering capabilities—not just one-offs, but things going into production.”

Significantly, LaPlante describes the 80-strong LRS-B project office within the RCO as like the team that produced the Lockheed F-117 stealth fighter 35 years ago: “A small empowered group of warfighters, acquisition people and maintainers.” Although the RCO’s only acknowledged aerospace platform is the Boeing X-37B spaceplane, its technical focus can be gauged by the fact that a 2012 recruitment notice for its deputy director identified only three mandatory areas of “significant experience . . . low-observables, counter low-observables and electronic warfare.” Like the F-117, the LRS-B is apparently designed to meet its goals with mature subsystems in a new platform.


However, LaPlante added, the RCO team has substantial oversight from the Pentagon, Congress and Government Accountability Office, and the program incorporates red team/blue team exercises to validate it against possible threats.

The LRS-B contest set an average procurement unit cost of $550 million—in fiscal 2010 dollars based on building 100 aircraft—as a KPP. “The risk is that you pick the wrong number. If you have firm requirements and do the analytics, you have a shot at pulling that off,” LaPlante says.

Some of the key technologies in the LRS-B are both secret and mature. “Not only have some technologies been wind-tunnel-tested, prototyped or flown—some of them have been used operationally,” LaPlante said Oct. 21.

However, LaPlante also emphasized that delays and overruns cannot be eliminated. “Integration is always a risk,” he said, “and we have put together a schedule with the right margins to accommodate delays.”

LRS-B, too, is planned to be upgraded easily and competitively, “with space and weight provision for things we can’t imagine today,” LaPlante said. Open architecture, he said, could allow the Pentagon to procure a new or upgraded subsystem competitively, “provide it to the prime and say, integrate this.” Along with the cost of maintaining the bomber’s low-observable systems, upgrades will account for a large proportion of the bomber’s life-cycle cost—which will be much greater than its procurement bill.

There is one other way in which LRS-B will differ from other programs: its production rate. The number is based on a “fundable profile, without the big ramp-up you see on F-35,” LaPlante said. “We have set it up to be resilient,” with affordable annual funding. “That would be $550 million times your production rate, which might be seven or eight per year,” he said. The rate is much lower than recent combat aircraft programs but also means the line will be moving until almost 2040. Many bomber advocates quietly argue that if LRS-B delivers, and Asia-Pacific operations remain important, the Air Force will need more than 100 of the bombers.

Northrop Grumman is less than one-sixth the size of the Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon team, with total revenues of $160 billion. Boeing and Lockheed Martin agreed to team on NGB in early 2007 and revealed that arrangement in January 2008. The team re-formed for LRS-B, adding Raytheon. Together, Lockheed Martin and Boeing have been prime contractors on almost every combat aircraft in U.S. service today, while Lockheed Martin has been the prime contractor on four out of five production stealth programs.

But the fact that they were allowed to team for NGB and then re-form the team for LRS-B indicated that the Pentagon leadership did not see this as an impediment to a fair fight. Rules have changed, too. Briefing reporters Oct. 21, LaPlante emphasized the importance of independent cost estimates—produced by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) directorate—under the 2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act. “All programs have an independent estimate, and we are funded to that level,” LaPlante said. Nor is the estimate a single review process: The program office has been briefing CAPE estimators from the outset.

The development cost quoted today is the independent cost estimate, not the winner’s or program office’s estimate. The goal is to make underbidding less likely and less effective.

Not only did Boeing and Lockheed Martin outgun their rival fiscally, but they were also teamed on a government-funded demonstrator aircraft, identified as the Next-Generation Long-Ranger Strike Demonstrator, under an effort that started in the early days of NGB and continued after the ambitious bomber was canceled. The stealth-technology group within Boeing’s Phantom Works, headed by Alan Wiechman, led the low-observables side of the program, although Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works built the airframe.

Alongside stealth, Phantom Works pioneered the use of new manufacturing technology. This has led to the closely held Boeing-wide initiative known as Black Diamond, which was identified this summer as a possible major competitive advantage in LRS-B.

Lockheed Martin brought its experience with stealth systems integration to the party. But the history of the F-22—where upgrades have been constrained by a tightly integrated architecture, so that every change requires painstaking regression testing to ensure that other functions are not affected—was exactly what the LRS-B program’s open architecture is designed to avoid.

While Northrop Grumman may have shared some NGLRS-D technology, the most important experience that company brought to the table may well have been the RQ-180. From conversations with industry sources, it appears that one of the major breakthroughs in the design of this very stealthy, high-altitude UAV was its combination of stealth with aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency, largely the result of better computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and computational electromagnetics (CEM).

The B-2 had achieved a high level of stealth, but the design was a difficult compromise between stealth and aerodynamics, and the complex shape of the center body and wing section, with strongly three-dimensional stream and shock patterns, pushed the state of the art in both computer modeling and testing. Given its high fuel fraction, its 6,000-nm unrefueled range showed that, at best, its efficiency was no better than that of the B-52.

In sharp contrast, some early-2000s Northrop Grumman designs were described by one engineer as having “sailplane-like” efficiency. While the RQ-180 will almost certainly be shown to be a much lighter aircraft than the LRS-B, its wingspan is likely quite close to that of the bomber, and its development will have validated the CFD and CEM codes used in the design, along with radar-absorbent materials and coatings. The UAV will also be providing operational experience with new stealth technologies, underpinning Northrop Grumman estimates of the LRS-B’s operating cost.

While Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 UAV is widely considered to have been an RCO program, meaning that all three aircraft companies in the LRS-B competition have worked with RCO, the RQ-180 experience would be most relevant.

Despite the B-2’s reputation for high cost, Northrop Grumman says its experience with the program was a plus. “It is behaving like a legacy aircraft now,” says one company executive, with flight-hour costs that are not out of line with other small-volume fleets of large aircraft in the Air Force. Operating costs for such aircraft, the company says, seem to be driven by fixed costs and by the inevitably slow learning curve for depot-maintenance visits. Each B-2 today goes into depot for 12 months every nine years. At the same time, the B-2’s signatures “have improved significantly” through the use of new materials.

Northrop Grumman has also made a radical move to contain its costs, although its impact on the LRS-B bid is uncertain: Under the codename Project Magellan, it has established a manned-aircraft center of excellence in Melbourne, Florida. Across the U.S. combat-aircraft business, this represents a reversal of a decades-long consolidation that has seen major engineering locations dwindle to three centers: Los Angeles/Palmdale, St. Louis and Fort Worth. The company has already opened a new 220,000-sq.-ft. building in Melbourne and has plans for another new 500,000-sq.-ft., 1,500-person facility by 2019.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 Oct 2015 12:08

US denies South Korea T-50 Golden Eagle export permission
Andrew MacDonald, London - IHS Jane's Defence Industry

The US has refused to authorise a proposed South Korean export of 12 T-50 Golden Eagle advanced trainers to Uzbekistan, the Korean Times revealed on 26 October.

The deal, which would have been worth USD400 million, may have been dependent on US approval thanks to the integration of Lockheed Martin technology on the platform during its co-development with Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) in South Korea, the newspaper suggests.

According to the report, US concerns are focused on the possibility that Uzbekistan could allow information on sensitive US technology, such as is used on the aircraft's avionics and engines, to be transferred to Russia, a close ally of Uzbekistan.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 Oct 2015 21:50

Iran Raw footage HESA manufactured "Saeqeh 2" two seats supersonic fighter jet


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 Oct 2015 21:39

Canada's new prime minister really doesn't like the F-35

60 for India?

Canada’s Justin Trudeau says he’ll cancel plans to buy the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government may not be the only casualty in Monday’s electoral upset in Canada.

Justin Trudeau, the leader of Canada’s victorious Liberals and soon-to-be Prime Minister, has vowed to cancel the country’s purchase of 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets from Lockheed Martin (LMT 0.20%) and instead focus on bolstering its Navy.

Trudeau’s victory marks another setback—albeit a small one—for the military program as Lockheed Martin continues its efforts to drive down the per-aircraft price of the F-35 by boosting production rates. However, Lockheed’s loss will likely translate into someone else’s gain as Canada shops for a less expensive alternative to replace its aging CF-18s fighter jets.

Canada has been part of the F-35 program essentially from its origins in 2001, when Lockheed Martin beat out Boeing for the privilege of building a new fighter jet. Canada pledged $150 million to aid the aircraft’s development, alongside several foreign partners including Japan, Norway, Denmark, Australia, and the U.K. That initial investment bought Canada—and the Pentagon’s other foreign partners—the right to acquire F-35s later at a lower price.

Canada’s Conservative government had previously announced it would acquire at least 60 jets, likely purchasing between four and eight F-35s each year at $80 to $100 million per aircraft starting in 2017. Monday’s Liberal victory puts that order in serious doubt since Trudeau intends to scrap the Conservative’s F-35 buy.

If Trudeau follows through on the promise, Canada will lose the $150 million already invested in the F-35’s development, and Lockheed would lose what would have been billions of dollars in sales to the Royal Canadian Air Force (and likely millions more on follow-on contracts for ongoing maintenance).

For Lockheed, the loss of 60 orders in a program that will eventually produce thousands of aircraft is negligible. Should Canada withdraw from the F-35 program, the more significant industry impact would be the competition to replace it. Possible contenders to replace Canada’s vintage CF-18s include the twin-engine Rafale from France’s Dassault Aviation, the single-engine Gripen manufactured by Sweden’s Saab Group, and the Eurofighter Typhoon. {Indian LCA?}

But perhaps no one in the aerospace world stands to come out a bigger winner from Monday’s election than Boeing. The manufacturer makes the F/A-18 Hornet jets, which is a cousin of Canada’s current fleet of CF-18s fighter jets. “The cheapest way they could go might be the Gripen, but frankly the biggest potential winner from the election is the Super Hornet,” says Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at aerospace and defense consultants Teal Group. “It fits into their existing fleet, it’s a relatively low-cost option, and it has two engines which Canada has historically preferred.”

A 60-plus aircraft order for its Super Hornet—the latest variant of the F/A-18 and current workhorse fighter for the U.S. Navy—would be a significant boon to Boeing’s defense business. With the U.S. Navy slated to replace its Super Hornets with the new F-35C, Boeing BA 1.00% has aggressively sought new orders that would keep its St. Louis production line open beyond 2017, when current orders run out.

“Both Dassault and Boing have seen some new life breathed into the Rafale and the F-18,” Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, says. “And a 60-airplane opportunity is certainly in the bigger-than-a-breadbox category.”

The other great unknown surrounding a potential withdrawal from the F-35 program is its impact on Canadian industry. In shopping the F-35 to partner nations, Lockheed Martin sweetened development deals with so-called “offsets,” or arrangements to produce certain components of each partner nations’ F-35s within that country.

The offer of skilled, high-tech jobs and revenue for manufacturing firms made the F-35 an easier political sell. It’s now unclear exactly how much a Canadian withdrawal from the program will impact Canadian industry. It’s possible that whatever companies compete for the F-35s replacement might dangle similar deals in front of Canadian subcontractors to make their aircraft more competitive, Callan says. However, it’s too soon to tally the economic impact on Canadian subcontractors if that F-35-related business evaporates

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Oct 2015 18:38

The liberals have in the past used the ' two engines vs one' argument so I doubt that the Gripen will be given consideration but I guess anything is possible since its not up to their air-force to decide but a political decision.

Jayram
BRFite
Posts: 261
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Jayram » 31 Oct 2015 20:58

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/hear-this-intense-declassified-recording-of-f-14s-shoot-1739696849
from yahoo today ..still riveting audio/video of the libyan jets shoot down from 1989.
If you watch till the end the second mg actually is visible and tomcat pilot's frustration not been able to get a lock on it..
even now pretty mind blowing stuff.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2015 02:36

Just for comparison F-35 .


First aerial gun firing test conducted.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /75056904/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33676
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2015 06:15

As a digression from the topic of this thread, both the American drone videos and the Rafale with wimmens images are examples of good PR work. PR work is something that is deliberately and consciously built up over and above mere success. I am certain the US could produce videos of drones that were not hit or the French could produce a less colourful and attractive PR image. The Indian defence industry and in general Indian media photographers have never really produced quality PR images. 90% is crap partly because Indian security laws are like sharia - "images are haraam". For that you need a separate PR cell incorporating a proper ad agency or some such professional outfit. We need to be thankful for a few dedicated self funded enthusiasts who feed us with good images despite being subjected to sharia in PR photography

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Nov 2015 15:20

Lockheed Gets $5.37B for 55 F-35 Fighters

WASHINGTON — Contracts worth $5.37 billion have been awarded to Lockheed Martin to produce 55 Lot IX F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the Pentagon announced Tuesday evening.

A total of 41 F-35A conventional ground-based aircraft were ordered, including 26 for the US Air Force, six for Norway, seven for Israel and two for Japan.

Twelve F-35B Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing aircraft were ordered, six for the US Marine Corps and six for the United Kingdom.

Another two F-35C carrier-based variants were ordered for the US Navy.

The aircraft are to be delivered by December 2017, according to a Pentagon contract announcement.

While most of the work will be done in the US, some will be done in foreign countries — 20 percent in Warton, UK, and five percent in Nagoya, Japan.

The contract includes funding from the US military services and from foreign military sales accounts.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Nov 2015 11:00

More at AWST on how the Russians developed anti-stealth radar. Get you started.

The Case Of The Missing F-117 Parts (2001)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19751
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Nov 2015 11:14

Zoltan Dani's team managed two shoot down 2 F-117 in Kosovo War one was down the other managed to land safely but was write off , Using older 60's VHF radar and SA-3 with improvisation and following strict discipline in radio silence and tactics.

Ofcourse he even managed to kill 1 or 2 Teens in that war

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 799
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby Lisa » 10 Nov 2015 16:04

http://video.boeing.com/services/player ... 1877361001

Boeing's New "Spy Plane" ...........................

General Characteristics:

Wingspan :

150 ft (46 m)

Takeoff gross weight :

9,800 lbs (4,445 kg)

Cruise speed :

150 kts

Maximum speed :

200 kts

Altitude :

65,000 ft

Engines :

(2) 2.3L 150 horsepower

Endurance :

4 days at 65,000 ft

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5901
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Nov 2015 17:13

Its not a spy plane. Its a demonstrator for long endurance Hydrogen powered unmanned aircraft that can be used for anything from disaster relief (long endurance networking), ISR, and missile defense.

sheshp
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 May 2009 04:07

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby sheshp » 10 Nov 2015 19:06

Boeing - QF-16 Unmanned Fighter Full Scale Aerial Target First Flight!!
https://youtu.be/LGDOdDwp0cE


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, g.chaks, nvishal, Yagnasri and 44 guests