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.
Post Reply
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

k prasad wrote:^^^^ Don't believe everything that the Elongated Muskrat says, saar. Notice how he says its the only house he 'owns'. Lots of "Ashwatthama Hatho gajah" possible in there. Having worked in the company for a bit, there's a lot of interesting stuff one hears by the coffee machine that leaves one equal parts in awe and equal parts bewildered. The myth of the man has been meticulously built.

Anyway, this is OT for the thread, so mods, please feel free to delete my post if it falls foul of things.
Musk and PR, of course it's there. Par for the course. Which large commercial enterprise does not do PR? But can you argue with the results? Bezos with all his billions and political connections basically subcontracted out the development of the BE-4 engines to United Launch Alliance i.e. Boeing & Lockheed Martin. Consider where they are and where is the Raptor engine from SpaceX. The Raptor has flown, BE-4 has been delayed from a projected first flight of 2017 to late 2022 and counting. Boeing's Starliner capsule to the International Space Station is plagued with problems and the latest launch had to be scrubbed because of stuck valves. At one point the Starliner and Crew Dragon (SpaceX capsule) were neck and neck in the race to the first of the launch pad ....dual NASA contract. Now SpaceX via Crew Dragon has already delivered 3 astronaut flights to the Space Station while Starliner is stuck on the ground.

Is Musk a likeable person? Definitely not. For those interested you should read his autobiography by Ashlee Vance. Very unflattering depiction of Musk as an individual who discards people without remorse, even long standing business and personal relationships, from his longtime personal assistant who literally stood shoulder to shoulder in the first 10 years of SpaceX and Tesla and who he discarded when she asked for a promotion to the executive suite to his many wives. Some attribute Musk's single minded focus as well as his inability to form long term relationships with the fact that he suffers from Asperger's syndrome. But you cannot deny the man's brilliance, PR or no PR, and his relentless focus on achieving his goals. And the above posts conflate admiration for the man's result oriented approach to a "cult following" :rotfl:
Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

There is difference b/w PR employed for corporate interests and PR surrounding one person and promoting the cult associated with that. The guy is worth a gazillion dollars and that's great. Back to space - Yes Space X is doing much better than most of its competitors. That's awesome and worth talking about. Who cares whether Elon has enough money to secure some decent accommodation for himself? How is the personality and the PR push relevant to this thread?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:There is difference b/w PR employed for corporate interests and PR surrounding one person and promoting the cult associated with that. The guy is worth a gazillion dollars and that's great. Back to space - Yes Space X is doing much better than most of its competitors. That's awesome and worth talking about. Who cares whether Elon has enough money to secure some decent accommodation for himself? How is the personality and the PR push relevant to this thread?
Fair enough. The point of the $50K house was that Musk is invested in the Boca Chica assembly/launch site to a degree that he has parked himself in a $50K house at a remote construction site in pursuit of his single minded obsession of moving the needle on the schedule towards eventual launch of Starship/SuperHeavy. That is not typical of a CEO worth billions, to eschew creature comforts and who typically would operate out of Corporate HQs in large cities. The fact that he own's a single other piece of real estate is just a factoid. Musk spends large amounts of money on other pursuits i.e. frequent private jet travel e.g. after filming of this 3 part video ended, he took a few days off and went to Italy to relax.....Anyway I take your point.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 45348?s=20 ---> Greece to purchase another six Dassault Rafales.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/MbKS15/status/1440022071447375874 -----> #SaudiArabia ’s 91st National Day featured the #RSAF EF Typhoon, Tornado, F-15C Eagle and F-15S Strike Eagle with special black livery & greenish markings to celebrate the event flying all across the KingdomFlag of Saudi Arabia

Image
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Wonder why the radome of the strike eagle and the eagle are so different??
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

It's Official: Canada's CF-18 Hornet Fighters Are Set To Get New Advanced Radars


Image
Raytheon's Intelligence and Space division announced it had received the contract for an unspecified number of radars on Sept. 23, 2021. The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is overseeing the purchase of the radars for Canada through the U.S. government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. This arrangement makes good sense from a contracting perspective, as well as with regard to economies of scale, since NAVAIR is already buying AN/APG-79(V)4s as part of a separate upgrade program for a portion of the U.S. Marine Corps' legacy F/A-18A-D Hornet fleet. The (V)4 version of this radar is a scaled-down and enhanced derivative of the AN/APG-79(V)1 found on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets.

“Having the right tool for the job matters, and we’re committed to delivering just that for the Royal Canadian Air Force,” Eric Ditmars, Vice President of Secure Sensor Solutions at Raytheon Intelligence and Space, said in a statement. “This upgrade to AESA [active electronically scanned array] radars with GaN [Gallium Nitride] supports longer detection ranges and multiple-target tracking.”
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by nam »

Is this the world's first GaN based FCR on a fighter? The only other I have heard of is SAAB's proposal for Gripen.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

nam wrote:Is this the world's first GaN based FCR on a fighter? The only other I have heard of is SAAB's proposal for Gripen.
SAAB had a proposal and a prototype that leveraged commercial non ITAR controlled T/R module tech. No Gripen customer, including their own AF has so far taken them up on that radar (Gripen E uses a non SAAB radar) and it wasn’t a fully developed product. APG-79(V)4 is utilizing Raytheon’s own proprietary GaN modules (PAs and several other components designed and produced in house) and is already in production with first 4 to be delivered in December and the remaining 90 or so radars to the USMC by 2023 and these few dozen to be be Canadians by 2024 or so. Raytheon’s B-52 upgrade radar currently in development (based on the APG-82) is also utilizing GaN but this Hornet radar is the first to enter production and will be the first operational system as well. SAAB's stunt (lab test and one or two flights and loads of brochure) was more about seeing if someone will bite because I don't think they have any or many operaitonal fighter radars deployed currently so its a new market. The Hornet radar is a simple antenna upgrade to a scaled version of an existing Super Hornet AESA > 700 of which are currently operational so you can't compare product maturity or the benefit of incorporating operator feedback in product development of a new verison vs an prototype from a company that currently does not appear to have even a single operational system (AESA radar) deployed on a fighter aircraft.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/sta ... 3144755203 ----->
SpaceX's Boca Chica Starship facilities captured in 50cm resolution by
@AirbusSpace
on 2021-09-23 17:18:45 UTC.

© CNES 2021, Distribution AIRBUS DS

Image

Image

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Bala Vignesh »

I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this query that suddenly came to me yesterday night. If this is not the best place to ask this, mods may please move this to the appropriate thread.
Has MiG, or anyone for that matter, considered putting a conformal tank in the place where there is a centreline hardpoint. It would result in a significantly improved fuel fraction, reduced drag by the centreline tank and possibly additional 2(total of 3) hardpoint for AAM?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

SpaceX to launch world’s first deep space propellant depot around the Moon
As part of a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch that will send a commercial Moon lander on its way to Earth’s nearest neighbor, rideshare organizer Spaceflight Inc and propellant depot startup OrbitFab have revealed plans for the first high Earth orbit propellant depot.

Known as “Tanker-002,” the co-developed spacecraft will technically be the first propellant depot – essentially a gas station in space – to reach a geostationary orbit ~36,000 km (~22,300 mi) above the Earth’s surface. Based around a variant of Spaceflight’s brand new Sherpa OTV space tug vehicles, OrbitFab hasn’t disclosed the planned capacity of its unique GEO depot but the public specifications of Sherpa suggest that the company will be able to deliver a few hundred kilograms (300-800 lb) of hydrazine accessible via several tiny docking ports.

However, Tanker-002 isn’t interesting solely for its unique position as a tanker in GEO. How Spaceflight and OrbitFab plan to get the small spacecraft into position will be a feat of engineering and trajectory design in its own right.

Orbit Fab to launch propellant tanker to fuel satellites in geostationary orbit

Image

WASHINGTON — Orbit Fab, a startup offering a refueling service in space, will launch a propellant tanker to geostationary orbit on a SpaceX Falcon 9 lunar lander mission projected for late 2022 or early 2023.

“Geostationary orbit is where most of our customers, especially the Department of Defense and intelligence community, are interested in,” Orbit Fab CEO Daniel Faber told SpaceNews.

The tanker will ride as a secondary payload with Intuitive Machines’ NASA-backed IM-2 lunar lander mission. The payload will get to geostationary orbit aboard a Spaceflight Sherpa-ES orbital transfer vehicle using a novel “lunar flyby” trajectory that takes it first around the back of the moon, Faber said. The mission was facilitated by Spaceflight and GeoJump, a new company offering small satellite rideshare services to the geostationary belt.

“Commencing operations in this orbit will be an important milestone for us,” Faber said.

The tanker is being designed to be able to store propellant for up to 15 years, he said.

Orbit Fab in June launched its first fuel payload demonstration to a low sun synchronous orbit. “It’s just proving that the fueling port is holding pressure and operating well, and it’s available for customers if they want high test peroxide,” said Faber.

The plan is to send “fuel shuttles” to orbit over the next couple of years, he said. “Our architecture involves tankers that contain a lot of fuel and fuel shuttles to transfer fuel between the tankers and operational spacecraft.” Orbital propellant depots are one of the key pieces of the space infrastructure needed for economic activities and exploration.

Orbit Fab’s first tanker that is now in low Earth orbit is less than 100 pounds. Faber said the geostationary orbit tanker will be larger and carry more than 200 pounds of hydrazine. This is what customers have asked for, Faber said. “We’ve already got several million dollars worth of contracts from the Space Force and Air Force, who are funding flight qualification of the fueling ports [and efforts to deliver] both hydrazine and xenon.”

Hydrazine fuel will be available for delivery in the geo belt as soon as it arrives but the company will need more time to demonstrate long-term storage capability. “When it’s not making a fuel delivery, we will be parking our tanker a few hundred kilometers away from the geostationary belt so as not to clutter up the orbit,” said James Bultitude, Orbit Fab’s chief engineer.

Faber said the tanker mission with Spaceflight is being internally funded by Orbit Fab. “We will have propellant available for sale and delivery in geostationary orbit.”

Orbit Fab developed an in-space refueling port known as RAFTI, short for Rapidly Attachable Fluid Transfer Interface, that is being offered to DoD, intelligence community and commercial satellites.

Founded in 2018, Orbit Fab is based in California but recently announced plans to move to Colorado. It is venture funded and also has attracted financial support from defense contractors Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

Satellite-servicing vehicles such as those operated by Northrop Grumman, Astroscale and other companies are viewed as key customers, Faber said. “We see them as tow trucks. We build the fuel supply.” The plan is to be able to deliver fuel to “fully cooperative, fully prepared spacecraft that have nothing wrong with them. If there’s ever any glitches, call the tow truck.”

Faber said Orbit Fab plans to soon announce a contract it won to refuel a satellite servicing vehicle.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Barath »

Bala Vignesh wrote: Has MiG, or anyone for that matter, considered putting a conformal tank in the place where there is a centreline hardpoint.

https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.u ... ofiles.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20100920184 ... eteor2.cfm

Nanchang Q5

https://web.archive.org/web/20100728093 ... q5_09large
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Pratyush »

The Pakistani airforce operated about 60 Nanchang Q5 during the 80s.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Barath wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote: Has MiG, or anyone for that matter, considered putting a conformal tank in the place where there is a centreline hardpoint.

https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.u ... ofiles.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20100920184 ... eteor2.cfm

Nanchang Q5

https://web.archive.org/web/20100728093 ... q5_09large
Thanks Barath, but I meant putting a conformal tank on the MiG29. I missed that key part while posting.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Indranil »

What's on the spine of the Mig29 UPG?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Pratyush »

Indranil wrote:What's on the spine of the Mig29 UPG?
I think he is referring to the spot right between the 2 nacelles.

It already has a fuel tank right between them. Not sure how a CFT would help in that specific position.

I guess that people at MiG also reached the same conclusion and added the CFT on the dorsal spine.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Indranil »

That channel is used to generate a significant amount of body lift.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/sta ... 6193638414 ----->
It's now illegal for anyone in Russia to write about the Russian space program for a non-Russian entity.

Good grief.

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/ ... 2165099526 ----->
Dear friends! I'm very sorry, but according to the list of data published by FSB yesterday, which, if transferred to the foreign citizens, can be used against the security of Russia, almost every information about the Russian space activities is forbidden for publication.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

UK F-35 refueling from a F-18SH

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/14 ... 31394?s=20 ---> 5 Viggens on a winter road de-icing trip.

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

KAI promotes futuristic concepts at Seoul ADEX
In a series of promotional videos at the Seoul ADEX show, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has shown range of innovative aircraft ideas.

Notable concepts include a UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle) version of its FA-20 light attack jet accompanying a KF-21 fighter, and several innovative unmanned air vehciles (UAVs).

Image
Source: Korea Aerospace Industries
KAI Next Generation Helicopter concept


One video highlights the NI-500T, a tiltrotor that takes off and lands vertically. The system has four rotors, with two mounted on the engines and two on the tail. The engines swivel for take-off and landing, similar to the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey. The tail-mounted rotors are fixed facing upwards, and are motionless during flight.

All four rotors have independent electric power, but the main engine in the fuselage uses ordinary fuel to power a battery.

Equipped with an electro-optical/infrared sensor, the NI-500T is shown locating and designating targets, which are then called in to a ground station using a datalink. A KAI Light Attack Helicopter (LAH) – a local variant of the Airbus Helicopters H155 – is then able to destroy the target with a beyond line of sight engagement using a missile.

The video also shows conceptual unmanned LAHs, unmanned FA–50s, as well as the K-UCAV, a small flying wing design, which attacks ground targets with missiles launched from internal weapons bays.


Source: KAI
KAI Aircraft concepts at ADEX 2021


Another KAI video shows an innovative proposal for a new battery-powered basic trainer to replace the KT-1. The Black Kite will be powered by four electric propellers, with two mounted on each wing. The aircraft’s cockpit will be compatible with that of the T-50 series and KF-21 fighter.

The Black Kite’s power comes from dozens of battery packs located in the aircraft’s nose, wings, and in the fuselage alongside the tandem cockpits. According to KAI, power output will be over 1600hp.

KAI also has videos showing a conceptual “Next Generation Helicopter” with twin contra-rotating rotors and a pusher propeller, flying through cities and performing combat missions. The rotorcraft resembles the Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky S-97 Raider.


Source: KAI
KAI's Black Kite basic trainer concept


KAI also promoted an urban air mobility (UAM) aircraft, which would have both manned and unmanned versions. The five-seat, electrically-powered vertical take-off and landing aircraft would have a maximum speed of 135 knots (250kph) and a range of 54nm (100km), allowing it to operate 30min flights between cities. The unmanned cargo version would have a payload of 600KG.

KAI adds that aims to develop its own UAM by the late 2020s.

Video footage of this year’s ADEX shows considerably less footfall during typical years. Owing to the coronavirus pandemic, Seoul has imposed a range of travel restrictions on arriving passengers.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

Paywall:

KAI/IAI in new loitering munitions development pact
Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) have signed an additional memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a loitering munitions programme.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Israel To Request America’s New GBU-72 Bunker Buster Bomb
TEL AVIV: In the coming months, Israel plans to ask the US to sell its new 5,000 pound GBU-72 bomb to the Israeli Defense Forces, sources here say, with the goal of utilizing it against Hamas’ subterranean bases.

Already, Israeli planners have shared operational lessons from their use of the GBU-28 bomb with the US Air Force in order to help develop operational profiles for the GBU-72. In turn, Israeli military officials hope Washington will ok the eventual sale of the GBU-72 once it enters full use in for the US Air Force.

During this years “Guardian of the Walls” military operation in Gaza, Israeli made significant use of the GBU-28, an older 5,000 pound “bunker buster” weapon,” in order to target Hamas’ so called “Metro City” tunnel network.

Israeli sources told BD that the use of these bombs in a densely populated area like Gaza required very accurate planning in order not to the hit the civil population.

Data about these special attack profiles has been transferred to the US Air Force, which just last week announced the successful completion of a series of tests for the GBU-72, proving the weapon can be successfully released from an F-15 fighter. The weapons test included an “arena test,” which a warhead was detonated while surrounded by sensor to determine the full impact and lethality.

The GBU-72 was developed to “overcome hardened, deeply buried target challenges and designed for both fighter and bomber aircraft,” per the USAF announcement. Given the liberal use of underground tunnels by Hamas, it’s easy to see why Israel would be interested in the GBU-72s improved capability over the older GBU-28 design. And as Israel already operates the F-15 — and is seeking to add to its fleet — integration should be simple.

Aside from its interest in the new bunker-busting weapon, Israel’s Air Force has had a busy week during Blue Flag, an exercise that kicked off Oct. 17 and will run through Oct. 28. In addition to the IDF and USAF, air forces from Germany, Italy, Britain, France, India and Greece are taking part, with planned appearances from the Lockheed Martin made F-35, Boeing F-15, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Dassault Rafale and Mirage 2000 jets.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1714
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Lisa »

South Korea's first launch of next-gen rocket ends in failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5_VEL6U0_g

South Korea's 1st Nuri rocket fails to put payload in orbit in debut space launch

https://www.space.com/south-korea-nuri- ... ch-failure

Sorry do not know how to post a video.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

IAF to start training for strike on Iran nuke program in coming months
https://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-to-st ... ng-months/
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

Shenzou-13 - With three astronauts set to spend six months on China’s space station, this is China’s most ambitious human space mission to date.
On October 16, China launched its most ambitious human space mission yet, the Shenzhou 13, to the Tianhe core module of China’s permanent space station (Tiangong) in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The crew of three astronauts (Zhai Zhigang, Wang Yaping and Ye Guangfu) will be staying on the Tianhe for six months, the longest stint for Chinese astronauts so far, if accomplished successfully.

This strategic map should include China’s ambitions of an asteroid mission (2022), launching the Chang’e 6 lunar South Pole sample return (2024), building SBSP satellites in LEO (2025) and in geosynchronous orbit by 2030, the heavy lift Long March 9 to be flight tested in 2030, the launch of the Chang’e 7 (aimed at surveying the lunar South Pole in 2030), a Mars sample return mission (2030), the Chang’e 8 (2035), the establishment of a lunar base (2036-2040), and a Mars base (2045).
The Chinese have set themselves an ambitious timeline.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by jamwal »

JF-17 not bidding for Malaysian contract! What happened?


https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/ ... a-contract
The interested bidders are understood to be Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) partnering with local company Kemalak Systems Sdn Bhd to offer the FA 50 jet fighter; Turkey Aerospace Industries, offering its LCA known as Hürjet; China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corp (Catic), with its L-15 fighter jet; Italy’s Leonardo, with its M-346 planes; India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, with its Tejas fighter; and Aerospace Technology Systems Corp Sdn Bhd — which is 71.43%-controlled by Tan Sri Ahmad Johan’s National Aerospace and Defence Industries Sdn Bhd (Nadi), 23% by a company called Russian Aircraft and 4.76% by another Russian outfit Rosoboronexport — offering MIG 35 planes.
Interestingly enough, Pakistan was touted to be a favourite to bag the LCA contract in Malaysia with its JF-17 Thunder fighter jet, but it did not participate in the bid.
It is understood, however, that one of the bidders, Hindustan Aeronautics, is willing to set up an MRO outfit in Malaysia if awarded the contract. It is unclear if the other bidders are also considering doing so.
He adds, however, that recent events at end-May — in which 16 Chinese military aircraft encroached into Malaysia’s maritime zone, flying within 110km, or 60 nautical miles, of Sarawak in military formation — could dampen China’s bid.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s formal complaint to China was brushed aside with a reply that the aircraft had “strictly abided by the relevant international law”.

Other bids deemed attractive include the ones by KAI, in partnership with Kemalak Systems.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Manish_P »

Strange mix of advanced trainers (FA-50, M-346, Hongdu JL-10), light fighters (Tejas) and medium fighters (MiG 35s).

Pakistan might well have been told by China to withdraw.. but it's hegemonic behavior will probably put off the Malays.

How are relations between US and malaysia as compared to Euro-Malay relations?

Will be interesting to see which way the competition goes..with geo-politics might well ending up as the deciding factor.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Barath »

Per Janes Malaysia wants 8 lead-in-fighter training planes and 10 light combat aircraft to replace their existing BAE Hawk 108 and 208 (light attack leveraging the Hawk trainer platform) and Aermacchi MB-339CM trainers. With a possibility of a repeat identical order down the road.

Mig 35 has no LIFT version and neither does JF-17 (while China has an alternative plane - PL-10). Tejas has folks working on LIFT/SPORT but it isn't in service . Hurjet hasn't even flown. The rest (PL-10, AM346, Hurjet, FA-50/T-50) fit the advanced trainer/light attack paradigm . Curiously Russia hasn't pitched the Yak-130, which shares heritage with AM346.

https://www.aerotime.aero/29226-reports ... -jf-17-out
According to The Edge's source, requirements for the aircraft include aerial refueling, beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat and supersonic flight capabilities, as well as containing at least 30% of parts produced in Malaysia. The manufacturer will also start deliveries within 36 months after the contract is signed.
These requirements exclude the L-39NH, which is not supersonic. It seems that all the other aircraft meet the requirements, or at least can be modified to do so.
I'm not sure how reliable that 30% of parts produced in Malaysia news is.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

If one can sit through 2+ hours this is a great geeky vid on A400M & Tornado Jet-Fighter Air Refueling! Full DUAL Ultimate Cockpit Movie:

Used some 20 cameras to record

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

Great article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the competition between the US and USSR during the mid 1950s to the mid 1960s to build thermonuclear bombs with ever larger yields and specifically also about the development of what is now called the Tsar Bomb, the largest nuclear test ever conducted at 50 MT by the USSR in 1961

An Unearthly Spectacle: The Untold Story of the World's biggest Nuclear Bomb
In the early hours of October 30, 1961, a bomber took off from an airstrip in northern Russia and began its flight through cloudy skies over the frigid Arctic island of Novaya Zemlya. Slung below the plane’s belly was a nuclear bomb the size of a small school bus—the largest and most powerful bomb ever created.

At 11:32 a.m., the bombardier released the weapon. As the bomb fell, an enormous parachute unfurled to slow its descent, giving the pilot time to retreat to a safe distance. A minute or so later, the bomb detonated. A cameraman watching from the island recalled:

A fire-red ball of enormous size rose and grew. It grew larger and larger, and when it reached enormous size, it went up. Behind it, like a funnel, the whole earth seemed to be drawn in. The sight was fantastic, unreal, and the fireball looked like some other planet. It was an unearthly spectacle!

The flash alone lasted more than a minute. The fireball expanded to nearly six miles in diameter—large enough to include the entire urban core of Washington or San Francisco, or all of midtown and downtown Manhattan. Over several minutes it rose and mushroomed into a massive cloud. Within ten minutes, it had reached a height of 42 miles and a diameter of some 60 miles.
One civilian witness remarked that it was “as if the Earth was killed.” Decades later, the weapon would be given the name it is most commonly known by today: Tsar Bomba, meaning “emperor bomb.”
And even more fantastic plans by Edward Teller at Los Alamos for a design with an ultimate yield of 10,000 MT :shock:
By the spring of 1951, Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam at Los Alamos had developed their design for a workable hydrogen bomb. The idea was superficially simple: Use the radiation of an exploding fission bomb (the “primary”) to compress a special capsule that contained both fusionable and fissionable materials (the “secondary”). A proof-of-concept device (“Sausage”) was tested in November 1952, achieving an explosive yield of 10 megatons. A more compact, weaponized version (“Shrimp”) was detonated in March 1954 in the Castle Bravo test, achieving a much higher yield than anticipated (15 megatons, or 1,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) and surprising the scientists with more radioactive fallout than expected (which required the evacuation of occupied atolls downwind from the Marshall Islands test site).

Only a few months later, in July 1954, Teller made it clear he thought 15 megatons was child’s play. At a secret meeting of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, Teller broached, as he put it, “the possibility of much bigger bangs.” At his Livermore laboratory, he reported, they were working on two new weapon designs, dubbed Gnomon and Sundial. Gnomon would be 1,000 megatons and would be used like a “primary” to set off Sundial, which would be 10,000 megatons. Most of Teller’s testimony remains classified to this day, but other scientists at the meeting recorded, after Teller had left, that they were “shocked” by his proposal. “It would contaminate the Earth,” one suggested. Physicist I. I. Rabi, by then an experienced Teller skeptic, suggested it was probably just an “advertising stunt.” But he was wrong; Livermore would for several years continue working on Gnomon, at least, and had even planned to test a prototype for the device in Operation Redwing in 1956 (but the test never took place).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

US, China, Russia Test New Space War Tactics: Sats Buzzing, Spoofing, Spying
Models shared exclusively with Breaking Defense offer a rare glimpse into nation-on-nation run-ins in space as satellites follow, flee, and, allegedly, listen in on each other.
By COLIN CLARK
on October 28, 2021 at 8:11 AM

Image
A screengrab of an encounter of an American and a Chinese satellite in space. (COMSPOC)

WASHINGTON: China has demonstrated the ability to track and maneuver a satellite with a remarkably high degree of precision, allowing the Chinese military to spot a US satellite moving close and then to redirect its own satellite away from the US bird in little more than 24 hours, according to never-before-seen video recreations.

In a July 2021 incident, USA 271, a space surveillance satellite developed covertly by the Air Force and Orbital Sciences, approaches Chinese satellite SJ-20, the PRC’s heaviest and one of its most advanced satellites. The US satellite, part of the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSAPP), shadows the Chinese bird in parallel. But then the Chinese clearly detect the US satellite and rapidly move theirs away. (Pro tip: If you look closely, you can see how close the two satellites are by looking under “Ranges” in the video below.)

vid

This is a rare glimpse into the often highly classified realm of nation-to-nation run-ins in space — and potential future space warfare tactics — made possible by COMSPOC, a company that provides space tracking and other information to private companies and governments. While the US military tracks objects in space, it restricts data about those with national security implications — especially US spy sats. COMSPOC provided several videos illustrating various interactions to Breaking Defense for this report.

“They start doing calibration maneuvers and they’re very, very small maneuvers, so it’s hard. It’s about having the right system that can process and detect those small maneuvers when you’re that close,” said Jim Cooper, lead for space situational awareness at COMSPOC.

In another example involving only Chinese spacecraft, the PLA in 2018 launched and deployed what the US suspects is a counterspace satellite known as the TJS 3 (Tongxin Jishu Shiyan). According to the COMSPOC data, TJS 3 took position in geosynchronous orbit (GEO), in parallel to its apogee kick motor (the upper stage of the rocket).

“You see, all of a sudden they’re both right there, maneuvered to change their orbits, and they did that at the exact same time, and then the exact same way,” Cooper explained about the May 2019 incident. “So those maneuvers were basically done in tandem with each other. And you can see that the apogee kick motor — which is basically a rocket body — is now flying where the TJS 3 counterspace platform used to be,” he said.

Why did an upper stage rocket remnant in GEO suddenly fire up thrusters and start moving parallel to the satellite it helped push into orbit?

vid

“What we think is happening here is the development and experimentation and validation of what we call a tactic, technique and procedure, a TTP, to spoof an enemy’s network for SSA [space situational awareness],” Cooper believes.

The maneuver occurred just as the day-night terminator passed by. “So we think that they timed this such that if an optical telescope was trying to look up there and see that maneuver, they would not catch it,” he said.

A country monitoring the Chinese bird would see this spent rocket body (the kick motor) now sitting where the payload was and mistake the kick motor for the satellite. Right after that happens, TGS 3 leaves the area — a very large maneuver. That, Cooper says, could gain China several days of freedom during which they could “be off doing things that are potentially threatening” while the other country has lost track of where the Chinese satellite is.

China certainly isn’t alone in its ability to move its satellites and control them. Russia and the United States have both demonstrated this capability numerous times. Of course, as veteran space watchers know, there can be multiple applications for a satellite that can move with precision.

“There are good things happening in space today that includes things like on-orbit servicing, refueling, end-of-life disposal; all of those types of operations require satellites to get very close to and in some cases to dock with each other,” Cooper said. “But […] you can also do intentionally nefarious or threatening things with that same type of technology. What’s the actual intent as we watch this?”

Cooper said intent is “definitely” something Space Force and Space Command are concerned about.

“With that idea of space domain awareness comes understanding of the intent of the activities that they’re seeing,” he said.

vid

The video above recounts the time in November 2019 that a Russian Luch/Olymp satellite approaches within 1.8 kilometers of an American commercial satellite, Intelsat 36, which provides service to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia .

“If they’re going to do something like this approach that close to another satellite, that could probably be deemed an irresponsible behavior,” Cooper said. “Even if they do have the precise SSA to define that Intelsat 36 orbit, you don’t know what Intelsat 36 is going to do next.”

Intelsat may be planning a maneuver, for example. If that happened, it could, Cooper noted, “very well end up in a disastrous collision because they’re that close to each other and neither of them knew what the other satellite was doing.”

Intelsat has seen this kind of behavior before, in 2015, when a Luch satellite took up position between two Intelsat satellites for five months. Space News reported at the time that this led to classified meetings among US government officials.

And that Russian satellite didn’t just pass by Intelsat 36, as the video below showing a year of the satellite’s progress makes clear, it soared by more than two dozen satellites, often pausing close to them.

vid

In 2018 France’s Minister of the Armed Forces, Florence Parly, claimed that during the year before a Luch/Olymp spacecraft approached the Athena-Fidus satellite, a French-Italian satellite launched in 2014 and used for secure military communications and the planning of operations, according to The Associated Press. “Trying to listen to one’s neighbor is not only unfriendly It’s called an act of espionage,” Parly said at the time. Of course, a great deal of what goes on in space is espionage, and espionage is not illegal.

But what does this conduct say about Russian capabilities?

“First off, do they have the very, very precise space situational awareness on that Intel satellite to know specifically where it is,” Cooper said. “But what they’re doing, at least as far as we can conclude, is getting close enough to these other satellites, and you see, time-wise, they stay close to these other satellites for weeks or months at a time. And what they’re probably doing is getting inside that [satellite’s] uplink from the ground and collecting intelligence from that [operator’s] uplink to that satellite.”

Cooper said that the Russian satellite’s actions amount to “clearly provocative behavior.”

“It’s clearly concerning from a commerce space technology perspective and if you’re the DoD, you want to be paying attention to these kinds of things,” he said. “But, obviously, one country can do things with one of its satellites around another one of its satellites and who’s to say they can’t do that, right?”

China has so far done what are called Rendezvous Proximity Operations (RPO) only with their own satellites, according to said Brian Weeden, a top military space expert at the Secure World Foundation. “As far as I know, China has never done an RPO with another country’s satellite,” he said.

The US had not released public data on RPOs performed by US satellites until the end of 2019, when they started releasing some data, he said.

“Apparently, they [DoD] have had multiple reviews of how to improve sharing. They are starting to provide more provisional information about some of these classified objects, but not all and not all the time,” Weeden said.

Now, none of this is a violation of international law. But these very close approaches, shadowing operations, spoofing and other actions do raise the risk of collisions.

“This all shows why there is an urgent need for the US, Russia, and China to talk about norms when it comes to close approaches and military activities in the GEO region,” Weeden said.

He pointed to the 1972 Incidents at Sea agreement between the Soviet Union and the US as a good example. “We need an Incidents in Space agreement.”

One of the key reasons for such an agreement would be to limit the fast-growing problem of space debris. The Defense Department currently tracks more than 27,000 objects in space, most of which is debris — such as defunct rocket bodies, according to NASA.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

Allies lobby Biden to prevent shift to ‘no first use’ of nuclear arms
European and Asian capitals intensify behind-the-scenes pressure amid fears US will change doctrine


US allies are lobbying Joe Biden not to change American policy on the use of nuclear weapons amid concern the president is considering a “no first use” declaration that could undermine long-established deterrence strategies aimed at Russia and China.

The lobbying — by treaty allies including Britain, France and Germany in Europe, and Japan and Australia in the Indo-Pacific — comes as the Biden administration is in the middle of a “nuclear posture review”, a regular inter-agency process that sets US policy on nuclear weapons.

Although some allies believe Biden will refrain from setting a “no first use” policy in the review, most remain concerned he is considering a policy known as “sole purpose”, which would make clear the US would use nuclear weapons only in a narrowly-prescribed set of circumstances — such as to deter a direct attack on the US, or to retaliate after a strike.

“This would be a huge gift to China and Russia,” one European official said.

American policy towards the use of nuclear weapons has, since the cold war, remained intentionally vague, suggesting the US could use them preemptively and allowing allies in both Europe and Asia a clear sense of protection under the American “nuclear umbrella”.

While some non-proliferation advocates argue that “sole purpose” or “no first use” declarations increase stability by clarifying circumstances when nuclear weapons would be used, critics counter that it would embolden Russia and China.

They also fear it could prompt allies such as Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons, triggering a regional arms race. Biden supported a shift to “sole purpose” as US vice-president and during the 2020 election campaign.

“The problem with ‘sole purpose’ and ‘no first use’ is that the allies believe it, and adversaries do not,” said Michael Green, an Asia security expert.

Earlier this year the US sent a questionnaire to allies who provided an overwhelmingly negative response to any changes in nuclear policy, according to two people familiar with the correspondence.

But some allies remain worried that US officials have not conveyed the extent of their opposition directly to the president, fears exacerbated by the administration’s failure to heed allied concerns over the withdrawal from Afghanistan and a nuclear submarine agreement with Australia.

Sitting with President Emmanuel Macron on Friday, Biden said he had not been aware France was not told in advance about the submarine deal. Paris lost its existing submarine contract with Canberra as a result of the agreement.

More than a dozen European and Asian officials and critics on Capitol Hill told the Financial Times that allied fears have risen as the posture review nears its conclusion, which is expected by the end of the year. Some are hoping Biden will outline his views when he meets his counterparts at the G20 summit in Rome at the weekend.

In a sign of the rising allied concern, a commitment to “a credible and united nuclear alliance” was included in a joint statement following Friday’s Biden-Macron meeting, as was a promise of “close consultations” on nuclear issues.

The lobbying was particularly intense during a visit by Lloyd Austin, US defence secretary, to Nato headquarters in Brussels earlier this month. “Allies are extremely concerned and in no uncertain terms have made clear what they thought,” one Nato diplomat said.

John Kirby, Pentagon spokesperson, said consultations with allies were “essential and ongoing” as the administration concluded the nuclear posture review, adding that keeping “our US extended deterrence commitments remain strong and credible” was central to the process.

This is not the first time the US has considered changing its policy towards the use of nuclear weapons. Barack Obama weighed a similar shift, but opted against the move after opposition from allies and the US military. But some experts worry Biden has shown a tendency to ignore allies and his military advisers in recent security policy decisions, including Afghanistan.

“‘Sole purpose’ nuclear policy is just ‘no first use’ by another name, and to even consider adopting either is a complete betrayal of our allies,” James Risch, the top Republican on the Senate foreign relations committee, told the Financial Times.

Richard Fontaine, chief executive of the Center for a New American Security in Washington, argued that threats from Russia, China and North Korea have only increased since the Obama administration, meaning it was “not the time for a US ‘no first use’ pledge”.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Cyrano »

Pratyush wrote:
Indranil wrote:What's on the spine of the Mig29 UPG?
I think he is referring to the spot right between the 2 nacelles.

It already has a fuel tank right between them. Not sure how a CFT would help in that specific position.

I guess that people at MiG also reached the same conclusion and added the CFT on the dorsal spine.
EFTs can be ditched, under belly CFTs can't be - may be relevant in case of landing gear malfunction. There could also be additional fire hazard risks and maintenance hassles due to electrical wiring and hydraulic ducts passing between under-belly CFTs and the engine bay etc... - my uneducated guess onlee
Post Reply