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
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Just some extraordinarily cool A2A footage from Japan. Yenjaay.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by rajsunder »

Swiss Airforce live firing demo

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... submarines
04 November 2021
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/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 64899?s=20 ---> BIG! Saudi Arabia has requested to buy two hundred eighty (280) AIM-120C-7/C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and five hundred ninety-six (596) LAU-128 Missile Rail Launchers (MRL), etc. The total estimated cost is $650 million.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Cyrano wrote:I was watching a video by youtube analyst (Millennium 7*, an Italian aeronautical engineer and retired fighter maintenance crew) who spoke about Rafale's action over Libya, where Armee de l'Air's Rafales ingressed, bombed, loitered and exited from the Libyan theatre where the Libyan forces who were alerted and were expecting them, never ever got wind of Rafales' action. Very different doctrine and tactics compared to US which relies on heavy SEAD action to considerably degrade adversary's capabilities before flying missions into the theatre. Probably because France cant afford a long and expensive SEAD campaign, and that would also escalate the conflict before intended targets can be destroyed.
The Rafale is equipped with a self-protection suite and stand off attack weapons, so by virtue of that it will need less support than something that doesn't. So while it may execute the targets it is tasked with in one scenario (Lybia) it doesn't mean that you can just set aside the need to SEAD in an air campaign to win future battles or to bring other platforms into play. Case in point is the continued investment of the USN on the Block II Growler, and the USAF and JSF partners heavy focus on SEAD on its F-35 (a much more survivable attack asset than Rafale) follow on modernization. And the fact that the Germans and Italians are also looking at ways to recap their outgoing SEAD/DEAD capability at the earliest possible. Not to mention Russian and Chinese investment into their tactical SEAD systems.

At the end of the day it boils down to objectives. A broad air-campaign would involve both penetrating air-defenses (using whatever you have and employing tactics that work in that scenario) or bypassing them to achieve objective. This is something that your strike packages could be well suited to do because of VLO, EW, weapons etc. But a large part of any air-campaign is to degrade or destroy the enemy's capability to hold you at risk and SEAD/DEAD is a very important part of that. It's part of achieving air-superiority just as the destruction of the enemy's fighter aircraft. The difference here is that self-protection, stealth, stand-off weapons all reduce the burden on escort. However, SEAD/DEAD is a mission in and of itself and a very important one at that. Someone could also draw the conclusion that since the US used B-2 in that campaign, and France didn't, then Rafale must be superior to B-2 when it comes to delivering strike against defended targets :rotfl: .
Cyrano wrote:Very different doctrine and tactics compared to US which relies on heavy SEAD action to considerably degrade adversary's capabilities before flying missions into the theatre.
Is it really a different doctrine if you know someone else can come in and carry that mission in an air-campaign (USN Growler fleet is larger than the current French Rafale fleet) ? France has engineered its air-force to fight within its alliance structure where it knows many missions will be performed by others. It can afford to do that when it knows that others will own that stream and it can concentrate on the missions for which its force structure is more suited. Same reasons why it doesn't own long range strike bombers (even though all its wars are fought far far away from France) or does not have a lot of capacity in many areas required to execute successful air-campaigns (like the ones it gets involved in). So the conclusion here shouldn't be that France has, against all evidence and patterns across the globe, trimmed what it doesn't need and has the Rafale to do what it needs. The conclusion is that France, through the Rafale, accomplishes the capabilities that it has determined that it must bring to the fight as part of NATO or another western alliance. The things that it doesn't do or that French AF isn't equipped to handle is being provided by someone else. So they've developed their core capabilities with their alliance structure in mind which is smart. Larger AF's within NATO like the USAF have done the same. they know that many NATO partners like France, can bring in strike fighter capabilities to the table, while only it can provide heavy strike or logistics at scale. This has allowed the USAF to shrink down to 54 combat fighter squadrons for example but they are planning to actually increase their bomber footprint (it's a unique capability that partners cannot provide).

You don't, for example, see that in the IAF which is creating SEAD focused capability for SU-30 MKI's, and other systems. In any broad protracted air-campaign, finding, fixing, degrading or destroying fixed and mobile air-defense systems (and not just working around them) is going to be a top priority. That is not going to change as long as you have sophisticated air-defense systems that can deny air-superiority.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Nov 2021 22:06, edited 2 times in total.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Cyrano »

Thanks for your informative post Brar_w ji.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but SEAD/DEAD capability is required if one wants to overrun the adversary and establish air dominance, often as a prelude for a land invasion or a sustained bombing campaign isn't it ? US SEAD/DEAD doctrines have evolved from conflicts that happened far away from home, and not across its mainland borders. So the worse that can happen is air dominance is not achieved, some assets are lost, but there is no increased risk of escalation by the enemy or counter offensive on US territory. Its a very different scenario for India with its hostile neighbours.

I don't know if IAF & IA are actively adding capabilities and preparing for SEAD/DEAD these days. Not because they cant but the political leadership has to have an answer to "what next?" that comes after establishing air dominance if adversary will escalate with missile strikes or other, or when our own land forces can move forward. In other words, SEAD/DEAD missions might not be the preferred options since it would escalate the conflict and necessitate a larger scale of action which the current Govt doesn't see much merit in pursuing wrt to Pakistan, at least for the next few years.

Ditto with China, for different reasons. After SEAD/DEAD, moving forward and holding the territory is logistically very challenging in Ladhak or even in Arunachal because of altitude and terrain. China's numerical superiority of air craft means India can afford to take a lot less losses in SEAD/DEAD missions than the Chinese can. (China has other problems trying SEAD/DEAD vis a vis India - high altitude air fields constraining payload being one)

Plus both adversaries are N-capable which creates additional disincentive for escalation.

Therefore, while I can't read our Mil & Civil leadership's minds, I tend to think short & sharp missions by competent strike packages like what we did in Balakot will be favoured, since the objective is not to overrun and give cause to escalate, but to send a message "mend your ways or else worse will follow" or degrade/destroy a specific asset that gives them significant tactical leverage and could be hurting us.

It is in this scenario and role that Rafale's performance in Libya is interesting, while I take your point that Libya's radar detection and personnel won't rank up there with Pakis or Chinese. India's border geography provides us some good terrain masking options, and detection will be quite late for the adversary. This coupled with some VLO, EW, right mix of weapons like you mentioned, India can achieve its present day objectives fairly well with a multi-role aircraft like Rafale.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Cyrano wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but SEAD/DEAD capability is required if one wants to overrun the adversary and establish air dominance, often as a prelude for a land invasion or a sustained bombing campaign isn't it ?
SEAD/DEAD is needed to both establish air-superiority, win air-campaigns, draw the enemy to the negotiation table (when it knows its leadership, and critical targets are no longer protected) and to accomplish strike objectives in very heavily defended areas where IADS can create scenarios that would impart a very high cost if SEAD/DEAD is not done - cost that may be a deterrent and effectively lead to a mission kill.
US SEAD/DEAD doctrines have evolved from conflicts that happened far away from home, and not across its mainland borders. So the worse that can happen is air dominance is not achieved, some assets are lost, but there is no increased risk of escalation by the enemy or counter offensive on US territory. Its a very different scenario for India with its hostile neighbours.
If your enemy is capable, and can field layers of air defenses then at some point you will have to deal with them even if you have a very large VLO fleet like what the US forces are building (1000+ VLO aircraft by end of decade). This doesn't change much if your enemy is 100 km away, or 5000 km away. If you lots of targets that are very well protected and your enemy has the ability to deny you air-superiority through a mix of CAP and IADS then you have to deal with both.
I don't know if IAF & IA are actively adding capabilities and preparing for SEAD/DEAD these days.
Evidence on this very forum would point otherwise. The IAF is investing in SEAD/DEAD weapons, receivers, and jamming pods. All these are essential elements in any tactical SEAD/DEAD campaign.
Plus both adversaries are N-capable which creates additional disincentive for escalation.
It really doesn't. If China decides to put 2 S-400/HQ-9/S300 etc batteries and layers upon layers of mobile Short to medium ranged systems in tibet or elsewhere, the IAF will do all in its capacity to neutralize that advantage during conflict. Why? Because these systems will allow China the maneuver space to field offensive capability knowing that there is significant protection that these systems provide from air attack. That safety has to be denied and those offensive systems targeted. To do that efficiently, and at scale, you need a combination of survivable aircraft, and the ability to degrade the AD coverage. You can rest assured that China will attempt to do the same against IA/IAF systems deployed in theater as well. We aren't talking about going and trying to take out the ABM shield over Beijing which might be escalatory with some strategic implications. We are talking about tactical systems and a limited theater conflict.

I think you are mixing scenarios involving limited confrontation with a full fledged air-campaign. The latter is where SEAD/DEAD becomes vital. The US will likely not use SEAD if they were to do a limited surgical strike against a well defended target. They will use their stealth aircraft, and penetrating weapons for that. But if the balloon goes up, and you need to execute a full fledged air-campaign with much broader objectives (with tens of thousands of distinct aimpoints), then you will have to deal with some very heavy IADS that would need to be neutralized during the course of the campaign. That's when the EC-37s, EA-18's, F-16CJ's and many F-35 units will be tasked with that specific mission. The same will be true for France if it gets involved in any campaign. When it participated in the Gulf War, there were coalition units tasked with that mission. They might not have been French units, but someone had dedicated resources to it and it was being done. You had US Army Apache's take to the Iraqi EW sites as the some of the first units to cross into Iraq during the air-campaign. Same over Libya. Just because the French weren't tasked with it doesn't mean A) It wasn't needed, or B ) It wasn't handled by someone else or C) It wasn't useful (if not vital) in achieving objectives.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Cyrano »

Thanks again, I was indeed referring to limited confrontation scenarios. Full fledged air campaign means all out war and India would want to avoid that as much as possible. You're right, India & IAF/IA need to be ready for SEAD/DEAD missions in that scenario too though IMHO they are less likely to be the preferred options.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

For a limited skirmish or a surgical strike type scenario, surely the Rafale with its EW self-protection, and the ability to employ Storm Shadow and other SO weapons is going to be a strong conventional capability that builds on the IAF's already existing capabilities. But again, from a capacity perspective that is still a niche capability when you transition from a surgical strike type scenario and move to an all out air-campaign so that's when you can't rely on a few squadrons of Rafales equipped with cruise missiles alone - you'll need a broader anti-IADS strategy than that. As I mentioned previously, even with 1000+ stealth aircraft, the US joint forces too maintain and continue to build on their SEAD capability and we know that several F-35A squadrons in the USAF will replace the F-16 CJ's so will be dedicated to SEAD. At the end of the day, while IADS are not as capable as frontline high performance fighters running DCA, they still pose a significant challenge (not to mention that they are a lot cheaper to field and operate compared to adv. fighters). And it isn't limited to the large S-300, S-400 systems. Short to Med. range highly mobile systems operating with decoys are going to probably take up much more resources and create more headaches than the large systems.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by arvin »

^^^
Interesting concept.
With the current prototype, at 8.10 in the video they are able to launch upto 10km after spinning with a 33 m dia arm.
Got to admire the precision release mechanism for the projectile.
10 km is also the release altitude for Cosmic Girl B747 rocket.
Good achievement to reach there without any chemical use and purely by electro mechanical means.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Manish_P »

'Few megawatts over an hour and half' ... isn't that rather a lot of electricity?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote:'Few megawatts over an hour and half' ... isn't that rather a lot of electricity?
It'll pull that off of the grid so not really a huge deal. Even military systems that are currently used consume more than 1 MW of power (via generators) when operating. Feeding it power is the easiest part of all the challenges for them between getting them from where they currently are (sub-orbital demonstrations) to actually paying customers for payloads in LEO.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by arvin »

^^^
Actual paying customers would be military I think.
None of the chotu cubesats will be designed for the high G forces inside the chamber. Also the rocket once out if the tube will be hitting the sea level air at Mach 6. That would be another shock inducing event. Only artillery shells will have the strength to withstand the force and shock.
At 90° inclination it went upto 10 km height. At 45 ° inclination,
may be used to propel ram jet artillery. Would be rather expensive way to propel it as compared to chemical means.
The data from the experiment would be worth its weight in gold for the investors.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

What you say could all be true. Such is the nature of a high risk startup. That said, investors who funded them so far must have seen some plans from the company on the applicability of their launch tech towards commercial launches. Concurrent to their development of the launch system, they are also working on the launch vehicles (powered second stage) and doing testing to show that commercial products can survive the stresses of their launch mechanism. They are being smart about it as not only are they trying to de-risk their spin launch system, they are also investing their early funding into proving that commercial sattelites can be designed to be launched off of it, going so far as to do demonstrations for the industry on spin-launch survivable satt. components such as solar arrays and payloads. We’ll see where this goes.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Nov 2021 21:04, edited 2 times in total.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Manish_P »

brar_w wrote:
Manish_P wrote:'Few megawatts over an hour and half' ... isn't that rather a lot of electricity?
It'll pull that off of the grid so not really a huge deal. Even military systems that are currently used consume more than 1 MW of power (via generators) when operating. ..
What i was wondering about was how is the few megawatts for a couple of hours in comparison (in generation costs and energy efficiency) to equivalent amount of current solid state and liquid state rocket fuels.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by chetak »

Rakesh wrote:Australia Could Push To Acquire Retired US Navy Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... submarines
04 November 2021
good luck to the dumb aussies.

Don't they have a weekday navy and that go home for the weekend nookie

even the britshits haven't managed to get hold of a us navy los angeles class nuclear submarine yet

Rakesh ji,

Even if you put lipstick on a pig, .......................
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote:
brar_w wrote:
It'll pull that off of the grid so not really a huge deal. Even military systems that are currently used consume more than 1 MW of power (via generators) when operating. ..
What i was wondering about was how is the few megawatts for a couple of hours in comparison (in generation costs and energy efficiency) to equivalent amount of current solid state and liquid state rocket fuels.
Most areas in the US would be at 12-20 cents per KwH (residential rates) so times that by 1000 so unless I made a mistake with my math, it probably would be a few hundred to a few thousand dollars an hour of electricity consumption depending on how much power their 100 meter system needs. Alternatively, these types of launch sites could be remote and they could build themselves a local generation capability or could use diesel generators, or build a renewable farm and compensate the grid for their consumption. They are aiming (its a tall order) to reduce the cost to put a small satellite up by an order of magnitude so that's the basis of their design choice.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Boeing Pushes P-8A Pod To Boost International Sales


Image
Boeing is using Dubai Airshow 2021 to showcase an internally funded multi-role belly pod for the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft.

The pod is designed to house a wide range of sensors and mission systems, including potential multiple configurations of equipment provided by operator nations.

Housed under the forward fuselage on the center weapon station, the pod has already attracted interest from P-8A operators like Australia and the UK, says Stu Voboril, P-8A vice president and program manager. “With the ability to put new sensors in it, potentially developed using in-country capabilities and sensors, this allows them to do different missions than just the standard P-8A.”

“We’ve got a lot of traction for that from the international community lately and they are very interested in it,” says Voboril, who adds that Boeing is willing to negotiate whether the pod is sourced from within the company or from the operator country based on the Boeing design. “We’re very open to any of those options and we think that could open up a larger market space.”

With the imminent delivery of the first P-8A to Norway and a recent order win from Germany, Boeing now has eight international customers for the 737-derivative outside of the primary operator, the U.S. Navy. “The international demand for the P-8A continues to grow, even the U.S. Navy is still getting nine more aircraft with Lot 12 for their reserve squadrons,” says Voboril, who adds that the service is hoping for further funding to meet its stated requirement for 138 aircraft. A further two P-8As have been proposed in the fiscal 2022 U.S. defense budget request which is still under negotiation.

The first P-8As for New Zealand and South Korea are also due for delivery in 2022 and 2023, while further aircraft are in production for existing operators such as India, which is working with the U.S. Navy on a repeat buy for up to six aircraft. “The timing for this is coming up on us really closely here over the next couple of months,” says Voboril. Additional potential international operators include Canada as well as Saudi Arabia—rumored to have been in talks over ordering the model since 2017.

Boeing also expects additional market traction from the growing sophistication of maritime threats and increasing obsolescence of older patrol aircraft such as the Lockheed P-3.

“We continue to see more submarine capability from various nations being fielded at a pace we haven’t seen since the Cold War, and with the P-3 retiring over the years the P-8A is a logical contender,” says Voboril. The company puts the potential P-3 replacement market at around 75-plus aircraft.

Developed with the same digital design tools used for Boeing’s T-7 advanced trainer, the pod will attach to existing attachment, power and cooling access points already provided for payloads such as the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System and the follow-on Advanced Airborne Sensor radar. “Customers might want to do signal or communications intelligence or different kinds of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, and have their own functions or their own mechanisms to do that using their own capability within country,” says Perry Yaw, Boeing’s leader of P-8 global sales and marketing.

Although fully designed, the pod still needs to go through airworthiness certification. The timing of that will be customer dependent, says Boeing. “If it is multiple nations then we’ll have a coalition or a partnership, and work through all the air-worthiness testing to get the pod certified,” the company adds. The company says wind-tunnel tests also indicate a negligible drag penalty for the installation.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Yagnasri wrote: AMCA is not a silver bullet- Stealth is not infallible. Already countermeasures for stealth are coming up as per reports
6. Cost of AMCA and requirement - Even the F35, which is being made in large numbers, is not cost-effective, and the US is going ahead and continuing to include 4th Gen aircraft in large numbers. Why? Cost wise and solution wise it makes to have a large number of 4th Gen aircraft around into the foreseeable future.
There will always be a mix because forces can't just rip the band-aid off and start afresh for budget and readiness reasons. But the points mentioned there are not very valid. If signature reduction on frontline combat aircraft (by orders of magnitude) is not going to cut it (not that it is the only arrow in the 5GFA quiver), then the impact of that on non signature optimized aircraft will be even more severe (physics). Secondly, the US Air Force is going to increase its 5th to 4th gen ratio / mix over the entire decade. The F-35A is already its second largest fleet (approx 300 aircraft), and will be the largest by 2029 (surpassing the F-16 fleet). Currently, it will occur at a rate of 2-3 full squadrons (effectively a wing) a year. Overall, starting say 2023, 80% of all fighters purchased by US forces (all three services/branches) will be 5GFA.

So while they are limited by budgets, the direction that they want to go towards is pretty clear. AMCA will provide the IAF with a survivable first day strike and air-superiority platform, and will be many timed more effective compared to 4.5 gen aircraft for a whole host of reasons. You are right, it like all other types with all other AF's, will co-exist with previoius gen aircraft because it takes decades to turn over an entire AF the size of USAF or IAF unlike say some of the smaller European operators that will be pure 5GFA by mid 2020s. But the IAF is fully backing AMCA as can be seen from the top bosses mentioning it and its 5GFA capability as essential to its future modernization. The IAF sees value in technologies like LO, embedded sensors, LPI/LPD communication, and advanced propulsion that form the basis of 5th gen designs. That said, AMCA is a mid 2030s and beyond capability and the IAF will likely need to order a couple of hundred (if not more) aircraft between now and then. This is just the reality of force modernization and capacity management for it. The 80+ MK1A's, and 100+ MWF's will probably both come ahead of the AMCA with the IAF taking deliveries of these between 2025 and 2035 at roughly 18-24 a year on average.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Nov 2021 20:58, edited 2 times in total.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Vicky »

Unconfirmed reports that Russia might have conducted a Kinetic ASAT test against a real satellite Kosmos-1408 (1982-092A) in the last day.

https://twitter.com/Skyrocket71/status/ ... 6402246667
There are reports, that Russia has conducted an Anti-satellite (#ASAT) weapons test. Target was an old Soviet Tselina-D SIGINT satellite called Kosmos-1408 (1982-092A) launched in 1982, which has been dead for decades. 14 debris objects have been tracked.
https://twitter.com/russianforces/statu ... 3591390218
On Telegram, #warbolts posts NOTAM that suggests another Nudol test between 15 and 17 November
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Cyrano »

France launches 3 satellites to detect, triangulate and spy on electromagnetic emitters

2nd attempt successful

http://www.opex360.com/2021/11/16/la-fr ... en-europe/

You will need to google translate the page
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

Tweet VIA Deborah Haynes
@haynesdeborah


BREAKING: A British F35 jet from the UK’s flagship aircraft carrier has crashed into the Mediterranean while flying and the pilot has ejected in the first such incident to impact HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Hostile action is not thought to have been involved.

An investigation will likely focus on potential technical or human error. The £100 million next generation
@RoyalAirForce F35 jet is thought to be in the sea and has yet to be recovered.

Eight British F35 jets are on @HMSQNLZ along with 10 American F35s. They are the B variant of the stealthy, top secret next generation Lockheed Martin jet, which can take off at a short distance and land on a carrier.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is returning to the UK after more than 7 months at sea on a maiden voyage to the Far East and back.
The incident occurred at approximately 10am UK time in international waters. No other vessels or aircraft were involved.

It is understood that a comprehensive military air investigation will be conducted urgently.
All other F35 operational and training flying will continue.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Oh No! It says the pilot ejected. I hope he is okay.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

At least their budget cuts didn’t impact their CSAR capability. This is the third overall F-35B loss (first for a non US operator) for the type since the program began deliveries with one crashing after a collision with a KC-130 tanker during refueling.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Losses are bound to happen. That is okay. Just the nature of flight, especially military flight.

Any word on the pilot? Also, any word on the recovery of the aircraft? Otherwise it will soon end up in Beijing.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

They may or may not decide to recover. You don't have to recover the aircraft but can do other things to it that would make recovery, or assessment post recovery, impossible or impractical.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Thanks brar. Pilot is safe. Thank Goodness.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/146 ... 61344?s=20 ---> An F-35B from HMS Queen Elizabeth has crashed into the Mediterranean Sea. Pilot ejected safely and back on the carrier.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

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 (?)

https://twitter.com/mahmouedgamal44/sta ... 82309?s=20 ---> IMPORTANT: France is close to finalize a contract with the UAE for a possible sale of Rafale fighters jets, most likely F4 standard. An announcement regarding the possible deal could be made during Macron's visit to Abu Dhabi this December.

Le Rafale proche du Graal aux Emirats Arabes Unis
https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/de ... 89122?s=09
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

These are the upgraded aircraft that have been brought up (for the most part) to the F-16V standard. Taiwan also received approval for 66 new F-16V aircraft which will be delivered over the course of this decade.

Taiwan Has Declared Its Upgraded F-16V Fighter Jets Fully Operational


Image
Taiwan has officially introduced to service its first wing of upgraded F-16V fighter jets, the most advanced in its inventory, as the Republic of China Air Force, or ROCAF, continues to face down its Chinese adversary amid tensions between Beijing and Taipei. In the process, Taiwan has become the first Viper operator anywhere in the world to field combat-capable F-16Vs.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing Wen was at Chiayi Air Base in southwest Taiwan today to formally declare the resident 4th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) fully operational, as the first ROCAF wing to be equipped with F-16Vs. She inspected the flight line at the base and was photographed seated in the cockpit of an F-16V, as seen at the top of this story. According to reports, 64 of the jets have now been upgraded, but it’s not clear if all of these are assigned to Chiayi. The event had been expected to take place earlier in the year but was delayed, reportedly by a combination of the COVID pandemic and a number of accidents involving ROCAF aircraft.

“I believe that as long as we adhere to the values of democracy and freedom, there will be more like-minded countries standing on the same front with us,” President Tsai said at the event, according to Reuters, calling for international support as the country continues its face-off with Beijing, which has not ruled out retaking the island by force.

Today’s milestone follows an announcement in March this year that the first F-16Vs had achieved initial combat capability at Chiayi, signaling the start of active training on the jets. At that point, it was reported that more than 22 F-16Vs had been delivered to the 4th TFW.

Originally, the ROCAF expected to receive 144 F-16Vs, which are conversions of its existing F-16A/B jets, but this number has since been reduced to 141 through attrition in its existing Viper fleet. Lockheed Martin upgraded the first two ROCAF F-16Vs, the first of which took to the air in October 2015, and these served as pattern aircraft for Taiwan's Aerospace Industry Development Center (AIDC) to complete the remaining upgrades locally.

Work to retrofit the whole fleet is due for completion by the end of 2023. The next wing to be equipped with the upgraded jets will be the 5th TFW at Hualien Air Base on the northeast coast. While the F-16V name is applied almost universally to these aircraft, AIDC still confusingly refers to them as F-16A/B Block 20 MLUs.

Although we’ve already discussed in some depth the advantages of the Taiwanese F-16V configuration, it’s worth noting that these fighters now possess the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR), with an active electronically scanned array (AESA), providing much-increased detection and engagement ranges. You can read all about the particular features that the SABR brings to the F-16 this previous feature of ours.

At the same time, information from the SABR and from other sensors is now presented on a new center pedestal display, for improved tactical situational awareness.

Another important development is the introduction of more robust landing gear, able to take heavier fuel and weapons loads. This will be especially important for the F-16V’s offensive missions, which include anti-shipping, using the AGM-84 Harpoon missile. Other important weapons capabilities likely to be incorporated in the Taiwanese F-16V include the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation (HARM) missile for defense suppression, the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), and the Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER). Of these, the SLAM-ER with its range of 170 miles will provide a powerful new long-range precision-strike capability with a range greater and accuracy than the indigenous Wan Chien missile. Sales of the JSOW and SLAM-ER to Taiwan were approved in 2017 and 2020 respectively.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by ldev »

The F-35 is the UAE's first choice. The sale was first proposed under the Trump Administration and held up for review by the Biden Administration. Potential obstacles are maintaining Israel's qualitative edge and the proposal to set up a 5G network by Huawei in the Emirates. If the deal falls through then the UAE is likely to look for alternatives including the Rafale.

Will the UAE actually get the F-35
Getting the F-35 isn’t just a matter of upgrading the UAE’s military. There is also a major prestige factor at stake; the UAE has long thought of themselves as the likely first Arab recipient of the jet, and they cannot imagine being excluded from the program, said Assaf.

“They consider themselves as totally legitimate,” said Assaf. “The UAE is the US’s closest Arab ally and is now deepening its partnership with Israel, sharing with both countries most of their strategic concerns and geopolitical priorities. Enhancing interoperability with their allies is, too, a high priority for their Armed Forces.”

Hence, the UAE is motivated to make the deal happen — and there are plenty of supporters in Washington, thanks to the industrial impact and a desire to keep the Emiratis closely tied to US strategic interests.
So as a plan B, the UAE could go for either a Russian alternative or a sort of a second best fighter jet, probably the French Rafale. At least, that’s on paper. Analysts are less convinced that’s a real option for the UAE.

“That will only happen if they sense that there will be more delays in the [F-35] program or that strict conditions are imposed to the use of the F-35s or if there is a risk of further downgrading their systems,” said Assaf.

The UAE will consider procuring fighter jets from other countries “if and only if the deal with the US falls apart,” predicted Saab. “Abu Dhabi fully understands how sensitive this topic is for US decision makers.”
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

Both will come.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

The UAE has been engaged to get the Rafale and F-35 for many years. This is in line with their fourth gen acquisition where they bought both European and US. They’ll do the same here with the F-35 replacing the F-16s and the Rafale replacing the M2K. They have long wanted to be the first Arab nation to operate the F-35 and it appears that they will be..
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:If the deal falls through then the UAE is likely to look for alternatives
It won't fall through (though there could be delays etc). In principle, the current administration likely has no issues with letting them have the deal the previous administration signed. The sticking point is 5G and Chinese suppliers and those are terms to negotiate over and not something that will all of a sudden lead to a cancellation of a prior approved deal.

The UAE is also unlikely to accept the vanilla block 4 configuration that everyone else has so there will likely be some customization so this was always expected to be a second half of the 2020s capability for them. They will probably receive their aircraft at the same time or right after Poland.

U.S. intends to move forward on F-35 sale to UAE, U.S. official says
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by Rakesh »

brar_w wrote:They may or may not decide to recover. You don't have to recover the aircraft but can do other things to it that would make recovery, or assessment post recovery, impossible or impractical.
Check this out...

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/146 ... 61217?s=20 ---> Straight out of Tom Clancy — UK approaches US to help trace crashed F-35B from seabed in east Mediterranean, keeps watch on general crash area to ensure Russia/China don’t steal the jet to harvest its tech. Report by @CombatAir.

Britain Wants America’s Help In The Race To Retrieve Its Crashed F-35 Off The Seafloor
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... e-seafloor
18 Nov 2021
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

They don't need to recover a large part of the aircraft to make it useless for an adversary who may go searching. Depending on the recovery, you can recover sensitive equipment, and even demolish what you don't need or can't easy recover. The USN has good experience with these ops and has the infra to do this at short notice globally or at least in parts where it routinely deploys.

Navy breaks its deep-sea salvage record with recovery of Seahawk helicopter near Okinawa

The Navy has recovered a Seahawk helicopter lying 3.6 miles below waters off the coast of Okinawa, breaking its depth record for recovery of sunken aircraft.

The twin-engine Sikorsky MH-60S had crashed into the Philippine Sea on Jan. 25, 2020 while operating from the amphibious command ship USS Blue Ridge.

The air crew escaped with only minor injuries.

The Naval Sea Systems Command’s Supervisor of Salvage and Diving was tasked with salvaging the submerged copter resting 19,075 feet below the surface of the water, the Navy said in a news release issued Tuesday.

The Navy located and documented the wreckage last spring using side-scan sonar and photographs of the helicopter, the Navy said.

Earlier this month, personnel from the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving returned to the crash site with a deep-water, remote-controlled vehicle called CURV 21, which can dive to maximum depths of 20,000 feet.

A salvage ship with a deep-lift reel contracted from Guam arrived at the site March 17, and the helicopter was pulled to the surface the next day.

The chopper was transported to the Navy base at Yokosuka, Japan, from where it will be shipped back to the United States, the Navy said.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by brar_w »

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.
The Russians completed S-300 deliveries to Iran in 2016-2017 IIRC, so they will be in no rush to give them S-400 for a while still despite of Iran wanting it badly. Iran too is extended through its proxies and isn't in an economic condition to pay a lot of money for the S-400. Russians are still selling it for quite a lot of money and would like to do it for quite a while still before trying to negotiate with someone who doesn't have those type of funds and would want favorable terms. But it is a given in the mid to late 2020s. 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.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Post by arvin »

https://spacenews.com/jwst-launch-slips ... -incident/
NASA said that, working in conjunction with the European Space Agency and Arianespace, it has delayed the launch of JWST on an Ariane 5 from Dec. 18 to no earlier than Dec. 22 to perform additional testing of the spacecraft after the incident.

In that incident, according to the NASA statement, a “sudden, unplanned release of a clamp band” that secures JWST to its launch vehicle adapter “caused a vibration throughout the observatory.” Those activities, the statement added, were the responsibility of Arianespace.
Launch date slips again in a never ending saga.
Hope nothing went wrong due to clamp band release. The incident seems to have occured inside the payload fairing.
Launch date never seems to be stable for this particular observatory.
Post Reply