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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

This explains earlier reports of the F-35B crash happening almost immediately after takeoff. Also explains why the flight operations (UK or US jets onboard the aircraft) didn't stop until an investigation was completed. In fact, even Italian F-35B's recently handed on the QE after this loss and those plans seem to have had no impact (they were planned upon the ships return journey through the Med) do to the UK F-35B loss.

Have to wait for the official preliminary accident report..

FLOP GUN! £100million Royal Navy fighter jet crashed ‘because cheap plastic rain cover was left on during take-off’
Sailors saw a red cover floating in the sea after the stealth jet splashed into the Mediterranean.

A source said: “They knew almost right away.

“The covers and engine blanks are supposed to be removed before flight.

“The ground crew do it and they are incredibly strict.


"Then the pilot walks round.”

The Navy pilot tried to abort take-off but ran out of runway so had to eject.

His parachute snagged on the ship when he left the cockpit as he was so close to it.


The Ministry of Defence said it was still investigating.

But sources blamed human error and oversight, adding no other F-35s were grounded as it was not an internal glitch with the aircraft.

A US Navy salvage crew is leading attempts to recover the wreck to stop Russian submarines stealing its top secret technology.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Nov 2021 12:09, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Pratyush »

If indeed it is a failure to remove the "plastic rain cover", then it's a human failure at so many levels. The crew chief failed to notice. The pilot failed to notice during the walk arround. Not to mention the crew man responsible for the actual removal of the device.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:If indeed it is a failure to remove the "plastic rain cover", then it's a human failure at so many levels. The crew chief failed to notice. The pilot failed to notice during the walk arround. Not to mention the crew man responsible for the actual removal of the device.
That's correct and if so then the official report would be very interesting to read as to what led to this HFE (contributing factors). It doesn't have to be as simple as that though so we'll have to wait to see what they find in the official report. It was interesting that USMC F-35's from the QE were operating in the area the very next day, and the Italian cross deck ops went on as scheduled so there was no stand down for the type until preliminary findings were shared with the fleet as would normally be the case in peacetime so it appears that they were able to pin point a preliminary fault relatively quickly so as to have the other deployed aircraft perform their routine ops without pause. That would certainly support the theory that it was a relatively easy to ID HFE. Others have confirmed from quite early on that the pilot ejected very soon after takeoff though this report hints at essentially right at take off. Another one that supports the claim that this happened during take off itself -
Reliable sources say that the accident occurred during take-off and the pilot was recovered very close to the carrier. The Daily Mail reported that the pilot was “left dangling from the edge of the HMS Queen Elizabeth because the lines of his parachute became caught on edge of flight deck.” Official sources would not confirm or deny this detail but it would suggest the pilot was very fortunate. Accidents on take-off are especially dangerous but whether trapped in a sinking aircraft or having ejected, naval aviators also face the serious risk of being run over by the carrier.

LINK
Mollick.R
BRFite
Posts: 1033
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 10:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Mollick.R »

brar_w wrote:
very good questions raised here.........

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by NRao »

1.5 hrs long

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote:The Russians have been very strategic in who they sell the S-400 to. Iran has been very eager to buy this system but the Russians have not sold it to Iran....so far. If the Russians do sell it to Iran, I would bet on Israel targeting it. That will be a true test of really how effective the much talked about ULF radar capability of the S-400 is because Israel will certainly use it's F-35s to mount such an attack.
Both the US and Israel would be planning for a S-400 equipped Iran by around 2030 and that would be a logical thing to factor into their O plans. But much like the S-300 they currently have, their S-400 batteries will likely not survive for very long if the balloon goes up and the Israelis, or the US employs their air power against Iranian SAM sites.
Agreed. The degradation in detection range vs a VLO fighter is shocking. Assuming a nominal 1 m^ object is tracked at 230 km by the S-400, depending on the exact RCS of an F-35, the detection range will shrink to 22km-40km which is more than close enough for the F-35 to employ various PGMs against it. And that degraded detection range assumes that the F-35 does not employ it's powerful EW suite...
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

The F-35I's or A's (USAF) wouldn't get this close or need to against the strategic SAM systems. The longest ranged supersonic weapon (high supersonic in this case) that is IWB compliant and is being integrated into F-35 (A and C) is the AARGM-ER with a nearly 250 km engagement range.Subsonic systems that are being integrated into the bay have 2x this range. A JSOW has about 100 km stand-off range and is completely passive (IIR), and even something like the SDB-II comes in with a 70-80 km range. So lots of options. Only when you layer these very large SAM systems with DCA do they show their true worth. But that assumes Iran can do this and can actually create and maintain a somewhat survivable network that can allow these two systems to fight together in a way that doesn't make the future S-400 shoot down most of its own AF at those extended ranges. The smaller, shorter-ranged and much more mobile SAM's are actually a bigger threat because they can easily be decoyed and can move during the fog of war and thus require constant presence to negate. The larger S-300's (and even S-400 when they field it) will be gone the moment Israel or the US decides to engage in all out war. They are only useful in the gray zone when these air-forces haven't been cleared to bring full airpower to bare.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by k prasad »

ldev wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Both the US and Israel would be planning for a S-400 equipped Iran by around 2030 and that would be a logical thing to factor into their O plans. But much like the S-300 they currently have, their S-400 batteries will likely not survive for very long if the balloon goes up and the Israelis, or the US employs their air power against Iranian SAM sites.
Agreed. The degradation in detection range vs a VLO fighter is shocking. Assuming a nominal 1 m^ object is tracked at 230 km by the S-400, depending on the exact RCS of an F-35, the detection range will shrink to 22km-40km which is more than close enough for the F-35 to employ various PGMs against it. And that degraded detection range assumes that the F-35 does not employ it's powerful EW suite...
Your numbers are slightly off, ldev. The Radar range equation will actually give the F-35 detection range (given your 230 km/1 m^2 baseline) as 60 km (26% of baseline detection range).

The F-35 has an estimated RCS of 0.005 m^2, and if we compare that to say, the F-18 (0.5 m^2), that's 1/100th of the RCS, so with the fourth root relation from the Range equation, the detection range for the F-35 will be a third of the detection range of an F-18.

The bigger issue, as you rightly point out, is EW. First off, the instrumented range will probably be based on specific noise assumptions, and maximum range (at least for marketing purposes) tend to be based on less restrictive noise models, usually simple gaussian noise with no interference or jamming, not to mention clutter. At the max range, the returns are at incredibly low power, so even moderate levels of jamming or interference can have an outsized effect. Then there's the sensitivity figures that are tied to the CFAR detection, which will reduce Probability of Detection.

After all that, the chance of tracking such a low-RCS target long enough to get a weapons lock is particularly difficult.

At extreme ranges, the decision on whether to fire a missile or not is tied very closely to how sure the weapons controllers are that there is actually a target and not a fake detection. No one would want to waste a missile that costs tens of millions of dollars unless they're sure. This means long dwell time to detect the target and be sure it is a legitimate target, even more dwell time to get a track, and yet more to get a weapons lock. Precious seconds. By which time the VLO target can get from the 60 km max. range down to the 20-40 km that you mentioned, if not less than that.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

All this is well and good, but if you are doing SEAD then the S-300, and S-400 like systems would be your priority #1 whether those are outside of Tehran or closer to the border, or closer to somewhere where they are guarding military installations. In that case, they are going to have to confront SEAD carried out by stand-in VLO aircraft like the F-35. And not alone, it's going to be part of other stand-in abilities and ultimately munitions that can be guided to their targets from a safe distance (anywhere from 60 to 100 km for glide weapons and well beyond 200 km for powered munitions) all without compromising the stealth. It is going to be very difficult to hide or decoy a deployed S-400 or S-300 battery like you can with some of the smaller mobile short range systems. Both the IDF and the USAF will have the SA superiority to be able to overcome any C-ISR or deception there.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by k prasad »

^^ I guess we're all saying the same thing, brar-saab? VLO fighters are big problem onlee. But, as the Kosovo war showed, anti-stealth ops involve tactics and CONOPs that go beyond brochure-figures. Hopefully our forces are well prepped in such tactics and have some tricks up their sleeve. They might not be as great as the F-35 or F-22, but a J-20 can still pack some heat.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

k prasad wrote:VLO fighters are big problem onlee. But, as the Kosovo war showed, anti-stealth ops involve tactics and CONOPs that go beyond brochure-figures.
I suppose so, and same for VLO aircraft. The F-35 is very different from the F-117. On one end you had an early stealth design that was basically blind as far as SA was concerned. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the aircraft with the most SA the US has ever designed and fielded on a tactical platform. Particularly when it comes to building an electronic picture of air-defense coverage and tracking these threats.Not to mention that unlike F-117 (which was a penetrating tactical strike aircraft- essentially a single mission aircraft) the F-35 is designed from the ground up to excel at SEAD and will be able to carry a dedicated 250 km supersonic+ SEAD weapon in its IWB. So on one end you had a system that was trying to stay hidden from SAM's and get through its opbjectives (F117) while here there will be a sizable VLO force tasked with finding, and S/DEAD'ing air-defense systems as a primary mission. This takes away the difficulty of trying to provide EW/EA and SEAD to the stealth force using non VLO aircraft which end up taking away the element of surprise (so what you can do is constrained by other mission planning considerations).

Now you can have VLO SEAD escorts for VLO strike packages as a starting point which is a very difficult problem to counter and is really a couple of generation leap over what the F-117 fielded back in the early days of stealth in terms of capability and tactics. This was mot a luxury available to any mission planner trying to plan and coordinate F-117 strikes in Bosnia. They had to be very careful and strike a right balance between employing SEAD and EW/EA capability at a safe distance and maintaining their surprise and tactical advantage on account of stealth. They couldn't have both. The entire USAF F-16CJ fleet is transitioning over to the F-35A, and Israel is no doubt investing heavily in adding its indigenous EW capability to the F-35I as well. The F-35 is going to be equipped with several SEAD focused weapons all of which are IWB compliant. From the fast and long range AARGM to SEAD variants of the SDB and JDAM's. Not to mention SDBII, JSOW and other munitions that can be guided towards targets using data generated by the platform itself. In fact it will have a superior kinetic payload ability than even the Growler when it comes to SEAD. So now they will not have to make that trade. They can dedicate appropriate stand-in SEAD as the mission demands without impacting any other aspect of their mission planning.

The biggest problem with something like S-300, and S-400 (or any other similar system) vs capable airpower that is not contested with equal level of capability, is that these things are large, have huge signatures, manpower, equipment and cannot be hidden and popped on for a fraction of a second to get a lucky shot. This can be done if you have a very capable C-ISR and counter space capability, and the ability to contest air power but that requires a level of offensive capability that Iran does not possess.Unless Iran completely obliterates Isreali or US airpower advantage it is not going to be able to conceal where its S-300's or future S-400s are deployed. Those movements can be tracked by ISR and space. You are talking about an air-defense operator that shot down a civilian airliner when it had no red force within its borders. Imagine if it were paranoid about dozens if not hundreds of low observable aircraft operating in its airspace.

EW will always outrange radar so that's a losing battle. If they can find and fix them they can SEAD them and with the kind of air power advantage they have they will neutralize them with relative easy. The same cannot be said for some of the small Short-Med ranged systems. Those will take a much longer SEAD campaign as they are smaller footprint systems, that are much more mobile, and can be decoyed more easily. Those will be pose a greater and more sustained threat than any silver bullet S-300 or S-400 force that Iran has or wishes to have. They will likely also be responsible for greater loss of these AF's aircraft than the larger systems.
Hopefully our forces are well prepped in such tactics and have some tricks up their sleeve. They might not be as great as the F-35 or F-22, but a J-20 can still pack some heat.
In the J-20 context, the IAF is many times more capable force than Iran which is being discussed here. PLAAF would have to contend with an environment that is contested in all domains with the IAF being in an advantage in several scenarios. In that context it is a completely different employment of air-defense capability. So the discussion was very much around Iranian capability of S-300's and if, when and why they might acquire S-400's and what might happen if they do. IMHO, nothing meaningful will be gained for them in all out war. These will continue to be used as gray zone systems that will complicate mission planning in that environment. Israel and the US are not going to be severely challenged by the presence of a silver bullet force of S-400, any more than they currently are with the S-300s.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Nov 2021 02:18, edited 4 times in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Pratyush »

It's an interesting discussion about the S300/400, along the capacity it brings to the table. In face of a modern Air force.

I have always regarded such systems as being so good. That the only way to beat them was to give it more targets to kill then it is possible for these systems to kill. Because the time taken to reload and relocate the missiles is the only vulnerability such systems had.

That being the case, the strengths of such systems make a very strong case for the existence of F35 and other proposed VLO design's
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:
I have always regarded such systems as being so good. That the only way to beat them was to give it more targets to kill then it is possible for these systems to kill. Because the time taken to reload and relocate the missiles is the only vulnerability such systems had.
In simplistic terms, you challenge an IADS radar and sensors by making it very difficult for them to 1) find, track, or target you (ideally two of the three), by 2) giving them the challenge of having to target you at very long range (by using long range munitions), 3) degrading their sensors (Electronic attack), and 4) and by making it very difficult to process the sheer number of targets and discriminate and prioritize. #4 is where systems like stand-in decoys, and stand-in jammers come into play. Any 1 or two of these are a real challenge but in the scenario being discussed (Iran vs Israel or Iran vs US) the attacking force can bring all 4 to bare and has the ability to converge effects. This before we even get into the complicated scenarios of SAM seeker performance against VLO targets or active seekers overcoming the combined effect of very low signatures, and towed decoys and other countermeasures (VLO+EW doesn't just degrade radar perfromance for a ground sensor, it will also impact (quite significantly) the weapons themselves).

No doubt that VLO strike packages will be flying with VLO SEAD and also stand in jammer and decoy support. So now, not only do they have to track and target some very difficult to find and fix targets but they also have all other noise that you have to discriminate and deal with and figure out the right target amongst the many that are less important. This is why air power is such an important consideration. You can't manage all this with just ground based AD systems. "No one has ever defended their way to victory" as the saying goes. You need to be able to defeat a lot of these threats before they begin to challenge your IADS capability and for that you need offensive air power. There is a good reason that so many offensive systems make up the Chinese A2AD capability against the US, Japan and other threats in the SCS.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

A pretty good summary of the delicate balance the French are trying to strike by offering used Rafales to Greece and Croatia while also ensuring they have enough to sustain their training,readiness and combat demands. Based on the data in the article, they would be down to a fleet of about 90 Rafales by end of 2022, with replacements for aircraft offloaded to Greece expected by 2025. With a few permanently set aside for their deterrence mission, the actual number of available for combat is likely going to be smaller than that. Selling used aircraft to Croatia would further bring this down, with export customers generally given a priority over the French Air Force when it comes to backfilling orders. Also the reference to the AESA radar by the minister is interesting. The French never initiated an AESA radar backfit program on the Rafales that were delivered prior to the AESA radar production cut. It seems they are now looking to do this as well as upgrading ther targeting pods which are now offered with the latet variants.
As of July 1, 2020, the Air & Space Army [AAE] had 102 Rafale aircraft. But it will be six less by the end of this year because of the order placed by Athens [18 devices, including 12 used].

Given the - intense - operational activity of the French forces, this levy could give rise to some fears with regard to the ability of the AAE to honor its operational contracts ... And all the more so since it will have to sell six Rafale de more to its Greek counterpart in 2022.

If we stick to the objectives of the Military Planning Law [LPM] 2019-25, the AAE must be able to implement 129 Rafale by 2025. Also, as soon as the Greek contract is signed, the Minister of the Armed Forces , Florence Parly, soon notified Dassault Aviation of an order for 12 units [in the F3R standard]. Order, she explained to the daily Les Echos , which was to be "financed within the framework of the Military Planning Law, whose credits will be supplemented by the proceeds of the sale of used planes to Greece", then estimated at 400 million euros.

However, this sale proceeds will not be used to finance this order for 12 Rafale, which will be delivered to the AAE in 2025. This is indeed what Ms. Parly explained to the senators, during a hearing on the 6th October.

Having a certain number of planes staffed is one thing ... Getting them all ready to take off is another. However, on this point, out of the 102 Rafale that the AAE had in July 2020, 14 were not in flight condition. Also, the proceeds of the sale, which will be paid in full to the budget of the Ministry of the Armed Forces, will be used to ensure that they can fly again.

“We were able, thanks to the Greek contract, to make the re-equipping of aircraft that were no longer in flight condition a first priority. It is not simply a question of the MCO [Maintenance in operational condition] contract, it is also the fact of being able to complete planes which, in a way, had served as a reservoir of spare parts, ”explained the Minister.

Clearly, these devices have been "cannibalized" in order to keep the others in flight condition. This kind of practice is quite common, especially within armed forces struggling with budget constraints.

With the sale of these twelve second-hand planes to Greece, "these proceeds will be reinvested in order to be able to re-equip aircraft which were no longer in flight condition but which" will be so again "thanks to parts orders. », Insisted Ms. Parly, specifying that 14 Rafales were concerned.

Another area of ​​effort is to improve the availability of the entire “Rafale” fleet of the AAE, thanks in particular to the “RAVEL” [Verticalized Rafale] MCO contracts, entrusted to Dassault Aviation in 2019, and BOLERO, recently awarded to Safran for the M88 engines.

According to Ms. Parly, the RAVEL contract produced appreciable results because, according to Ms. Parly, the uptime increased by 50% compared to 2017 [at the time, it was 55.4%] .

"So when you play, on the one hand, on the refurbishment of flight through the ordering of parts and, on the other, on the further improvement of availability, you are helping to compensate for the gap. capacity which results from the levy made over the years 2021/22 to ensure deliveries ”to the Greek air force, argued Ms. Parly. "In 2025, this break in capacity will be compensated since the deliveries of new aircraft will take place", she added, insisting on the fact that the latter will constitute "a plus for the Air Force since we will have on average a fleet of Rafale aircraft that will be more modern than what we would have had in the absence of these orders ”.

As for Croatia's intention to acquire 12 second-hand Rafale - therefore taken from the AAE fleet - discussions are still ongoing. It is only once the contract has been signed that a new order will be placed with Dassault Aviation for new aircraft.

"First, we will replenish this fleet, as we have planned to do" for the Greek contract and "secondly, we are studying scenarios to strengthen the technical capabilities [of the AAE Rafales]. I am thinking in particular of the fact that we are lacking in TALIOS designation pods and radar. Here too, we intend to use the proceeds from the sale, ”said Ms. Parly.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

brar_w wrote:
FLOP GUN! £100million Royal Navy fighter jet crashed ‘because cheap plastic rain cover was left on during take-off’
Sailors saw a red cover floating in the sea after the stealth jet splashed into the Mediterranean.

A source said: “They knew almost right away.

“The covers and engine blanks are supposed to be removed before flight.

“The ground crew do it and they are incredibly strict.


"Then the pilot walks round.”

The Navy pilot tried to abort take-off but ran out of runway so had to eject.

His parachute snagged on the ship when he left the cockpit as he was so close to it.


The Ministry of Defence said it was still investigating.

But sources blamed human error and oversight, adding no other F-35s were grounded as it was not an internal glitch with the aircraft.

A US Navy salvage crew is leading attempts to recover the wreck to stop Russian submarines stealing its top secret technology.
Here's the video of the event. This supports the report above that the pilot ejected during take-off. Also lays to rest the absurd claims that somehow Russian EW activities downed the aircraft somewhere out in the open seas.

https://twitter.com/sebh1981/status/1465351592018956295
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Manish_P »

That looks to be a close one, very close to the ship. Good that he is OK.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

k prasad wrote:
ldev wrote:
Agreed. The degradation in detection range vs a VLO fighter is shocking. Assuming a nominal 1 m^ object is tracked at 230 km by the S-400, depending on the exact RCS of an F-35, the detection range will shrink to 22km-40km which is more than close enough for the F-35 to employ various PGMs against it. And that degraded detection range assumes that the F-35 does not employ it's powerful EW suite...
Your numbers are slightly off, ldev. The Radar range equation will actually give the F-35 detection range (given your 230 km/1 m^2 baseline) as 60 km (26% of baseline detection range).

The F-35 has an estimated RCS of 0.005 m^2, and if we compare that to say, the F-18 (0.5 m^2), that's 1/100th of the RCS, so with the fourth root relation from the Range equation, the detection range for the F-35 will be a third of the detection range of an F-18.
I based my calculations on 1m^ rcs for 230 km and then .001 and .0001 rcs for the F-35 and I rounded off the fourth root to 0.25. But regardless even the SDB which is the lowest range PGM carried by the F-35 has a range of 110 km against fixed targets and 70 km against moving targets which is well outside the S-400 radar detection range for a 0.005 m^ rcs target. And that is before any EW is employed to create noise/clutter. Also the new AARGM-ER the newly developed anti radiation missile for the US has an estimated range of 250km -300 km and it will be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 and it has a estimated speed of Mach 4 so an S-400 radar/battery will be completely outclassed in a contest.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

SDB II range is closer to 75-80 km when launched from altitude. SDB-I which actually has both a HOJ and a SEAD oriented EO/IR seekers would be similar. AARGM-ER which will be the main SEAD weapon for both the F-35C and F-35A has about 250 km range. When used from a similar distance (roughly 100 km) using stand-in assets like the F-35, it would give IADS about 2 to 2.5 minutes of reaction time. That's the dilemma given you've introduced VLO aircraft based SEAD capability. Finding a VLO strike package and achieving a mission or physical kill is hard enough, now you are going to have to deal with the fact that each of those strike packages could have VLO aircraft as escorts that are focusing on SEAD/DEAD missions. This is the primary reason why the USAF integrated the SDB-I into the F-22 (an air-air platform) very early on (as early as they could during the test and certification process). The F-35 with its avionics and a more diverse weapons package takes this forward allowing it to cover the SEAD mission and escorting VLO strike packages (comprising of B-2, B-21, and other F-35s) through highly defended airspace. This is one of the reasons why we're seeing a proliferation of 5th gen. designs the world over. The combination of attributes when combined with the right weapons and tactics introduces some major complications for air-defense planners.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote: This is one of the reasons why we're seeing a proliferation of 5th gen. designs the world over. The combination of attributes when combined with the right weapons and tactics introduces some major complications for air-defense planners.
It is almost inevitable that China's LO technologies will improve with time and I suppose that there is ongoing research on alternate detection techniques to combat LO and VLO platforms, a fusion of ULF radar and better IR maybe.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

China already has UHF and VHF radars that it fields (I believe older ones are Soviet/Russian whereas newer ones are their own AESA radars). But the problem is the same and based on physics. Relying on those sensors, with those attributes, for long range detection, and tracking is going to be challenging particularly when presented with discrimination challenges of having to distinguish a F-35 (or B-2, or B-21, or RQ-180 etc etc), from a stealthy MALD like craft pretending to be a F-35. Finally, when you combine these types of sensors with passive EW, and IR based sensors you are presented with a very large processing and discrimination challenge. This is where AI will come in which is why AI is such a game changer as a future decision making tool given a need to assimilate potentially dozens if not hundreds of disparate attributes trying to decipher real from decoy and discriminate and then target. But those large radars will be the first prime targets and you still need tracking and fire control radars. Finally, you need seekers that can perform against the combined effect of VLO signatures, plus EW, plus towed decoys being controlled by organic EW suite. These are very complicated things and this is why China has itself come to the conclusion that this isn't something (the need for VLO and other 5th gen or beyond 5th gen fighter design attributes) that is going to be "undone" relatively quickly which is why they themselves (to their abilities and within their limitations) trying to apply VLO design principles to fighter, bomber, and unmanned aircraft.
ldev wrote: US has an estimated range of 250km -300 km and it will be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 and it has a estimated speed of Mach 4
It will be in excess of Mach 4 and that is just the starting point. I wouldn't be surprise if it is closer to Mach 5 much like the AIM-260.
hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by hgupta »

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote: US has an estimated range of 250km -300 km and it will be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 and it has a estimated speed of Mach 4
It will be in excess of Mach 4 and that is just the starting point. I wouldn't be surprise if it is closer to Mach 5 much like the AIM-260.
No way it or the AIM-260 would have that range at Mach 5. Physics simply doesn't allow that due to drag and increased temperature. That motor would have to keep burning throughout and I am looking at the size of the proposed missile and it doesn't have the fuel capacity to keep it going at that range. You may be thinking of glide range but at Mach 5, you will seriously encounter high drag forces. If memory serves me right, Mach 5 is the start of hypersonic speed. As you approach Mach 5 you will encounter transitory forces that occur between the supersonic and hypersonic speed which results in greater drag. Furthermore the temperature at that speed is hot enough to melt the sensors within. Additionally, at that speed, you encounter plasma forces which have the nasty effect of blocking radio frequency waves which can lead to a loss of lock on capability for the missiles.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

hgupta wrote:No way it or the AIM-260 would have that range at Mach 5. P
I never meant that range at Mach 5 or an average speed of Mach 5. It would be a Mach 5 +/- max speed or thereabout for both those weapons. Average speed across the entire envelope would obviously be a lot less but it is confirmed by Northrop to be in excess of double the average speed of the HARM/AARGM it is replacing. It has two missions - It is a Stand-Off weapon for the EA-18G Growler and a stand-in weapon for the F-35C and F-35A (and possibly B-21) which carry the weapon in the internal bay. As a VLO-SEAD weapon used for stand-in missions (around 100-120 km) you can expect a 2 to 2.5 minute flight time across those mission profiles. That too will evolve as the AGM-88G is the first of a number of high speed stand in attack options being developed for the F-35A (and C).

AIM-260 should be similar in top speed but different range obviously since it is a different type of weapon with a different motor and warhead but its max speed will likely be close to M5. They've been cryptic about speeds but have mentioned it being very different to AIM-120 in that department. The losing T3 candidates (Boeing and Raytheon designs) are alleged to have exceeded M4 by a sizable margin during their demonstrations. For reference The AIM-152 exceeded M4 (it was even used as a hypersonic test vehicle after it was de-commissioned) and the decades old AAAM design from General Dynamics and team was expected to get very close to M5. The AIM-152 as a hypersonic test vehicle could exceed Mach 5 for longer than 8 seconds, and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 4.5 for greater than 30 seconds. Keep in mind that this is also launch aircraft dependent. The F-22 would be the objective aircraft for the USAF's AIM-260. That platform supecruises at Mach 1.7+ . So A2A missiles exceeding M4 or approaching M5 aren't unreasonable to assume..
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh wrote:So the rumour mills have started flying. It appears that a deal for 60+ Rafales for the UAE Air Force could be inked next month. The UAE Air Force has been after the Rafale for a significant length of time. Dassault is having a field day selling Rafales to international customers. If the UAE deal goes through, Dassault will have sold over 200+ Rafales to international customers. That is more than the entire inventory of Rafales to the French Air Force and Navy (180 confirmed aircraft orders with deliveries ongoing).

Dassault has more than made up the R&D costs of the Rafale. Kudos to them.

* Greece - 18 in total (deliveries ongoing)
* Egypt - 54 in total (deliveries ongoing)
* Qatar - 36 in total (deliveries ongoing)
* India - 36 in total (deliveries ongoing)
* Bangladesh (?) - Unknown
* UAE (?) - 60 (?)
The rumour mills have translated into reality. And from 60, it has gone up to 80. That is the largest export order that Dassault has scored with the Rafale to date. Official Press Statement from Dassault ---> https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/gr ... -emirates/

https://twitter.com/Dassault_OnAir/stat ... 64997?s=20 ---> Historical contract for the acquisition of 80 Rafale F4 by the United Arab Emirates.

https://twitter.com/MalikRoxk/status/14 ... 09537?s=20 ---> UAE is all set to become largest operator of Rafale outside of France and these will be of the F4 standard. According to reports, the deal is worth at least Euro $15 Billion for 80 Rafale F4, 12 H225M Caracal helicopters and 'associated elements'.

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/146 ... 61796?s=20 ---> Export orders of Rafale till now:

United Arab Emirates: 80
Egypt: 54
India: 36
Qatar: 36
Greece: 24 [ added another six to their earlier order of 18 ---> https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2021 ... ghter-jets ]
Croatia: 12

https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/sta ... 52512?s=20 ---> UAE signs a contract with France to procure 80 Rafale F4 fighter jets.

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

And last month, Croatia announced a deal to buy 12 ex-French Air Force Rafales.

Croatia buys used Rafale fighters, as France eyes 12 new jets
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -new-jets/
29 Nov 2021
Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 263
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Chinmay »

Rakesh wrote:...
Meanwhile, our MRFA/MMRCA deal is still nowhere. Even an additional order of 36 is yet to be seen. Now we cant even book production slots in the near term
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Chinmay wrote:Meanwhile, our MRFA/MMRCA deal is still nowhere. Even an additional order of 36 is yet to be seen. Now we cant even book production slots in the near term
My reply here ---> search.php?author_id=6023&sr=posts
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Avinandan »

UAE Rafales would be replacing which fighters in their current inventory?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Avinandan wrote:UAE Rafales would be replacing which fighters in their current inventory?
Mirage 2000
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Chinmay wrote:
Rakesh wrote:...
Meanwhile, our MRFA/MMRCA deal is still nowhere. Even an additional order of 36 is yet to be seen. Now we cant even book production slots in the near term
Just as an FYI, Dassault and the French MOD have been working with the UAE for nearly 14 years in terms of a potential UAE Rafale deal. So that's perhaps not the best example to cite as far as expedited decision making is concerned (though it might still be slightly faster than the MRCA tamasha). And unlike the IAF and MOD MRCA this was never a competition. The UAE is fully committed to maintaining a two supplier force so this was merely about swapping out older M2K's with more capable Rafales. One would imagine it would have taken them a lot longer if they actually competed this between other European, and possibly Russian offerings instead of a straight deal with France. There F-35 purchase likewise will also be a straight buy from US.
Last edited by brar_w on 04 Dec 2021 02:28, edited 3 times in total.
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Avinandan »

I for one am having mixed feelings about the deal. Happy because this means that IAF can not order Rafale F4 for MRFA deal and will make way for Tejas Mk2, as delivery timelines will be prohibitive. Sad because one way or other Pakistan would get good opportunites to gauge Rafale and that too latest F4 variant in future.

As for UAE airforce, there is also the 23 billion deal for F35. I am getting jealous of their defence budget.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Avinandan wrote:As for UAE airforce, there is also the 23 billion deal for F35. I am getting jealous of their defence budget.
Their F-35 specific deal is for $10.5 Billion for 50 aircraft, spares, and support. The rest is the UAV deal, and a very large weapons package which they would have bought regardless (for existing fighters if the F-35 was not asked for) as all those weapons are also cleared on their F-16's (and these large DSCA approvals for weapons can be spread over years or even decades in terms of actual contract awards). They are an oil rich nation that has to balance its European and US Support and the way they do that is via defense purchases. India is a much stronger economy and nation and would be wise to pump that kind of money into its own economy including defense production.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Cyrano »

UAE signs ‘historic’ deal to buy 80 French-made Rafale fighter jets

The United Arab Emirates has signed a deal for 80 French-made Rafale fighter jets, the biggest international order ever made for the warplanes, officials said on Friday during a visit by French President Emmanuel Macron.

The UAE, one of the French defence industry's biggest customers, also agreed to buy 12 Caracal military transport helicopters, the French presidency said in a statement.

"This is an outcome of the strategic partnership between the two countries, consolidating their capacity to act together for their autonomy and security," the statement said.

France said the deal for the jets and helicopters is worth around €17 billion.
The Rafale order is the biggest made internationally for the aircraft since it entered into service in 2004.

The agreement was signed by Dassault Aviation director general Eric Trappier as Macron held talks with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan on the first day of a visit to the Gulf.

By snapping up the Rafales, built by Dassault, the UAE is following the lead of Gulf rival Qatar, which has bought 36 of the planes, and Egypt which ordered 24 in 2015 and 30 earlier this year.

Dassault shares rose 6 percent on the announcement.

On-off negotiations

The F4 model planes, which are still undergoing a €2-billion development programme scheduled to be completed in 2024, will be delivered from 2027.

The on-off negotiations for the Rafale fighter jets have been going on for more than a decade with Abu Dhabi publicly rebuffing France’s offer to supply 60 planes in 2011 as “uncompetitive and unworkable”.

The Rafale has since made a breakthrough on the international market despite competition from US and other European manufacturers. It now has six foreign clients including Qatar, India, Egypt, Greece and Croatia.

The UAE was already the fifth biggest customer for the French defence industry at €4.7 billion from 2011-2020, according to a parliamentary report.

Paris has a permanent military base in the Emirati capital.

Defence sources say the Rafale would replace the Mirage fleet and is unlikely to displace the American F-35 as the UAE continues to hedge its security with two major suppliers, France and the United States.

Macron’s visit to the UAE is part of a two-day trip to the Gulf that includes stops in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP, REUTERS)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Finland was the first export customer to have requested that the JASSM be integrated on the aircraft (it was subsequently added to the block 4 program) as they have an inventory. They'll will be one of the first users of the weapon on the type. In addition to the existing JASSM stock, they were also cleared for the JASSM-ER's though it remains to be seen if it was included in the actual final offer and weapon package.

Finland Is Reported to Pick F-35 Jets in $11 Billion Tender

Finland is set to pick Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jets as part of a 10 billion-euro ($11.3 billion) tender to replace soon-outdated war planes that are key to defending the Russian border, according to a report in local media.

A fleet of F-35s will be acquired due to their capability and expected long lifespan, newspaper Iltalehti said, citing a number of defense and security sources it didn’t identify. The Defense Forces made the proposal to the Defense Ministry, which backs the motion along with top foreign-policy makers, the newspaper said on Sunday.

Selecting the Lockheed Martin warplanes would align the Nordic country with the U.S. for the coming decades through industrial cooperation that accounts for almost a third of the order price. Finland is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, though it trains with the alliance and uses NATO-compatible gear.

Lauri Puranen, a director at the defense ministry who is responsible for procurement, declined to comment when contacted by another local newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat.

Finland has spent the past five years selecting a new fighter with air-to-surface and air-to-sea capabilities to defend a 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) border with Russia, seeking to deter any aggression from its eastern neighbor. The jets will replace 64 Boeing Co. F/A-18 Hornets that will be retired in stages between 2025 and 2030, with the new aircraft set to be in service until the 2060s.

The procurement also includes weapons systems, sensors, supporting equipment and functions, such as training.

While the Nordic nation of 5.5 million people can muster 180,000 troops for wartime service through national conscription, its landmass is too large to defend without war planes. Finland has also been considering fighter jets from Boeing, Dassault Aviation SA, the Eurofighter consortium and Saab, and the government is due to decide this month on the final deal.


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/mahmouedgamal44/sta ... 11206?s=20 ---> Following the UAE massive contract, Dassault Aviation decides to increase the rate of production of Rafale fighter jets to 2/month instead of 1 and then it will increase to 3/month, that's mean over 35 fighter jets will be produced annually instead of 11 only!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

For anyone who has any doubts of the UAE acquiring the F-35, here it is....from the horses' mouth.

UAE purchases 80 Rafale fighter jets to replace Air Force Mirage fleet: Ministry of Defence
https://wam.ae/en/details/1395302999722
04 Dec 2021

The UAE Ministry of Defense announced in a statement today that the UAE has signed a contract with France that includes purchasing 80 Rafale fighter jets to replace the UAE Air Force Mirage fleet in addition to training and maintenance purposes.

Commenting on this deal, Major General Staff Pilot Ibrahim Nasser Al Alawi, UAE Commander of the Air Force and Air Defense, said: "The UAE has been in a process of a thorough review of global markets for options. Based on our talks with our French counterparts, we came to a mutual agreement that the Rafale provide the best option for the UAE security and defense."

Major General Al Alawi added, "The signed contract with France is not a substitute for the US F-35 ongoing discussions. It's rather a complementary to our Air Force capabilities as we continue to develop our air defense systems and seek new products and advanced technologies as part of our overall National Security Strategy."
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

That they would buy the Rafale and the F-35 has been known for more than a decade. It was only the Typhoon sales team (UK) and Israel that could throw that plan off. They are very satisfied with French support with M2K, and they now have a good relationship with Israel so the path became clear for both these to come through. Wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 contract is worked out in the first half of 2022 as they appear to be willing to make some concessions on their Chinese 5G thing. There was a time in the early 2000s when it was rumored that the UAE may become a partner on the F-35 program. While that didn't happen they've since wanted to be the first Arab user approved for it..
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Manish_P »

https://twitter.com/mahmouedgamal44/sta ... 11206?s=20 ---> Following the UAE massive contract, Dassault Aviation decides to increase the rate of production of Rafale fighter jets to 2/month instead of 1 and then it will increase to 3/month, that's mean over 35 fighter jets will be produced annually instead of 11 only!
Text book example Isn't it - of how confirmed orders can get the manufacturer to put in more machine and human resources to increase the rate the production... (sorry I am obsessed with Tejas and getting additional lines to increase their production rate)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

One must understand that Dassault, and the French MOD try to strike a balance between the backlog and production rates because they want to keep this in production for not only the 2020s but also most of 2030s if possible. French MOD hasn't purchased the Rafale for a while and is happy to defer its orders to balance budgets and to make room for exports. This is why they were stuck at 11 a year (perhaps they upped it for a few of the last 5 years) even though they should have been close to double that given a string of recent orders. So it is very much a French MOD decision and Dassault has to walk a fine line in terms of efficiency and ensuring that it doesn't have to take a production pause because of a lack of orders. They've deliberately chosen to operate at MSR despite of a backlog.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Dec 2021 20:13, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

HMS Queen Elizabeth: Sunken F-35 jet is raised from sea bed

The wreckage of an F-35 has been recovered from the sea bed in a delicate seven-day operation involving vessels from Britain, Italy and America, as a member of the military was arrested for leaking footage about the crash.

Defence sources were “confident” that there was no danger or compromise to the sensitive equipment on the £120 million F-35B Lightning II jet amid concerns that other nations could seek to recover it.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status ... 71822?s=20 ---> Interesting (and disappointing) to find out that the F-35B that was lost from the QE was ZM152; she first flew in June 2019 and is, therefore, one of the newer F-35Bs in the UK fleet, with significantly lower Block IV upgrade requirements than older airframes. Thus a greater loss.

Image
Post Reply