International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4279
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 04 Apr 2019 22:40

Lol

US General dismisses "low quality" Chinese kit in Africa

The Chinese military equipment being acquired by African countries is not of a high quality, according to the US Army general nominated as the next commander of the US military's Africa Command (AFRICOM).

"Chinese engagement has marginally improved some African militaries through military equipment sales and limited training, although endemic quality concerns probably make any improvements short-lived," General Stephen Townsend said in written answers to questions submitted before a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on 2 April.

He gave one example, saying the Chinese unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that Nigeria acquired to improve its counter-terrorism capabilities are used infrequently due to their "poor quality".

Nigeria's acquisition of armed CH-3 UAVs was revealed in January 2015 when photographs of one that had crashed with its weapons emerged on social media.

"Low cost and short delivery timelines entice African partners to purchase Chinese equipment but these purchases frequently do not address the underlying military need, complicating US security force assistance [to African countries]," Gen Townsend added.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4279
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 05 Apr 2019 03:52

LIMA 2019- Russia set to clear Sukhoi Su-57 for export

The Russian government is set to grant authorisation for the export of the Sukhoi Su-57 PAK FA fifth-generation fighter aircraft, a senior Russian defence industry official has revealed.

Viktor Kladov, the director for international co-operation and regional policy at Russia's Rostec defence industrial holding company, said the version of the aircraft promoted to international customers will be named Su-57E (Export).

He added that he expects the aircraft to be a competitive bidder for programmes in the Middle East and some parts of Asia Pacific.

Speaking at a media briefing at the 2019 LIMA exhibition in Langkawi, Kladov said that "all the necessary documentation" to support the approval of exports of the Su-57E has been submitted to the Russian government by UAC and its parent company, Rostec. Final export approval is expected to be provided by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a few weeks.

According to Kladov the Su-57E could be officially unveiled at the Dubai Air Show in November 2019, and this unveiling would reflect the target export market of the Su-57E. "We believe that the Middle East is an attractive market for this aircraft," said Kladov.

In Asia Pacific, countries likely to be interested in the Su-57E include China and India. "China has recently taken delivery of 24 Su-35 aircraft," said Kladov, "and in the next two years [China] will make a decision to either procure additional Su-35s, build the Su-35 within China, or to buy a fifth-generation fighter aircraft. This could be another opportunity for the Su-57E."

In marketing the aircraft for export, Kladov said customers are unlikely to be dissuaded by the US Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). This legislation, introduced in August 2017, proposed sanctions on Russia's defence customers in response to Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential election and the annexation of Crimea.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 06 Apr 2019 22:31

US Satellites REVEALED to Have Secretly Approached Russian, Chinese Spacecraft
According to the report, the US remains secretive about the activities of four operational GSSAP satellites, but by using the data from the ISON space surveillance network, operated by the Russian Academy of Sciences, the foundation has managed to reconstruct their movements since their launch in 2014. The SWF indicates that they have made approaches to Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, and Nigerian satellites, both civilian and military ones, using manoeuvring engines.

GSSAP satellites (GSSAPS) work in pairs, with one located slightly lower than geosynchronous orbit and the other a bit higher. When they were needed to inspect certain objects, they approached their targets. GSSAPS at times approached as close as 10 kilometres. Some approaches were made when the satellites were in the Earth's shadow, making their actions invisible for Earth-based telescopes, according to the report.


It's so far unclear what exactly the GSSAPS were doing and what information they had received from their studies.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 07 Apr 2019 07:14

New plane wing moves like a bird's and could radically change aircraft design


ImagePlane wings are traditionally strong, thick and sturdy but a team of researchers led by NASA has created a flexible wing that morphs as it flies.

Measuring 14 feet or four meters wide, the new wing is constructed from thousands of units that fit together and function in a similar way to a bird's wing, says one of the report's authors, NASA research engineer, Nick Cramer.

"Something like a condor will lock its joints in while it's cruising, and then it (adjusts) its wing to a more optimal shape for its cruising, and then when it wants to do a more aggressive maneuver it'll unlock its shoulder. That's a similar response to what we're doing here," he said in a phone interview.

But it's not just the way the new wing functions that sets it apart, according to researchers who co-authored a paper published this week in the journal "Smart Materials and Structures."

Image
For testing purposes, this initial wing was hand-assembled, but future versions could be constructed by miniature robots. Credit: Kenny Cheung, NASA Ames Research Center

The team, including experts from NASA and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, say their design could lead to significant efficiencies in the future manufacture and maintenance of planes.

Kenneth Cheung, a research scientist from the NASA Ames Research Center, gives the example of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which is constructed from body parts that are so large they require outsize molds and ovens to create them, before they're transported on even bigger planes to the point of assembly. The same applies to the Airbus A380.
"The cost scaling and the amount of infrastructure that the business needs to invest in order to implement these new designs is pretty extraordinary," Cheung said in a phone interview. "So what we're doing with these projects is trying to reduce all of that, so that you could have the same sort of performance in terms of the materials but be able to manufacture it without setting up all of the infrastructure that's currently required."

The new wings are created by injecting fiber reinforced polyetherimide into a 3-D mold to create each part, which lock together in a process that could eventually be carried out by a swarm of assembly robots.

"Where traditionally you have to have a factory that's bigger than the thing you're making, here the way the units come together allows you to predict exactly what shape something is going to be, just based on how many of which components you put together," Cheung said.

The ultralight modular structure can also be easily packed down to allow transport, which also makes it potentially the ideal package for another purpose -- to send into space.
"All those things go very well with being launched into orbit and being assembled into a very large space structure," said Cramer. "So that's a very attractive application that we're actively investigating -- the robotic assembly of these lattice-like structures in space."

While the concept of cheaper, more flexible planes could be appealing to the commercial aviation industry, there are major obstacles to overcome before they're seen anywhere near an airport.

A crucial issue is integrating the material into current systems, which would likely require a total upheaval of the traditional approach to designing planes. And that demands time, research and, of course, money.

"If you want to justify upheaving the traditional manufacturing process of the aerospace industry, you have to have a really good reason," Cramer said. "So your performance gain has to be significant enough to justify that. It's not about whether it's, feasible it's about whether it's financially marketable."

Image

If the technology eventually makes its way onto commercial aircraft, it has the potential to not only change the manufacture but also the maintenance of planes, Cheung said.

"The more modular you can make a system in terms of the manufacturing, the more likely it is you can get to the point you can swap out parts so efficiently that you can keep the aircraft in service, even through to the point where you've replaced every component on the aircraft. This is something that has been done with boats," he said.

"The key thing for this project, we've shown that modularity is right now the best way to achieve the performance in these materials."

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Apr 2019 15:58

Pentagon eyes F-35 sales to Greece, Romania and Poland -U.S. official


In written testimony submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives and seen by Reuters, Vice Admiral Mathias Winter - the head of the Pentagon’s F-35 office - said that “future potential Foreign Military Sales customers include Singapore, Greece, Romania, Spain and Poland.”

News of the new customers coincides with U.S. tension with F-35 development partner Turkey over Ankara’s plans to buy a Russian missile defence system.

Foreign military sales like those of the F-35 are considered government-to-government deals where the Pentagon acts as an intermediary between the defence contractor and a foreign government.

Other U.S. allies have been eyeing a purchase of the stealthy jet including Finland, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.

Winter’s full written testimony, which will be made public as soon as Friday, said the United States would respond to all official requests for information about the jet.

Last year, Belgium was the first new customer for the F-35 in years, choosing it over the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its ageing F-16s in a 4 billion euro ($4.55 billion) deal.



Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10789
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Apr 2019 16:02

I thought Greece had some economic problems but still can afford such cheap aircraft as "F-35" 's? Hmmm

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby souravB » 08 Apr 2019 16:11

Aditya_V wrote:I thought Greece had some economic problems but still can afford such cheap aircraft as "F-35" 's? Hmmm

Would be interesting if Greece is sold F35 and Turkey is not. Probably another pressure technique to not buy the S400.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Apr 2019 16:15

Aditya_V wrote:I thought Greece had some economic problems but still can afford such cheap aircraft as "F-35" 's? Hmmm


They will be FMS customer and they may have engaged the JPO vis GOTUS for a long term purchase of the aircraft. Out of the 4-5 new potential customers that he said were interested perhaps Singapore and Spain are the near term prospects beyond currently ongoing competitions. Greece, Poland and Romania and even UAE are probably medium to longer term though they may have inquired or begun seeking information.

Would be interesting if Greece is sold F35 and Turkey is not. Probably another pressure technique to not buy the S400.


The US FMS process is slow and incapable of handling this sort of pressure tactic strategy. Greece is an F-16 customer and by that logic was always going to evaluate for a future purchase the aircraft which majority of F-16 customers are replacing their aircraft with. Its more of a matter of when and not if (i.e. recap needs and economic conditions aligning). Spain too has been involved with the program off and on and it is a matter of them finding the funds. Poland is a recent F-16 customer but has been modernizing quite rapidly so it s possible that they could move their decision up. Singapore is committed to completing its entire F-35 acquisition program by 2030.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: Military Flight Safety

Postby Bhaskar_T » 09 Apr 2019 20:58

Japan's air force loses contact with F-35 stealth fighter
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa ... SKCN1RL1FJ

Japan's military said on Tuesday it lost contact with one of its Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters over the Pacific Ocean close to northern Japan. The advanced single-seat jet was flying about 135 km (84 miles) east of the air base in Aomori Prefecture at about 7:27 p.m. (1027 GMT) on Tuesday, when it disappeared from radar, the Air Self Defense Force said. The military has launched a search for the missing aircraft and its pilot, it said in a statement.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 10 Apr 2019 00:47

Japanese F-35 fighter goes missing over the Pacific

Japan's first squadron of the $100 million fighter jets went operational just 11 days ago, with about a dozen of the jets forming the 302nd Squadron at the Misawa base, according to a report from The Diplomat.com.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7362
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 10 Apr 2019 04:22

Japanese F-35A disappears over Pacific; search is ongoing
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/ja ... g-1.576305

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7362
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 10 Apr 2019 04:29

What a gorgeous photograph!!!

https://twitter.com/EmirLouise/status/1 ... 0439571457 ---> F-35C "Bat" Photography by Jack Beyer.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2019 05:01

Rakesh wrote:Japanese F-35A disappears over Pacific; search is ongoing
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/ja ... g-1.576305


First crash for the type and second for the program. I guess with nearly 400 aircraft flying and another nearly 500 to be delivered in the coming 3.5 years this will become more common. Hope they find the pilot..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 10 Apr 2019 07:58

Wreckage confirmed to be from crashed Japanese F-35 fighter

“We recovered the wreckage and determined it was from the F-35,” a spokesman for the Air Self Defense Force (ASDF) said, adding that the pilot of the aircraft was still missing.


The report is an hour old.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby kit » 10 Apr 2019 13:46

Quite likely that the F 35 tech can leak out over time from Japan ., it did happen with the AEGIS combat system enabling the chinese to build their version of it., and with the proliferation of F35 all around its just a matter of time. Lockheed just wants to get as much out of it without finally admitting it is flawed .Wont be surprised if the naval version is offered to India.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby kit » 10 Apr 2019 13:52

so why is S400 incompatible with the F35 ?

The technical risks

If Turkey acquired the S-400 alongside the F-35, the technology that makes that aircraft lethal could potentially be compromised.

NATO states use a tactical data link that allows military aircraft and even ships and ground troops to share their tactical pictures in near-real time. This is called Link 16. NATO aircraft also use Identification Friend or Foe systems, known as IFF, to identify friendly aircraft in the sky.

An IFF and Link 16 interrogator would have to be integrated into the S-400 system to allow the Turkish F-35, with the transponder, to fly within lethal range of the S-400.

This opens up all Link 16 and IFF tactical data link equipment to be compromised, a former radar and weapons expert said on background.

“With the F-35 flying in close proximity to the S-400 system, over time, you could collect sensitive stealth characteristics of this F-35 and learn its detailed stealth capabilities,” the expert said.

The waveform off the Lightning II’s stealthy surfaces and its transmissions are highly classified in order to protect radar operating parameters, stealth technology and encrypted Link 16 codes.


The concern is not necessarily that the Turkish military would compromise this sensitive data, but instead that malware on the S-400 or Russian workers operating, setting up or maintaining the system would access the info.

These S-400s are highly networked, with nodes spanning hundreds of miles. There would be multiple, vulnerable nodes that could potentially broadcast sensitive data back to Russia or, perhaps, the highest bidder.

Even operating U.S. Air Force F-35s out of Incirlik Air Base could become difficult if an S-400 was nearby.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10789
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Apr 2019 15:51

Well and the Other thing is Russian engineers can data and access of regularly recording F-35 flying and identifying them as friendly, so all radar signatures and data can be accessed. Yes Americans can get data from S-400, but they probably realize while both will be selling dumbed down versions to Turkey, the Russians will gain a lot more crucial data about the aircraft than what the Americans will get for the SAM system.

With American F-35's taking off from Turkey, Americans will be forced to share data on F 35 for Turkish S-400 to identify it as friendly aircraft.

Turkey being Nato country buying the S-400 is like a trojan horse since it will have interoperability will all NATO weaponry

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2019 16:08

You can always have a spy in NATO or Russian MOD that can gather all those data and give it back to the hostile nation

Having said that this would rule out F-35 to us

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2019 16:12

Aditya_V wrote:
With American F-35's taking off from Turkey, Americans will be forced to share data on F 35 for Turkish S-400 to identify it as friendly aircraft.

Turkey being Nato country buying the S-400 is like a trojan horse since it will have interoperability will all NATO weaponry


They wouldn't be forced to share anything. Turkey does not have its own IFF systems either on the F-35 (Israel is the only country that will) or the S-400. Even if it does on the latter it won't on the former. I think the US position is getting clearer now that in case Turkey takes delivery of the S-400 then the F-35A's will not be delivered. Three very influential senators (including the Republican head of the important Armed services committee) basically spelled that out in a letter a couple of days ago and top uniformed official from EUCOM and a number of GOTUS officials have also said the same.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66608
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 10 Apr 2019 16:24

Well hurray no jsf for india then.
Takes pressure off the amca

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 10 Apr 2019 16:52

kit wrote:Quite likely that the F 35 tech can leak out over time from Japan ., it did happen with the AEGIS combat system enabling the chinese to build their version of it., and with the proliferation of F35 all around its just a matter of time. Lockheed just wants to get as much out of it without finally admitting it is flawed .Wont be surprised if the naval version is offered to India.


Cheen gets leaks from all manners of business connections from goras through Germany, France, UK and firms in the US itself (hence there is a regime punishing Amreeki companies over exports/services to Cheen. LockMart itself had paid millions in fines for services rendered to the chinis.)

What is rarely talked about is cultural affinity that allows leakage if not outright transfer of Western grade technology (both mil and commercial) from Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and even Japan. Any Amreeki tech sold to the Far East will in one form or another end up in Cheen.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2019 16:54

Singha wrote:Well hurray no jsf for india then.
Takes pressure off the amca


JSF was never on card for IAF any ways ......mostly AMCA and may be a fleet if 80-100 FGFA to eventually replace MKI as Heavy Weight Fighter.

The IN may have opted for JSF long term but with the S-400 thing and many other Russian Israel French and even Indian radar we operate that may be a tough ask

For eg if S-400 Radar is an issue , why cant the MKI or Mig-29UPG radar wont be an issue that might capture data when Russian team visit onsite for some overhaul upgrade work , Same goes for many Naval Radars used on IN ships many are of Russian origin or IA systems ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2019 17:00

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:Well hurray no jsf for india then.
Takes pressure off the amca


JSF was never on card for IAF any ways ......mostly AMCA and may be a fleet if 80-100 FGFA to eventually replace MKI as Heavy Weight Fighter.

The IN may have opted for JSF long term but with the S-400 thing and many other Russian Israel French and even Indian radar we operate that may be a tough ask

For eg if S-400 Radar is an issue , why cant the MKI or Mig-29UPG radar wont be an issue that might capture data when Russian team visit onsite for some overhaul upgrade work , Same goes for many Naval Radars used on IN ships many are of Russian origin or IA systems ?


When operating in that type of environment without adequate safeguards like a country specific IFF suite or operating modes that does pose a significant challenge. The JSF has had blanked (design) export approval from US Congress and was in fact the first program in US history to achieve this. They did not really go much into what to do to integrate or develop user specific systems into the aircraft so that some of the issues and concerns can be mitigated. The flight test team does not have the bandwidth to do this hence you see Israel having to acquire an orange tail test aircraft as an FMS customer to do these modifications and testing for itself.

At some point they will have to look into how best to integrate, test and validate user specific IFF, data-links and sensor and sensor operating modes for both export needs when that is demanded but also in cases when the aircraft will be operating with operators who own non US/NATO types. The flight test team would need to be expanded to support this as the alternative is quite expensive. That is a long term problem though as right now they are mostly competing in the NATO/Western market or for customers who have used US/NATO products and don't demand or require that level of customization.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2019 17:37

The issue might go beyond IFF or just data links .....For eg they may not want any Non-NATO origin radar to know the RCS of JSF as that Defense News report states

“With the F-35 flying in close proximity to the S-400 system, over time, you could collect sensitive stealth characteristics of this F-35 and learn its detailed stealth capabilities,” the expert said.

The waveform off the Lightning II’s stealthy surfaces and its transmissions are highly classified in order to protect radar operating parameters, stealth technology and encrypted Link 16 codes.


Any Radar will be over a period of time will be able to idenfity a particular aircraft with its waveform and radar returns and can do a mathetical model it into Radar signature ....Much like Indian Radar were able to track F-16 flying in proximity and not just F-16 even JF-17 and other types.

So it wont be possible for any country to keep radar signature of LO aircraft under wraps for long as multiple factors and variables will come into play

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2019 17:55

The "issue" is multi-fold and I never claimed to have covered all possible issues. Yes, technically if you expose yourself to a radar at enough times without adequate protection you will allow it, provided it has the computing and is programmed to, to model your signature. This is not automatically true because it requires cooperation from the end user in terms of what it presents and how it presents it. The US fear as the defense news article states are concerning the ability to extract that information.

So it wont be possible for any country to keep radar signature of LO aircraft under wraps for long as multiple factors and variables will come into play


Of course you can keep exposing yourself to adversary radar and keep your exact signature and profile under wraps if you so choose to. You can use Luneburg lens, carry external stores or just not restore RCS from an O&S perspective and fly in a degraded RCS state. When you have the same systems operating under the same operator umbrella the case is different as you would naturally have to train and integrate these two platforms to fight together during conflict. The same applies to US fighters operating permanently out of Turkey. If those F-35A's are going to be permanently based there they would need to establish training and do that without fear of exposing their secrets. In that case the US could either not deploy that type there at all or rotate them for shorter deployments out of the UK or other areas where they have air-space and range infra to get their training needs met.

At the very basic level the first thing that needs to be looked at is the systems and system interoperability. Turkey does not have its own IFF, own data links and is going to be using the radar and other vital sensors (MADL) with the same modes and waveforms that the rest of the users would. This is problematic from an integration perspective and from the perspective of exposing all this to a sensor and IADS network that is going to be supported by a non NATO competitor. Yes there are other concerns like allowing RCS modeling to be done etc etc but the electronic signature and footprint is a huge deal here given how the F-35 operates..Turkey has been a partner since nearly the start of the program. It has made ZERO investment in pursuing any indigenous capability integration on the aircraft besides one weapons program (SOM-J) that would have helped make the case (even then it would have been problematic) for it to operate the two types together.

Maybe one resolution is that Turkey does make that investment and receives its aircraft years later with the proper safeguards in place at both the F-35 level and the S-400 level. But these are technical issues the program has never had to solve and is not currently funded to solve as no partner or FMS customer had ever planned for such a thing. Israel is the only user that is integrating its own systems into the CNI suite, but there the focus is to integrate a layer of Israeli systems and waveforms into the existing JSF hardware. Israel is not going to operate these systems alongside adversary systems so no safeguards need to be built in so from that perspective the integration is slightly easier than what Turkey would need to do.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby souravB » 10 Apr 2019 18:20

But isn't Israel operating F35 with it's own AFAIT IFF and B-Net. so certainly mods can be done albeit pricey.
The issues that comes are the ALIS VMS of F35 which sends data back to LM.
If we look at India, it will never have neither the vanilla F35 nor S400. India have it's own systems that are mostly Israeli. So India can definitely buy the F35(I) version.
So selling to India would not be as hard as selling to Turkey but it will be costly.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2019 18:36

souravB wrote:But isn't Israel operating F35 with it's own AFAIT IFF and B-Net. so certainly mods can be done albeit pricey.


Yes they are, but that is an added layer to the F-35 CNI suite and adding things is easier as there are wideband apertures installed already. Israel will not remove any system on the aircraft but add its own on top of it. This as I described is different from what Turkey needs to do. There are no safeguard concerns, similar to those with an F-35 and S-400 operator, as far as Israel is concerned.

Safeguarding F-35 unique systems is not as straight forward either. The F-35's do data level fusion (I've posted the paper that describes how it is done and how it is different from sensor fusion on F-22A , F-18E/F etc) and a big part of this is the ability to exchange data across platforms and F-35's. For this to work, the F-35 the largest set of Mission Data Files on threat systems that the US has ever put on a combat aircraft. The flow of data and the CNI abilities are vital for this concept to work. How many comparable Ku band AESA based MADL alternatives exist that can handle the same load, at same latency and same capability as the current installed antennas? Once you begin going down that path it becomes very expensive and technically challenging.

Adding your own data link on top of something that exists is easier as most of those antennas supporting lower frequency DL's already exist on the aircraft. It is making sure you protect waveforms of your discrete sensors (MADL and Radar) while still allowing them to communicate and conduct their business in an cooperative way which is how the aircraft is designed to be operated that is a challenge that they have not looked at in the past.

souravB wrote:The issues that comes are the ALIS VMS of F35 which sends data back to LM.


You can choose not to use that product or services and keep on maintaining F-35's like you would an F-16 or F-15. It will be expensive but it is possible. Israel is doing something similar while also having its own depot level overhaul capability.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby souravB » 10 Apr 2019 20:25

Brar_w sir thank you for the explanation on MADL. Yes it would be very problematic to change the antennas for MADL.
But currently that will be between F35s themselves and not other platforms due to hardware limitations. S-400 could theoretically pick up those communiques if in range. But India will have their own/Israeli C4I system with its own encryption which will not be available to Russians even if they come for component level MRO. Even India will be concerned about their own aircraft's ELSIG to be passed on to China via Russia.
Turkey whereas I do not think will be willing or able to make so much changes to their S-400 system to satisfy US.

brar_w wrote:--snip--
You can choose not to use that product or services and keep on maintaining F-35's like you would an F-16 or F-15. It will be expensive but it is possible. Israel is doing something similar while also having its own depot level overhaul capability.

I do not think the bolded part of your sentence is correct. What Israel did was build a firewall between them and US so any modification that they do to ALIS is doesn't effect other customers negatively. And they chose to have overhaul capability to be battle ready at all times.
“Israel is in the middle of the Middle East, and we are in daily conflict. Conflict is not a theory. We are not getting ready for a war in two or three years. We have daily operational activities with our fighter aircraft,” Kelman says.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chetak » 10 Apr 2019 20:37

Japan seems to have lost an F-35 yesterday at sea and picked up some wreckage too.

No news of the pilot so far.

Japan has grounded its F-35s, presumably pending investigation.

Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Prithwiraj » 10 Apr 2019 20:45

Rakesh wrote:What a gorgeous photograph!!!

https://twitter.com/EmirLouise/status/1 ... 0439571457 ---> F-35C "Bat" Photography by Jack Beyer.


Most likely taken in "Star War Canyon" or Rainbow Canyon in Death Valley... which is used by USAF for low flying training. There are tons of amazing spotting videos and also POV videos from cockpit on Youtube

My Favorite is



The low level Canyon flying starts at 4.50 mins

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2019 22:02

souravB wrote:Brar_w sir thank you for the explanation on MADL. Yes it would be very problematic to change the antennas for MADL.
But currently that will be between F35s themselves and not other platforms due to hardware limitations. S-400 could theoretically pick up those


MADL is mission critical hardware for how the F-35 performs data-fusion. Its waveforms are something that need to be safeguard from possible intrusion. Anything you add as an indegenous system is only so that you can share basic information with internal systems using your own data-links. That does not substitute for MADL nor does it allow you the ability to do data fusion the way F-35 does via MADL and to a lesser extent L-16 or TTNT which it is also getting. MADL works with external platforms via a gateway..Northrop Grumman has a product on third party platforms that are currently flying.

. But India will have their own/Israeli C4I system with its own encryption which will not be available to Russians even if they come for component level MRO.


Internal C4I systems are not a substitute to MADL as I wrote earlier. As I said then, the two discrete waverforms are the radar and MADL. Both are integral to how the F-35 operates. Internal C4I helps because it provides a framework to share data between F-35 and S400 but even that will be basic level ovrelays etc not the data fusion that two F-35s can do together. That is progress but it still does not safeguard the LPI radar and MADL from observation.

I do not think the bolded part of your sentence is correct. What Israel did was build a firewall between them and US so any modification that they do to ALIS is doesn't effect other customers negatively. And they chose to have overhaul capability to be battle ready at all times.


SDM package will allow you to firewall, just as I said. They can be added and expanded based on new customer request - this is one aim of switching to an agile development program for ALIS and be able to make these changes in short order. By limiting what information you share you can do that. How much you limit will be determined by what economies of scale do you want to enjoy. A PHM system (Rafale is getting one as well by the mid to late 2020s) enables pooled savings but if you do not want to participate now you can firewall a lot of that data and just eat up the cost. Even on MDF partners can opt out and have a direct bi-lateral relationship to develop those. I don't think anyone is doing their own MDF's yet so that is another thing that would need to be solved. As I said, the program has not really invested a lot of effort to get to these problems because they haven't yet needed to. Israel does show a path to many of them but they also do not address many others. As I said, with Israel it was more about integrating their systems in and not safeguarding existing systems. That is a different thing.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7362
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 10 Apr 2019 22:28

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Japanese F-35A disappears over Pacific; search is ongoing
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/ja ... g-1.576305


First crash for the type and second for the program. I guess with nearly 400 aircraft flying and another nearly 500 to be delivered in the coming 3.5 years this will become more common. Hope they find the pilot..

So they have found some of the wreckage I believe. I hope they get it all. The last thing anyone needs is this to fall in the hands of the Chinese! That would not be fun.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2019 22:43

Rakesh , Snowden files reveled Chinese had hacked JSF and other program and took just couple of tera bytes of data
https://thediplomat.com/2015/01/new-sno ... f-35-hack/

Not sure how many more Chinese sympathiser and spies that Obama has left in DOD for them to spy for Chinese.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4279
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 10 Apr 2019 23:39

From AW&ST..I'd keep a close eye on this BVRAAM. Expect the Pakistanis to take a keen interest in it, as their Chinese platforms that will not have access to AMRAAM or any European missile and only have Chinese BVRAAMs as current options. They already have the Mectron MAR-1 anti-radiation missile integrated with the JF-17.

As Brazil’s first Gripen E fighter moves down Saab’s assembly line, the final piece of the F-39 variant’s weapons package—a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—is still missing, but not forgotten.

A new air-launched version of South Africa’s Umkhonto surface-to-air missile has emerged to compete over the long term to fill the long-range, radar-guided missile requirement for the Brazilian Air Force.

Discussions have opened between the Brazilian and South African governments over a co-development agreement for the air-launched version of the proposed Umkhonto-R missile, says Japie Mare, Denel Dynamics’ program manager and system engineer for the A-Darter missile.

Brazil and South Africa discuss missile co-development

A-Darter development phase nears end

If selected, the Umkhonto-R would offer Brazil a low-cost alternative to the MBDA Meteor.
The latter is already developed and integrated on the Gripen E test aircraft; the former offers an opportunity to revitalize Brazil’s broken industrial base for air-to-air missiles.

South Africa and Brazil have found several opportunities for defense collaboration over the years, especially in the missile sector. Since the late-1990s, Denel Dynamics partnered with Brazilian industry to develop the MAR-1 anti-radiation and the A-Darter infrared-guided air-to-air missiles. The A-Darter is now within months of completing an extended development phase.

But Denel’s Brazilian partner, Mectron, shut down in 2017. Its portfolio of missile programs—including the MAA-1 short-range air-to-air missile, the MAR-1 anti-radiation missile and its stake in the A-Darter collaboration—passed to other Brazilian companies, including ground-launched missile manufacturer Avibras and aerospace engineering services supplier Akaer. A company formed by former Mectron employees, SIATT, has taken up other missile projects including integrating the electrical systems for Brazil’s Mansup anti-ship missile.

A co-development deal with Denel could help focus this fragmented industrial base in Brazil for air-to-air missiles on a new project—albeit with great complexity.

The Umkhonto would have to be adapted from surface-launch to air-launch and exchange an infrared seeker for a radar-homing system. Denel Dynamics also may seek to extend the range by adding a booster rocket. The Umkhonto also creates options for commonality with the Brazilian Navy, which is already evaluating the surface-launched version of the weapon for air defense, Mare says.

It is also possible that Brazil could invest in foreign and domestic options. In 2015, the Brazilian Air Force awarded contracts for two short-range air-to-air missile options: Diehl’s IRIS-T and A-Darter. The former is a standard option on the Gripen E and the latter is a unique option for Brazil.

Denel completed airworthiness qualification testing on the A-Darter missile in September, Mare says. Additional work, including a performance audit by South African defense acquisition agency Armscor, should be wrapped up around June, he added.

But final integration of the A-Darter on the Gripen E may still be 2-3 years away. The fallout of Mectron’s demise as a joint-venture partner is still being worked through. It could take months or years to complete a new workshare deal on A-Darter production and sustainment with the South African and Brazilian industries, Mare says. In an April 3 press conference, Geovane Pellegrino, Embraer’s Gripen program manager, set the time frame for integration of the A-Darter as 2021-22.
[b]
By then, the Brazilian Air Force expects to be operating its first aircraft. The first test model ordered by Brazil should roll off Saab’s assembly line in Linkoping, Sweden, by the end of the year. The first operational aircraft should arrive in Brazil two years later.


Meanwhile, the Brazilian industrial team for the Gripen E is gearing up to support final assembly at a new factory in Sao Bernardo. The first Brazilian assembly technicians will move to Sweden later this year for training. Swedish workers will assemble the first 13 Brazilian jets. Brazilian workers then will assemble the next eight aircraft in Sweden. Assembly for the final 15 aircraft will move to Sao Bernardo.

Brazil’s involvement in the Gripen E program has continued to grow since the aircraft’s selection in 2014. Last November, Saab decided to standardize the Gripen E/F fleet with a large-area cockpit display designed by AEL Sistemas for the Brazilian F-39. The selection now makes AEL, a joint venture in Brazil set up by Elbit Systems, the supplier for the Gripen E/F’s head-up, helmet-mounted and large-area displays in the cockpit.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4279
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 11 Apr 2019 02:47

Evaluations begin on Swiss fighter contenders

Switzerland has started the latest phase of its Air2030 fighter aircraft procurement programme after it began flight and ground tests on the five bidders’ platforms on 8 April.

The test programme will involve the aircraft conducting eight missions with one or two aircraft in order to evaluate the capabilities of the platforms and the data generated. The missions will include one night flight by the aircraft.

According to Bernhard Berset, Air2030 testing project manager for procurement agency armasuisse, the flight tests will be used to verify the answers to the questionnaires returned by bidders during the initial tendering process. These tests will initially involve the evaluation of sensors, their integration, and how the information is presented to the pilot, as well as flight characteristics of the aircraft.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Apr 2019 16:12

U.S. Navy awards Northrop Grumman $3 billion for 24 E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft


U.S. defense contractor Northrop Grumman has received a production order for 24 E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

U.S. Navy on 10 April awarded Northrop Grumman a modification to definitize the previously awarded E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) Lot 7 advance acquisition contract to a multi-year fixed-price-incentive-firm contract, according to a Department of Defense statement.

This modification provides for the procurement of 24 full-rate production Lots 7-11 E-2D AHE aircraft.

Work is expected to be completed in August 2026.


This takes the number of E-2D's delivered or contracted to 49 with an additional 26 aircraft to be ordered (Lot 12-16) to complete the 75 aircraft procurement for the US Navy.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6372
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Amber G. » 12 Apr 2019 02:06

The odds of a spacecraft crashing or failing in orbit are quite high, sometimes as high as 60%. So despite Beresheet not landing successfully, the Israeli team achieved a lot. Bad luck on this attempt, Good luck for the next one.

(Last picture sent by Israel's moon-craft)

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 12 Apr 2019 06:30

Lands all three cores and inserts sat into proper orbit:


MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 261
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby MeshaVishwas » 12 Apr 2019 17:25

Check Out Russia's Su-35 Fighter: The Plane the U.S. Air Force Fears Most?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/check-out-russias-su-35-fighter-plane-us-air-force-fears-most-52122

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7486
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 12 Apr 2019 20:43

DARPA Picks Three Competitors For Launch Challenge Prize

SPACE SYMPOSIUM: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is giving $400,000 to each of three companies chosen to compete in the “DARPA Launch Challenge” to demonstrate rapid and responsive launch of small payloads. Tucson-based Vector Launch, Virgin Orbit, and a “stealth” startup will now have the opportunity to compete for prizes up to $10 million for successfully proving they can successfully launch twice in a row within a short timeframe from being provided mission parameters, DARPA told reporters here April 10.

Progress on the competition should be welcome news to Will Roper, Air Force Acquisition Chief, who is excited about the advent of small launch competition. In an interview here today with my colleague Colin Clark, he said: “We’ve got to grow the industry base. We’d be foolish not to.” The Air Force has its own small launch program underway as well, with New Zealand firm Rocket Lab announcing on April 5 a planned launch this month of three small experimental payloads under the Rapid Agile Launch Initiative (RALI) program. Whereas Vector plans to use a traditional vertical launch rocket, Virgin Orbit is using a horizontal launch system that launches a rocket from an airplane. Vector is developing the Vector-R for payloads below 60 kilograms and the Vector-H for carrying payloads weighing 315 kilograms up to 250 kilometers.

The DARPA Launch Challenge, initiated in April 2018, is designed to “fundamentally shift military space capabilities to enable on-demand, flexible, and responsive launch of small payloads” to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), according to an agency press release. The first phase award, announced on April 10, was given to the companies that met the challenge’s qualification requirements, including successfully garnering a Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) launch license. As a next step, DARPA in January or February 2020 will challenge the competitors to launch a payload to LEO within two weeks from one of eight predetermined sites, after receiving notice of the launch site only a few weeks prior and exact details on the payload and intended orbit just days before.

Todd Master, DARPA’s program manager for the competition, said that each successful team will win $2 million. They then will be required to do it again within two weeks, at a different site and with a different payload, to win the top prize of $10 million. The second-place team will get $9 million and the third $8 million ” ranked by factors including mass, time to orbit, and orbit accuracy,” according to DARPA.


Image

Vector’s Vector-R small launch vehicle

Image

Virgin Orbit’s Launcher One


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dumal, Kritavarman, LakshmanPST, srin, VickyAvinash and 30 guests