International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

[dinesh_kimar]

^ Saar, even Western countries like UK and US field sub optimum models, which are rectified over a period of time.

I read somewhere that the UK Typhoon used to fly for 5 years with a cement block ballast in lieu of the Blue Fox Radar, till it became ready. Reportedly, many Typhoons didn't have radar even a decade after entering service.

The F-35 couldn't carry certain bomb loads / missiles until recently (like 2019-2020), which is abt, what, 8 years after induction?

We accepted Su-30K in 1996, which was not having much capability, but IAF stuck with it till they could return it in 2000-2002. They did not complain abt it at all in media.

Even Jaguar was sub par aircraft, but they inducted 160 of them , and made it work, as shown by many posters on brf.

[brar_w]

The F-35 couldn't carry certain bomb loads / missiles until recently (like 2019-2020), which is abt, what, 8 years after induction?
.

F-35A IOC was in 2016, F-35B IOC was 2015, and F-35C IOC was 2019. Bomb loads, weapons, and other modes were and continue to be a moving target with more work added for current and future block builds. The three US services set an IOC criteria in 2010/2011 which was published and publicly known. When their respective types met that requirement IOC was declared so it wasn't date but capability based. More capability came in at a set cadence agreed upon with margin for delays etc built in as it is a developmental effort which comes with an element of risk. The same is true for block 4.1 through 4.4. Each sub-block is tied to a production lot and a rough schedule and that will determine the timeframe for FOC or follow on modernizaiton capability. This is normal. The US services chose a concurrency model on the F-35 which basically traded cost (they agreed to pay a small %age of additional cost of the program) in exchange of rapidly increasing production and getting past the learning curve which has plagued stealth programs in the past (B-2 and F-22 stayed in LRIP throughout their life). This was by design and something the US Government decided back in the early 2000's when it constructed the program.

[ldev]

And in non military news, a big disappointment was the rescheduling yesterday of SpaceX's first manned flight. Look forward to Saturday's launch. Against all odds Elon Musk has won pole position!!.

The interior of Crew Dragon 2, modernistic, pure touchscreen controls!!



and then you have the Soyuz capsule, trusted legacy warhorse. What a contrast!!

[chetonzz]

^ Saar, even Western countries like UK and US field sub optimum models, which are rectified over a period of time.

I read somewhere that the UK Typhoon used to fly for 5 years with a cement block ballast in lieu of the Blue Fox Radar, till it became ready. Reportedly, many Typhoons didn't have radar even a decade after entering service.

The F-35 couldn't carry certain bomb loads / missiles until recently (like 2019-2020), which is abt, what, 8 years after induction?

We accepted Su-30K in 1996, which was not having much capability, but IAF stuck with it till they could return it in 2000-2002. They did not complain abt it at all in media.

Even Jaguar was sub par aircraft, but they inducted 160 of them , and made it work, as shown by many posters on brf.

Sir but none of them face crazy zeehadi rescueing pork fizzleya having updated jets 24X7

[chetonzz]

Sir there is a discussion going on that continuous touch screen viewing increases astronaut “nausea” ...also about its usefulness in heavy vibrations...

May be dragon should abandon full screen controls just like they dumped powered landing

And in non military news, a big disappointment was the rescheduling yesterday of SpaceX's first manned flight. Look forward to Saturday's launch. Against all odds Elon Musk has won pole position!!.

The interior of Crew Dragon 2, modernistic, pure touchscreen controls!!



and then you have the Soyuz capsule, trusted legacy warhorse. What a contrast!!

[brar_w]

Dragon will evolve over time. SpaceX just getting started and has a lot to learn, though somehow I doubt they'll move back to buttons, knobs, switches etc as opposed to flat screens and tactile inputs. Changing workflows, upgrading processes and adding new capability is just so much easier this way not to mention the fact that future astronauts would have grown up on touch based devices both in their personal lives and professionally given that aircraft displays are transitioning to them and that is one big source for astronaut recruitment. That suit though is a big disappointment. Seems cartoonish.

[ldev]

Sir there is a discussion going on that continuous touch screen viewing increases astronaut “nausea” ...also about its usefulness in heavy vibrations...

May be dragon should abandon full screen controls just like they dumped powered landing

From what I have read the Dragon is pretty much autonomous. The touchscreen controls are there for optional manual control of the Superdraco thrusters when docking with the ISS and that stage of the flight there should not be any vibrations.

That suit though is a big disappointment. Seems cartoonish.

It was apparently designed over years with lots of input from Musk, the objective being to make it less bulky than the traditional NASA suits and also to "inspire" kids to take an interest in space, astronomy etc.

[brar_w]

I wonder what the range record is for guided precision artillery but this is probably close -

In March 2020, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground demonstrated a dramatic stride in extending the range and precision of artillery fires in a demonstration attended by some of the Army’s highest-ranking officials, as well as members of the local and national media who watched both in person and via video feeds at the Pentagon and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

The visitors witnessed two separate test fires of both the Excalibur precision guided munition and the XM1113 rocket-assisted high explosive projectile from a Prototype 0 XM 1299 self-propelled howitzer. Both Excalibur projectiles achieved a 65 kilometer precision hit, and both XM 1113 projectiles achieved a 65 kilometer range. The performance of the XM 1299, outfitted with a 58 caliber tube on a PIM chassis with loader assist, was the centerpiece of the test.

[ldev]

I wonder what the range record is for guided precision artillery but this is probably close -

In March 2020, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground demonstrated a dramatic stride in extending the range and precision of artillery fires in a demonstration attended by some of the Army’s highest-ranking officials, as well as members of the local and national media who watched both in person and via video feeds at the Pentagon and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

The visitors witnessed two separate test fires of both the Excalibur precision guided munition and the XM1113 rocket-assisted high explosive projectile from a Prototype 0 XM 1299 self-propelled howitzer. Both Excalibur projectiles achieved a 65 kilometer precision hit, and both XM 1113 projectiles achieved a 65 kilometer range. The performance of the XM 1299, outfitted with a 58 caliber tube on a PIM chassis with loader assist, was the centerpiece of the test.

Shockingly accurate. Pinpoint strike from 65 km!! And great photography and editing.

[chola]

^^^ Holy smokes! The weapons that Khan cooks up.

[chola]

^ Saar, even Western countries like UK and US field sub optimum models, which are rectified over a period of time.

I read somewhere that the UK Typhoon used to fly for 5 years with a cement block ballast in lieu of the Blue Fox Radar, till it became ready. Reportedly, many Typhoons didn't have radar even a decade after entering service.

The F-35 couldn't carry certain bomb loads / missiles until recently (like 2019-2020), which is abt, what, 8 years after induction?

We accepted Su-30K in 1996, which was not having much capability, but IAF stuck with it till they could return it in 2000-2002. They did not complain abt it at all in media.

Even Jaguar was sub par aircraft, but they inducted 160 of them , and made it work, as shown by many posters on brf.

True. There should be the same leeway given to domestic projects as other nations give to theirs and as we give to phoren aircraft.

That said, transports must meet civilian safety standard and that might be even harder than military ones especially fighters with their ejection seats and parachutes. Margin of error for a civilian carrying aircraft is thinner and the consequences much greater with the number of lives on hand.

We lost two heros testing the Saras. The numbers would have been 16 if it were full. Something Avro-size would be 50. The Arj-21 (ours would be the IRJ) must carry 90 safely. I can see why these projects are hard. But we must start.

We have the third largest air carrier market even today. There will be trillions of dollars in upcoming aircraft for Indian airlines. Some of that must be re-captured and put back into Indian industry. The chini Arj-21 and C-919 aren't for the international market, they are there mainly to keep at least some of the treasure going into aircraft inhouse and to power their local industry.

[arvin]

Something that we should be looking to develop is Raytheon's XM1155 ERAP. It is Ramjet powered artillery with range in excess of 100 km.
Perfect for delivering goodies from kargil to skardu.

[Mollick.R]

It is in Embraer's and Brazil's best interest to find a partner that can help alleviate some of the structural problems that exist with its commercial business and with its product portfolio in general. This is why the deal with Boeing was so good for the company even though their cultures were a world apart. I'm not sure how an acquisition stake by HAL works to help this. In fact, I don't see it helping Embraer in any way other than just direct injection of cash in exchange for equity. If Boeing re-starts is prior talks with Mitsubishi, as is being rumored, then that could further devalue Embraer's commercial business and make any potential deal less attractive for both parties. Its tough to see Brazil agreeing to a JV or a straight up acquisition of Embraer unless the partner presents a clear path for the company to succeed or at least be better off on the commercial side.

Partially agreed.
having said that, not all problems needs to have straight line solution.

We are shouting all time about monopoly of HAL in domestic aerospace market & private sector not getting any meaningful encouragement & support (confirmed order of substantial quantity to invest and run an assy. line).

Embraer issue needs not to given to HAL's to solve (means govt funding directly to HAL for going for a partial kill at Embraer). A willing private entity (like Tata Aerospace) may be encouraged to go for it, a specific model (which suits Civilian MTA & Military role with appropriate modifications and certifications) to get from Embraer at bargain price. TOT, manufacturing licence and IP for desh specific changes made.
Govt can say we assure you X number of Military orders (IAF+IA+ IN+ CG etc) in next 10 years

Financial help to the willing private entity can be extended through long duration ultra cheap loan through SPV constructed for this task.

Where is a will , there is a way out.
Point is that acquisition a stake or right of specific model(s) from Embraer by an Indian entity does gives up some advantage in terms of saving time and going totally from drawing board stage to production of TD version or Prototype version.

For cryogenic engine from Russia, even after US sanction we did took lots of innovate ways to get some part of the design documents. Why ??? Because we desperately believed we need it for our space program to progress.
Same philosophy applies here.

[brar_w]

It is in Embraer's and Brazil's best interest to find a partner that can help alleviate some of the structural problems that exist with its commercial business and with its product portfolio in general. This is why the deal with Boeing was so good for the company even though their cultures were a world apart. I'm not sure how an acquisition stake by HAL works to help this. In fact, I don't see it helping Embraer in any way other than just direct injection of cash in exchange for equity. If Boeing re-starts is prior talks with Mitsubishi, as is being rumored, then that could further devalue Embraer's commercial business and make any potential deal less attractive for both parties. Its tough to see Brazil agreeing to a JV or a straight up acquisition of Embraer unless the partner presents a clear path for the company to succeed or at least be better off on the commercial side.

Partially agreed.
having said that, not all problems needs to have straight line solution.

We are shouting all time about monopoly of HAL in domestic aerospace market & private sector not getting any meaningful encouragement & support (confirmed order of substantial quantity to invest and run an assy. line).

Embraer issue needs not to given to HAL's to solve (means govt funding directly to HAL for going for a partial kill at Embraer). A willing private entity (like Tata Aerospace) may be encouraged to go for it, a specific model (which suits Civilian MTA & Military role with appropriate modifications and certifications) to get from Embraer at bargain price. TOT, manufacturing licence and IP for desh specific changes made.
Govt can say we assure you X number of Military orders (IAF+IA+ IN+ CG etc) in next 10 years

Financial help to the willing private entity can be extended through long duration ultra cheap loan through SPV constructed for this task.

Where is a will , there is a way out.
Point is that acquisition a stake or right of specific model(s) from Embraer by an Indian entity does gives up some advantage in terms of saving time and going totally from drawing board stage to production of TD version or Prototype version.

For cryogenic engine from Russia, even after US sanction we did took lots of innovate ways to get some part of the design documents. Why ??? Because we desperately believed we need it for our space program to progress.
Same philosophy applies here.

That's all well and good from the Indian perspective. I was speaking of the deal as it would look like from Brazil and Embraer's perspective. They take pride in the fact that Embraer has done well in aerospace and want to see it do well and flourish. Embraer's problem is that as it expands it has little leverage over its supply base relative to what some of its competitors exercise. This is why a Boeing acquisition would have been so good for them. Boeing has a large supply chain operation and this would have really helped streamline Embraer's SC issues. EOS and bargaining power would have been much higher compared to them as a stand alone company. Its about being better positioned within the global aerospace supply chain and how Embraer can change its current dynamics with its supplier base. Boeing and Airbus have squeezed their SC and continue to find ways to do it even more (and this would have helped further) and as a result many of those players have in turn exerted more influence over some of the smaller companies with whom they have more leverage. The Boeing valuation would have also priced in the fact that post Airbus-Bombardier/C-Series, the balance in terms of volume could have shifted towards Airbus with them exercising more bargaining power and the Embraer volume could be used to partially offset that.

As I wrote, if one of their competitors like a Mitsubishi strikes a deal with Boeing then some of these issues only get worst for Embraer. I think they would either prefer consolidation within their core business niche or would like one of the big players to come and scoop them up. Most of the military side of things were excluded (to the commercial extent) anyways and it is possible that Embraer just keeps the split intact even if the Boeing deal is totally dead and doesn't get brought back after a short period of time.

[brar_w]

Something that we should be looking to develop is Raytheon's XM1155 ERAP. It is Ramjet powered artillery with range in excess of 100 km.
Perfect for delivering goodies from kargil to skardu.

The XM1155 ERAP isn't a Raytheon program. It is a US Army program for which Raytheon is presenting one solution. At least two other competitors exist in this space with one of them already having demo'd its basic round to the US Army back in 2018. It is a long range SEAD/DEAD and High-Value-Target (C2, GPS-jammers, TEL's etc) destruction munition which aims to double the current 65 km range of cannon artillery. It's like a Next Gen. M982 Excalibur with a very specific target set [reference the "operating environment" in the slide below] that can probably justify lobbing an artillery round for which the US Army has previously expressed a willingness to pay approx 2X that of the M982.

US Army is trying to create redundancy and overlap between its tactical fires systems at range. Currently fielded Guided MLRS gets them around 75 km range, and Excalibur overlaps that with 65km out of ERCA. XM1113 though less accurate (PGK) than Excalibur will get to 70 km once it is fully qualified (2022). So near complete overlap.

Similarly, by 2023, Extended Range GMLRS will go out to 150 km (a stepping stone to eventually reaching 200 km within the same magazine capacity) and then they'd also want the XM-1155 to be able to create some overlap with that system. By US Army's own admission the XM1113 RAP is a conservative design because they valued schedule over risk or performance. Expect a future iteration of that that could probably shoot further than 70 km range of the current system. It could possibly evolve into a 100 km lower cost "near-precision" alternative to the XM1155 (just like PGK and Excalibur exist in the current trade space depending upon the target set).

[arvin]

Thanks brar for the info.
Just checked the Arty thread. Something similar is under development here.
https://zeenews.india.com/india/iit-mad ... 65374.html

[brar_w]

Thanks brar for the info.
Just checked the Arty thread. Something similar is under development here.
https://zeenews.india.com/india/iit-mad ... 65374.html

I've read about the IIT project earlier. It needs large financial backing and made into a priority by MOD. Involve the operator from day-1. Otherwise it risks getting stuck at a university project. Many teams around the world are working on a ramjet powered artillery round or have been at it for years. Raytheon's partner (TNO) on its XM1155 solution has already developed its propulsion and conducted flight demonstrations on an unguided munition. Similarly, Boeing's partner (NAMMO) is getting ready to enter flight demonstrations in a couple of years.Russia has a mature program as well. South Korea had a plan to pursue this as well but their initial flight demonstrations failed to get to their 80 km target so they've re-configured their program. US Army's range target is likely to be closer to 120 km guided (58 cal ERCA). Propulsion isn't likely the most challenging technology for the XM1155 application. An 80% mature solution already exists in the HVP. It's a turn key system and has been tested from US Army's M777 Howitzers. The challenge will be to get the terminal guidance via either an RF or IIR seeker application (ideally IIR with passive RF as well). Getting that level of performance out of a terminal seeker within the cost targets and the gun launched environment will be quite challenging. All that range is useless if Raytheon or Boeing or BAE can't show 1) Accuracy, and 2 ) The ability to do unassisted terminal guidance in a GPS degraded or denied environments, possibly against moving or relocatable targets. In fact, Raytheon has allready acknowledged that it is developing its solution with an eye out on moving targets so covering the threat set described in the slide from my earlier post.

[arvin]

The challenge will be to get the terminal guidance via either an RF or IIR seeker application (ideally IIR with passive RF as well). Getting that level of performance out of a terminal seeker within the cost targets and the gun launched environment will be quite challenging. All that range is useless if Raytheon or Boeing or BAE can't show 1) Accuracy, and 2 ) The ability to do unassisted terminal guidance in a GPS degraded or denied environments, possibly against moving or relocatable targets. In fact, Raytheon has allready acknowledged that it is developing its solution with an eye out on moving targets so covering the threat set described in the slide from my earlier post.

Yes, the challenge would be one of a kind. Most IIR seeker applications have a gentel launch be it drop from pylon
or launch from canisters. Nothing like shock inside a artillery tube.

[brar_w]

The US Navy is already making good progress to that end (autonomous seekers for gun applications) with its HVP seeker application (besides command guidance or SAL). I believe a 5" gun launched seeker test is planned for next year for multiple seeker proposals.This type of work (SWaP optimized IIR seekers) is right up Raytheon's ally which explains their interest on the program. Rest of the tech will be ported over from the Excalibur round itself.

[brar_w]

[NRao]

Sir there is a discussion going on that continuous touch screen viewing increases astronaut “nausea” ...also about its usefulness in heavy vibrations...

May be dragon should abandon full screen controls just like they dumped powered landing

Autonomous flight mentioned above. The screens are an override and will be "tested" (ref below on test flight).

Non-crewed Dragons have collected enough data about vibrations.

That data has been used in simulators, where these two astronauts have spent a huge number of hours - simulating worst cases - which includes vibrations.

The two astronauts are veterans - USAF/Marines test pilots and have been to space a couple of times. Both their wives are astronauts too. They all have experienced what one can experience. Unlike us posters who can "discuss" about nausea/vibrations, they know what all that is.

Besides this is a test flight. Meant to collect data. But, unlike the "dumped powered landing", which had parachutes as an alternative build into the system, there is no backup for these touch screens.

The Boeing Starliner has a touch screen too!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3npH87wGXUk

[brar_w]

I remember when the F-35 cockpit was first revealed its competitors said that it was a wrong move to go all touch and that pilots wouldn't like it. A decade plus later most of the competitors have or plan to head in a similar direction. There is usually some aversion at least initially when you do something differently to what has been done in the past. But if it is done for good reason it quickly becomes the new norm. Especially if you've had operators involved in its design, development, testing and integration. Tough to imagine a clean sheet spacecraft system now being designed with excessive use of button, knobs, gauges, or switches compared to more cleaner, and configurable, touch based displays.

[SBajwa]

SpaceX first astronaut mission

[ldev]

And Elon my man has done it!. Pole position and win.
Using the Falcon 9 as the launch vehicle vs the Falcon Heavy is like using the tried and tested PSLV vs the GSLV Mk3!!

[ldev]

And to think that barely 20 years ago, Musk was trying to buy de-commissioned Russian ICBMs to use as cheap launch vehicles. The best thing to have happened to him is the Russians did not take him seriously and refused to sell him the ICBMs, saying that he is a "boy" who knows nothing about rocket design and space!!. That started him on the journey to develop the Falcon 1. And credit to NASA that they funded him with a $2.6 billion launch contract days after the first Falcon 1 launch back in 2008. They took a chance on him and it has paid off big dividends for them.

[brar_w]

And they even brought the first stage back! Exciting time ahead for NASA and US space efforts with Starliner, DreamChaser (Cargo), Orion and Artemis. And somewhere between all of those, DARPA will demo its Blackjack program.

[NRao]

Feb, 2020 : Air Force, SpaceX to test Starlink capabilities in upcoming live-fire demonstration


May 26, 2020 : SpaceX signs testing agreement with US Army for use of Starlink network

[brar_w]

They used Starlink for ABMS demonstrations as well. But they've said that StarLink or any other commercial bus is unlikely to serve Blackjack or other similar space based needs. There they prefer a commercial approach to design and production but a Mil specific payload and optimization. It does provide the ability to rapidly experiment though and that is probably a big plus in validating some of these things.

[NRao]

^^^^^

True.

‐------‐-‐--------------------

[SBajwa]

and it returns back to Earth

[brar_w]

That is from last year's unmanned mission.

[Mort Walker]

I wonder what the range record is for guided precision artillery but this is probably close -

I wonder if Skardu could get nailed by these if they were deployed north of Kargil? It needs testing at high elevation.

[brar_w]

The Indian Army already has the munition for its guns. The 58 cal ERCA is what allows it to get to that 65 km range and the 70 km range for the XM1113 RAP with LR PGK. Max range shots will have to be adjusted for gun firing it and can swing anywhere from 35/40 km to 65 km for Excalibur depending upon what is firing it.

[Mort Walker]

^^^The shells would have to be compatible with the M777 ordered from BAE systems and the Dhanush.

[brar_w]

^^^The shells would have to be compatible with the M777 ordered from BAE systems and the Dhanush.

Excalibur is combat proven with the M777 (it's been used over 1,000 times in combat), and would work on IAs K9s, and the family is also compatible with a whole host of other 155mm guns. The IA can qualify it for Dhanush as well. It should be pretty straight forward. So far the only official video released by the Indian Army fired it from the M777 but tough to imagine that they won't have plans in place to enable others to fire it as well, particularly the K9.

What the 58 cal ERCA max range shots prove is that the round can still hold its accuracy, M-Code and other A-PNT capabilities (those are probably for US only variants) even at those extreme ranges not previously tested with the munition. This would give confidence to the IA and other 155 mm/52 cal users when employing the munition at its max range with their weapons (which is likely going to be closer to 50 km).

The Excalibur munition is compatible with every howitzer with which it’s been tested. This weapon is fully qualified in multiple systems, including the M777, M109 series, M198, the Archer and PzH2000. It’s also compatible with the AS90, K9 and G6 howitzers. Plans are underway to integrate it with other mobile artillery systems.

https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense. ... projectile

The variant that the IA purchased comes with, or is capable of accepting, the EST upgrade. This would probably be of some interest to the IA.

[mukkan]

Does SpaceX really resuse the returned stages? If they did already in experimental missions before, will they risk reusing for the next manned mission?

And they even brought the first stage back! Exciting time ahead for NASA and US space efforts with Starliner, DreamChaser (Cargo), Orion and Artemis. And somewhere between all of those, DARPA will demo its Blackjack program.

[brar_w]

Does SpaceX really resuse the returned stages? I

Of course they do. What's the point of landing them out at sea and bringing them back? They've run multiple missions with first stages brought back. I think they have stages that they've reused 5 times..and they're just getting started so its early days for the company.

will they risk reusing for the next manned mission?

It would be up to NASA to certify as per its wishes. It's paying for the launch. Same applies for USAF launches. For Commercial launches, SpaceX has more freedom to make that decision and reusability would no doubt be reflected in the prices they quote to their potential customers.

[ldev]

Does SpaceX really resuse the returned stages? If they did already in experimental missions before, will they risk reusing for the next manned mission?

They have re-used the first stage multiple times for cargo/satellite launches. But their current contract with NASA (6 manned launches I believe) to the ISS calls for using only a new first stage for manned missions. So they will re-use the first stage from manned missions for satellite launches or cargo rendezvous with the ISS.

[SBajwa]

[NRao]

A few very interesting details about landing, the first
stage, especially at sea.