International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 28 May 2020 02:31

Russia sends Su-35S' to intercept P-8A, sends MiG-29 and Su-24s to Libya

Image

Image

Imagery from U.S. airborne targeting/surveillance systems show a MiG-29 (above) and an Su-24 (below) during their deployment to Libya. (Photos: U.S. Department of Defense)


For the third time in two months Russian fighters have intercepted a U.S. aircraft over the eastern Mediterranean in what the U.S. Navy described as “an unsafe and unprofessional manner.” The latest encounter occurred on May 26 and involved two VKS (Russian aerospace forces) Sukhoi Su-35 “Flanker-Es” flying from Hmeimim air base in Syria, which intercepted a Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft flying in international airspace. The Su-35s shadowed the P-8A for 65 minutes, during which time they took up close station on either side of the P-8, “restricting the P-8A’s ability to safely maneuver.”

This encounter follows two similarly “unsafe interactions” in April and led the Navy to state: “We expect them to operate within international standards set to ensure safety and to prevent incidents, including the 1972 Agreement for the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas (INCSEA). Actions‎ like these increase the potential for midair collisions.”

These intercepts come at a time when attention in the Mediterranean theater is increasingly focused on Libya, where the Turkey- and Qatar-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli is fighting with the forces of the Benghazi-based Libyan National Army (LNA), which has the backing of Russia, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Led by General Khalifa Haftar, the LNA has been engaged in a civil war with the GNA since 2014.

On May 26, the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) issued a statement of its assessment that Russia is behind the recent deployment of Mikoyan MiG-29 “Fulcrum” and Sukhoi Su-24 “Fencer” aircraft to support the LNA in Libya, a claim that is supported by a series of intelligence photos. Both Libyan factions have reported that six MiG-29s and two Su-24s have been deployed. Africom reports that the aircraft were deployed from Russia to Hmeimim, where they were repainted to “camouflage their Russian origin.” The aircraft were deployed to Libya, with escort provided by two Su-35s for at least part of their transit to Libya.

The MiGs have been deployed to Al Jufra air base, in a desert region south of Surt, where one was spotted along with a supporting Ilyushin Il-76 transport. Saqr al-Jaroushi, the chief of the LNA’s air force, is reported by Bloomberg as saying that the aircraft would be used in the “largest aerial campaign in Libyan history in the coming hours.” Africom’s assessment states that the aircraft have been deployed to support Russian state-sponsored private military contractors that are fighting with the LNA, notably the Wagner Group.

“Russia is clearly trying to tip the scales in its favor in Libya. Just like I saw them doing in Syria, they are expanding their military footprint in Africa using government-supported mercenary groups like Wagner,” said U.S. Army General Stephen Townsend, Africom commander. “For too long, Russia has denied the full extent of its involvement in the ongoing Libyan conflict. Well, there is no denying it now. We watched as Russia flew fourth-generation jet fighters to Libya—every step of the way. Neither the LNA nor private military companies can arm, operate, and sustain these fighters without state support—support they are getting from Russia.”
...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 28 May 2020 15:36

Look! The DC-9 returns! Both the plane and livery look like they're from the 1970s. But with the national carrier accepting it, this turkey will have a fruitful life wasting more fuel per flight than any modern type.

https://mobile.twitter.com/scramble_nl/status/1265662717681156098

Scramble
@scramble_nl
The 1st of 35 #COMAC #ARJ21 for
@airchina
has rolled-out of the paintshop and is in final stages for its 1st flight. Delivery is later this year. #avgeek #airchina (Photo: Pandafoto)

Image

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 454
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby dinesh_kimar » 28 May 2020 16:24

^ it's actually smartly built, using much of the MD-80 knowledge base with better aerodynamics and features, such as a modern supercritical wing, fuel efficient CFM engines and winglets.

If I had to build a new airplane from an existing model, this is exactly what I would have done.

This type has more than 200 orders till date, if reliability can be established over next few years, orders might come from former MD-80 users.

Our Dornier and Avro HS-748 has given us a decent base for building larger , more relevant aircraft, but we have capitalised poorly on it.

For eg, the Dornier we build has unpressurized passenger cabins, and somewhat older features, like older propellers, engines,etc. There was no attempt to tinker with anything, and we fell into a hole dug by ourselves.

RUAG of Switzerland has built a better version, and were trying to sell it to us.

The Chinese, off course, don't work like this. Though communist, they are forced to indigenise all components.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 28 May 2020 16:56

^^^ Yes, Dinesh ji. As I often say, our access to some of the best gear on the market is both a boon and a bane. Chinis had no choice but to indigenize by hook or crook.

It is hard to build up a new local industry when your customers are already used to the international standards and can get what they want from the global market. We can though subsidize purchases of homemade equipment. Even Airbus started off being subsidized to allow it to survive against Boeing during its early years.

Both the Dornier and the 748 were lost opportunies though I think if the chapati accident hadn't happened we would have had more incentive to build on the Avro. The Saras probably affected our decision not to push for expansion of the 228 program.

If Saras had been successful in its initial tests, we'd be in a much better place today. I wonder if the RTA/IRJ thing is still progressing.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 454
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby dinesh_kimar » 28 May 2020 21:19

^ 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 21:30

dinesh_kimar wrote: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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 21:52

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!!

Image

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

Image

chetonzz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 18 Mar 2019 11:11

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chetonzz » 28 May 2020 21:59

dinesh_kimar wrote:^ 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
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 18 Mar 2019 11:11

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chetonzz » 28 May 2020 22:03

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

ldev wrote: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!!

Image

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

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2020 22:26

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ldev » 28 May 2020 23:30

chetonzz wrote: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.

brar_w wrote: 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2020 00:32

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ldev » 29 May 2020 07:07

brar_w wrote: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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 29 May 2020 15:28

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

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 29 May 2020 15:51

dinesh_kimar wrote:^ 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
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby arvin » 29 May 2020 15:54

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
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 10:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Mollick.R » 29 May 2020 16:26

brar_w wrote: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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2020 17:50

Mollick.R wrote:
brar_w wrote: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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2020 18:01

arvin wrote: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).

Image

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby arvin » 29 May 2020 20:41

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2020 21:18

arvin wrote: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
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby arvin » 29 May 2020 22:00

brar_w wrote: 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2020 22:07

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 May 2020 06:22


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 30 May 2020 07:05

chetonzz wrote: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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 May 2020 20:56

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5361
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SBajwa » 31 May 2020 01:35

SpaceX first astronaut mission


ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ldev » 31 May 2020 02:15

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ldev » 31 May 2020 02:36

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2020 07:10

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.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 31 May 2020 08:41, edited 1 time in total.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2020 08:43

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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 31 May 2020 09:39

^^^^^

True.

‐------‐-‐--------------------

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5361
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SBajwa » 01 Jun 2020 03:35

and it returns back to Earth



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 01 Jun 2020 03:42

That is from last year's unmanned mission.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Mort Walker » 01 Jun 2020 04:47

brar_w wrote: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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 01 Jun 2020 06:12

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.
Last edited by brar_w on 01 Jun 2020 06:19, edited 1 time in total.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Mort Walker » 01 Jun 2020 06:19

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

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 01 Jun 2020 06:23

Mort Walker wrote:^^^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
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 01 May 2020 21:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby mukkan » 01 Jun 2020 22:03

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

brar_w wrote: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.



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: srin, Vivasvat and 37 guests