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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 18 Jul 2020 17:13

Boeing progresses Red Hawk EMD testing


Boeing is progressing the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) element of its contract to deliver 351 new T-7A Red Hawk advanced jet trainer aircraft to the US Air Force (USAF), reporting 80% completion of the first phase.

Speaking at the company’s first ‘virtual’ pre-Farnborough International Airshow event on 14 July, Vice-President of International Sales, Strike, Surveillance and Mobility Thomas Breckenridge said that the first of three EMD phases had completed more than 200 test flights of the two production-representative jets (PRJs) currently flying.

“Significant progress is being made, [and] we are on track for initial operating capability in 2024,” Breckenridge said, added that many of the USAF performance targets had been exceeded.

With EMD Phase 1 proceeding on track, Breckenridge noted that hot-weather trials, high angle-of-attack (AoA) with no nose boom, and a continuation of in-flight engine restart tests would be conducted during the next few weeks.

News of the good progression followed the successful completion of the USAF’s critical design reviews (CDRs) for the aircraft. This milestone, announced by the US Air Force Life-Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) on 9 June, was reached when the Aircraft CDR and overall System CDR were signed off as important steps on the path to production for the Red Hawk, solidifying the aircraft and subsystem designs.

The conclusion of the Aircraft CDR and System CDR followed the successful completion earlier in the year of the CDR for the ground-based elements of the jet trainer. The T-7A Ground Based Training Systems (GBTS) CDR paved the way for manufacturing on the ground-based elements of the USAF’s aircrew training system to commence.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 452
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby pandyan » 20 Jul 2020 08:14

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1283346029237043200
So, here we have the USAF acquisition Chief Will Roper saying:
'US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry'
So, even the world's largest military-industrial complex is finding it hard to do 'price discovery' & keep competition going.


https://www.defenseone.com/business/202 ... ys/166894/
The United States might need to nationalize parts of the military aviation sector if the Pentagon does not come up with new ways to buy planes that stimulate more competition in private industry, a top Air Force official warned.

Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, spoke Tuesday morning as the service finalizes ambitious plans to buy a new series of combat fighter jets called the Digital Century Series.

“We have multiple vendors who can still build a high-end, tactical platform,” Roper told reporters. “I think it’s really important that we find a new model where there are no big winners and no big losers, but continual competition.”

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the only U.S. companies that make tactical fighter jets. Boeing’s F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Super Hornet are considered a generation behind Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. Boeing and Sweden’s Saab are building the new T-7 pilot training jet.

Northrop Grumman is the only U.S. manufacturer of a heavy bomber. Boeing’s KC-46 is the only aerial tanker in serial production and Lockheed’s C-130 Super Hercules tactical transport is the only military cargo plane in production. There are no strategic, long-range military transports in production.

Roper hopes his Digital Century Series plan will attract a new generation of engineers to the defense sector and provide a model for buying different types of military aircraft.

“Technical talent is at a premium,” he said. “If the design opportunities are so few and far between that joining a defense company means you may get to design one thing in your career … — and that’s if you’re lucky — that that talent will go elsewhere into commercial innovation where the opportunities are more plentiful.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 20 Jul 2020 08:27

pandyan wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1283346029237043200
So, here we have the USAF acquisition Chief Will Roper saying:
'US May Need to Nationalize Military Aircraft Industry'
So, even the world's largest military-industrial complex is finding it hard to do 'price discovery' & keep competition going.



Hyperbole is an effective tool when employed strategically. It is budget season and the said (extremely talented) bureaucrat's pet projects are under threat from budget cuts or at least facing challenge from highly assertive congressional staffers who want to double check his work. Context is important.

You "buy" the redundancy that you can afford. Three and then two (Lockheed aligned with Boeing after the re-baseline of that program) companies bid for a stealth bomber. All three could have done it based on decades of relevant subject matter expertise. There are at least 3 OEM's capable of designing and manufacturing fighter aircraft of the highest order. Possibly four if these things morph into something else completely. 3-3.5 missile design and mfg. teams exist and space has more players than it has ever had. Short of 5-6% of GDP being spent on defense, how much more do you really want before sustaining that many becomes a strategic and budgetary drag? And what about the partner capacity that you have created that counts towards your own strategic strength? Companies like BAE, Rolls Royce, SAAB and even Airbus were allowed to enter the US market and buy US firms and talent pool (with adequate firewalls). That capability is also a source of military capability..So while the C-130 is the only transport platform that remains in production, the A-400 is still there in Europe. What was the alternative? Keep on buying C-17's that you really don't need (beyond just a handful more?). That has inefficiency of its own because it takes away from things you actually do need. Better to take that money and pour it into R&D so that when you do have the need to replace the C-17 you actually have something that meets the needs as opposed to scrambling because all you did was pour those resources into buying stuff designed decades ago..

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 20 Jul 2020 14:16

Rakesh wrote:The JA-37 Viggen was powered by a Volvo RM8 turbofan, which was a licensed produced version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D.

The same is true for the JAS-39C/D Gripen which is powered by the Volvo RM12 turbofan, which is a licensed produced variant of the GE F404.

The JAS-39E/F Gripen is powered by the F414G turbofan, also from General Electric.


Every fighter in the world basically comes down to an engine from the US, France, UK or Russia. Not really a lot of choices.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22833
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chetak » 20 Jul 2020 21:29

Rakesh wrote:The JA-37 Viggen was powered by a Volvo RM8 turbofan, which was a licensed produced version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D.

The same is true for the JAS-39C/D Gripen which is powered by the Volvo RM12 turbofan, which is a licensed produced variant of the GE F404.

The JAS-39E/F Gripen is powered by the F414G turbofan, also from General Electric.

it was not a licensed produced version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D.

it was a volvo funded and volvo developed version of the civilian JT8D which included a volvo designed afterburner.

Since the engine had an undeniable ameriki pedigree, the amerikis had the final say if and when this engine was exported or the viggen fighter was destined for buyer not approved by the amerikis

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 678
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ricky_v » 21 Jul 2020 07:06

https://theconversation.com/uae-mars-mission-extraordinary-feat-shows-how-space-exploration-can-benefit-small-nations-143038
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) successfully launched its Mars mission dubbed “Al Amal”, or “Hope”, from the Tanegashima Space Centre in southern Japan on July 20. This is the first space mission by the UAE, and the first Arab mission to Mars – making the world’s first launch countdown in Arabic a moment for the history books.

With no previous domestic space exploration experience, planetary science capacity or suitable infrastructure, the nation managed to put together a delivery team of 100% local, Emirati staff with an average age of under 35. And setting a deadline of six years rather than ten, as most comparable missions do, it pulled the launch off on time and within budget – now proudly joining the small cadre of nations who have launched a mission to reach Mars.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Wickberg » 21 Jul 2020 16:38

chetak wrote:
Rakesh wrote:The JA-37 Viggen was powered by a Volvo RM8 turbofan, which was a licensed produced version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D.

The same is true for the JAS-39C/D Gripen which is powered by the Volvo RM12 turbofan, which is a licensed produced variant of the GE F404.

The JAS-39E/F Gripen is powered by the F414G turbofan, also from General Electric.

it was not a licensed produced version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D.

it was a volvo funded and volvo developed version of the civilian JT8D which included a volvo designed afterburner.

Since the engine had an undeniable ameriki pedigree, the amerikis had the final say if and when this engine was exported or the viggen fighter was destined for buyer not approved by the amerikis


Nor are the RM12 a licensed produced variant of the GE F404. Volvo Aero bought a license to improve the 404 and then produce it as the RM12. Only 50% of the original engine remains, the rest is Volvo designed.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22833
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chetak » 21 Jul 2020 17:48

Wickberg wrote:
chetak wrote:it was not a licensed produced version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D.

it was a volvo funded and volvo developed version of the civilian JT8D which included a volvo designed afterburner.

Since the engine had an undeniable ameriki pedigree, the amerikis had the final say if and when this engine was exported or the viggen fighter was destined for buyer not approved by the amerikis


Nor are the RM12 a licensed produced variant of the GE F404. Volvo Aero bought a license to improve the 404 and then produce it as the RM12. Only 50% of the original engine remains, the rest is Volvo designed.


thus effectively placing both the volvo powered aircraft/volvo improved engines under the ITAR.

may be we should once again try seriously to get the volvo engine guys to help out with the kaveri

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby darshan » 21 Jul 2020 17:59

With chinese buying up commercial side of Volvo auto and having access in the region, one wonders how much they have vacuumed up the non car related information.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 21 Jul 2020 18:51

AvWeek gives a detailed run down on what the F-35 block -4 program entails and how and when the capability drops are expected to come. New computing, new sensors, new weapons, and expanded performance on current sensors. Big focus on EO/IR and Electronic Warfare systems and additional radar modes.

Plus a higher production rate and lower per unit cost.

Lengthy F-35 Upgrade List To Transform Strike Fighter’s Future Role


This is the vision for the Lockheed Martin F-35 program in 10 years:

A worldwide fleet of more than 2,000 fighters is in service with a still-growing list of customers. Sales are spurred by a unit procurement price and cost per flight hour equal to or only slightly higher than a fourth-generation fighter. Yet the newly modernized Block 4 fleet of F-35s boasts 25 times more computing power than the version of the aircraft operating today, enabling the software-based onboard fusion engine to mine data from a far more advanced set of active and passive sensors.

As the situational awareness in cockpit expands, the pilots have a variety of new weapon options available: the ability to carry six Lockheed Martin AIM-260 or Raytheon AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles internally; a maritime strike capability of the Joint Strike Missile; and the use of new long-range strike missiles, such as the future Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) internally and possibly a hypersonic cruise missile carried externally. Meanwhile, the Lot 22 F-35 rolling off Lockheed’s assembly line in 2030 also can access a new class of air-launched attritable stores that add vast new sensing capacity, multiply weapon loadouts and, depending on the mission, serve as kinetic options themselves.

The F-35’s role has already evolved from standard counterair and strike missions. The Army and Navy now use the F-35’s sensor data remotely to guide their interceptors to knock down incoming missiles. The Air Force’s decentralized command-and-control system relies on the F-35’s processing power, sensor data and communication hooks to orchestrate a wider attack in all domains. F-35 pilots still train to perform traditional fighter missions, but the role the aircraft plays defies the vocabulary of the Air Force’s designation system.

A decade may seem too short for such an evolution in one program, but it is possible. Ten years ago, the F-35 was still in crisis mode: With the flight-test fleet grounded for most of 2009, the supply chain was reeling. Ashton Carter, who was then the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, later acknowledged that proposals to cancel the program had been briefly considered during that period.

To date, Lockheed has delivered more than 500 F-35s to nine countries, with another three countries signed up for still more. The unit flyaway cost of an F-35A will fall to $77.9 million for aircraft delivered in 2022 as part of the 14th lot of yearly production.

In plotting the program’s next decade of development, a similar narrative of early struggles is becoming clear.

The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) identified the first 66 hardware and software upgrades listed under the Block 4 Follow-on Modernization in a report to Congress in May 2019. The first eight upgrades were due to enter service in 2019, but because of unexpected complications, only one of them—an automatic ground-collision avoidance system—was released to the operational fleet on time. Other improvements, such as an interim full-motion video capability for the Marine Corps’ F-35B fleet, fell behind due to later hardware deliveries, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in May.

The JPO also adopted an agile development process for Block 4. The upgrades are still organized in four major increments—Block 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4—and smaller batches of new capabilities are released in six-month cycles, a process called Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2). Lockheed, for example, is scheduled to complete development of 30P5 software in the third quarter of this year, which will be followed by software drops called 30P6 in the first quarter of 2021 and 30P7 in the third quarter of 2021. The agile development method is intended to reduce the scale of delays caused by a release of a large batch of flawed software every two years, but it is not a panacea. As the software from the first C2D2 release entered testing, new problems appeared, such as Block 4 software code causing “issues” for Block 3F functions that had been working, according to the GAO.

The next major advance for the Block 4 program should arrive in 2023. This Block 4.2 configuration will be the first to include Technical Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware, which includes a new integrated core processor, an aircraft memory system and a panoramic cockpit display system. As the first cockpit computing for the F-35 since Block 3i appeared in 2016, the TR3 will enable a leap in sensing capability, especially for the BAE Systems ASQ-239 electronic-warfare system.

The TR-3 upgrade, however, also is facing development challenges. The F-35 JPO is seeking a $42 million increase in spending on TR-3 in fiscal 2021 to offset higher “technical complexity.”

“Suppliers are challenged to meet a demanding schedule with one holistic hardware-software system; therefore, interim releases of hardware [will] reduce risk and enable parallel software development,” the Air Force said in a budget justification document for fiscal 2021.

The latest F-35 selected acquisition report (SAR), which was released by the Defense Department in early July, reports similar issues with TR-3, citing specifically higher costs due to additional support needed to help one supplier manage the complexity of a field-programmable gate array used in the new processor system. The development of the integrated core processor and the aircraft memory system also are suffering delays, according to the annual SAR.

As the TR-3-equipped Block 4.2 configuration arrives in the fleet, the F-35’s power to sense targets and threats passively should rise enormously. The upgrade also paves the way for a critical update to BAE’s electronic-warfare system, especially the jamming techniques generators embedded in Racks 2A and 2B of the ASQ-239. BAE also plans to upgrade the wing-leading-edge-mounted receivers in Bands 2, 3 and 4 as well as activate new Band 5 receivers from broad spectrum coverage from very low to extremely high radio frequencies. Aided by the more powerful processors introduced by TR-3, the F-35 may be able to develop jamming techniques as it encounters new signals not previously stored in the aircraft’s mission data files. Such a capacity for so-called cognitive electronic warfare is becoming critical as adversaries shift to software-defined radios and frequency-hopping radar arrays.

If the current schedule is maintained, the TR-3 and Block 4.2 upgrades arriving in Lot 15 aircraft will include more than improved computing power. Lockheed is modifying the internal weapons bay to enable the “sidekick” upgrade, which increases the Raytheon AIM-120 missile loadout by 50% to six missiles. As the Lockheed AIM-260 becomes available, the same loadout will become possible with a missile measuring the same length as the AIM-120 but with significantly more range.

The same modification also accommodates the dimensions of the Air Force’s new SiAW missile, which adds a new warhead to the Navy’s Advanced Antiradiation Guided Missile-Extended Range. An Israeli-funded program to add wing-mounted fuel tanks to the F-35’s loadout options also should become available and would increase the range by 25% if the mission does not require minimizing the aircraft’s profile on radar.

By the end of the decade, operating the F-35 could be very different from how the aircraft’s designers in the late 1990s had anticipated. The Air Force’s Skyborg program seeks to introduce a new family of ground- and air-launched aircraft that can serve as autonomous teammates, or wingmen, for F-35 pilots. “Skyborg” itself refers to the development of a new autonomous control system that can be trained to perform a diverse set of missions. The Air Force expects F-35 pilots to use the Skyborg-equipped aircraft much like reusable munitions; in other words, a missile that can be fired and, if no worthy target appears, recovered and used again.

The capabilities envisioned by the F-35’s designers two decades ago are now available in operational aircraft, albeit several years later than originally envisioned and for higher procurement and operating costs. As the next decade unfolds, the JPO and Lockheed will seek to add capabilities that have become defined only within the last decade and to adopt several concepts, including Skyborg and SiAW, that have emerged only recently. The history of the F-35 program is characterized by overpromising and underperforming in the development phase. As Block 4 development transitions from concept to reality, the challenge will be avoiding similar missteps.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jul 2020 20:58

Chetak: Volvo funded and Volvo developed version of the civilian JT8D would not exist, if there was no JT8D engine to begin with. As you say, the engine has an undeniable Amreeki pedigree. The Swedes have improved upon the JT8D design and called it the Volvo RM8. But it is undeniably an American engine. That is like HAL saying the AL-31FP is built from raw material stage in India. Is the AL-31FP really an Indian engine? If it was, why is GTRE struggling with Kaveri?

Wickberg: With over 50% of the RM12 turbofan being of the GE F404, is that really a Swedish engine? The heart of the plane uses an American engine. Improvement of the GE F404 does not take away the fact that the engine is American. Considering Volvo's experience with the RM8 and RM12, one would imagine they could do a clean sheet engine design for the Gripen E. But they went with the GE F414 turbofan, an excellent engine. It is funny when Saab says that they will provide 100% tech transfer if Gripen wins the MMRCA contest.

Beyond the United States (GE and Pratt & Whitney), United Kingdom (Rolls Royce) & France (Safran) and then Russia (Saturn and Klimov)...and in that order....no one has produced a viable turbofan to date.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 21 Jul 2020 22:18

Rakesh wrote:Chetak: Volvo funded and Volvo developed version of the civilian JT8D would not exist, if there was no JT8D engine to begin with. As you say, the engine has an undeniable Amreeki pedigree. The Swedes have improved upon the JT8D design and called it the Volvo RM8. But it is undeniably an American engine. That is like HAL saying the AL-31FP is built from raw material stage in India. Is the AL-31FP really an Indian engine? If it was, why is GTRE struggling with Kaveri?

Wickberg: With over 50% of the RM12 turbofan being of the GE F404, is that really a Swedish engine? The heart of the plane uses an American engine. Improvement of the GE F404 does not take away the fact that the engine is American. Considering Volvo's experience with the RM8 and RM12, one would imagine they could do a clean sheet engine design for the Gripen E. But they went with the GE F414 turbofan, an excellent engine. It is funny when Saab says that they will provide 100% tech transfer if Gripen wins the MMRCA contest.

Beyond the United States (GE and Pratt & Whitney), United Kingdom (Rolls Royce) & France (Safran) and then Russia (Saturn and Klimov)...and in that order....no one has produced a viable turbofan to date.


Not quite, Admiral Saar.

The chinis do have turbofans in the WS-10 and the WS-13 (tested on JF-17 and rejected by pakis) that are powering fighters. The WS-10 is in hundreds of J-11s and J-16s and recently on J-10s and J-20s. The questions are whether they "viable" in any plane other than their own -- who else would put up with them? We won't really know until the first is exported. (In the mean time, Russia not Cheen is developing a higher thrust engine for the JF-17.)

But whatever their current situation it looks like now they are going full bore in the industry with uprated WS-10 and WS-13 variants and the WS-15 and WS-19 coming up. And lots of planes in PLAAF that can be forced to accept them.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Wickberg » 21 Jul 2020 22:27

Rakesh wrote:Chetak: Volvo funded and Volvo developed version of the civilian JT8D would not exist, if there was no JT8D engine to begin with. As you say, the engine has an undeniable Amreeki pedigree. The Swedes have improved upon the JT8D design and called it the Volvo RM8. But it is undeniably an American engine. That is like HAL saying the AL-31FP is built from raw material stage in India. Is the AL-31FP really an Indian engine? If it was, why is GTRE struggling with Kaveri?

Wickberg: With over 50% of the RM12 turbofan being of the GE F404, is that really a Swedish engine? The heart of the plane uses an American engine. Improvement of the GE F404 does not take away the fact that the engine is American. Considering Volvo's experience with the RM8 and RM12, one would imagine they could do a clean sheet engine design for the Gripen E. But they went with the GE F414 turbofan, an excellent engine. It is funny when Saab says that they will provide 100% tech transfer if Gripen wins the MMRCA contest.

Beyond the United States (GE and Pratt & Whitney), United Kingdom (Rolls Royce) & France (Safran) and then Russia (Saturn and Klimov)...and in that order....no one has produced a viable turbofan to date.


I never said it was swedish. I just said It´s not a licensed produced version of the GE F404. It´s a Volvo Aero engine called RM12, which is based on the GE404. After the JT8D and the Viggen export failure IG JAS made sure the Gripen would not be sanctioned due to engine, therefor contracts were signed so that the ITAR does not effect the RM12. Other american products in the fighter does however fall under ITAR but they can easily be replaced. Some years ago SAAB proposed the Gripen with the Israeli EL/M-2052 radar but the americans said no cause the radar contains vital american parts.
(BTW Volvo Aero did propose a souped up version of the RM12 to the Gripen E/F but SAAB chose GE instead)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jul 2020 22:48

Wickberg wrote:I never said it was swedish. I just said It´s not a licensed produced version of the GE F404. It´s a Volvo Aero engine called RM12, which is based on the GE404. After the JT8D and the Viggen export failure IG JAS made sure the Gripen would not be sanctioned due to engine, therefor contracts were signed so that the ITAR does not effect the RM12. Other american products in the fighter does however fall under ITAR but they can easily be replaced. Some years ago SAAB proposed the Gripen with the Israeli EL/M-2052 radar but the americans said no cause the radar contains vital american parts.

(BTW Volvo Aero did propose a souped up version of the RM12 to the Gripen E/F but SAAB chose GE instead)

Saar, you are correct onlee :) I was wrong in stating that it was a licensed produced GE F-404.

The Volvo engine called RM12 sources 50% of her parts from the GE F-404. I assuming that is the hot section of the engine? If tomorrow the Americans sanctioned the Swedes (for some weird reason) and the GE F-404 was on the sanction list, could Volvo make new RM12 turbofans when more than 50% of the engine comes from GE? The Amreekis can agree to whatever they want on paper (i.e. ITAR)....you, I and everyone else (even the Amreekis themselves) know the worth of that paper.

Why did not Volvo offer a clean sheet engine design for the Gripen E? Why go in for GE F-414? Why did Volvo offer a souped version of the engine?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jul 2020 22:50

chola wrote:Not quite, Admiral Saar.

The chinis do have turbofans in the WS-10 and the WS-13 (tested on JF-17 and rejected by pakis) that are powering fighters. The WS-10 is in hundreds of J-11s and J-16s and recently on J-10s and J-20s. The questions are whether they "viable" in any plane other than their own -- who else would put up with them? We won't really know until the first is exported. (In the mean time, Russia not Cheen is developing a higher thrust engine for the JF-17.)

But whatever their current situation it looks like now they are going full bore in the industry with uprated WS-10 and WS-13 variants and the WS-15 and WS-19 coming up. And lots of planes in PLAAF that can be forced to accept them.

While I do not discount the chini effort, to compare their turbofans to their Western counterparts would be bit of a stretch no? As you say, are they viable? If they were, why is JF-17 flying with a Russian RD-93?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Jul 2020 22:59

So the Indonesians are after block 1 Austrian typhoons.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/07/20/indonesia-says-it-wants-to-buy-austrias-entire-typhoon-fighter-fleet/
Note the effect of caatsa and how it scuttled the su35 purchase.

In the meanwhile Turkish f35s will now go to the USAF. Wonder if there was any chance of India getting these birds.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 21 Jul 2020 23:06

There was a very short window between when Turkey was kicked out of the program and when the USAF was asked to begin contracting for these. Realistically, most nations wouldn't have worked out a contract within that time frame probably even existing customers would have struggled. The US Congress was probably looking to adding these into the USAF budget relatively rapidly in case Trump tried to work out a side deal with Erdogan. USAF is getting 62 F-35A's in its 2020 budget, 8 additional will get them to 70 which is right where they would have liked to be anyway (before budgetary realities throttled their request).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 22 Jul 2020 00:07

Rakesh wrote:
chola wrote:Not quite, Admiral Saar.

The chinis do have turbofans in the WS-10 and the WS-13 (tested on JF-17 and rejected by pakis) that are powering fighters. The WS-10 is in hundreds of J-11s and J-16s and recently on J-10s and J-20s. The questions are whether they "viable" in any plane other than their own -- who else would put up with them? We won't really know until the first is exported. (In the mean time, Russia not Cheen is developing a higher thrust engine for the JF-17.)

But whatever their current situation it looks like now they are going full bore in the industry with uprated WS-10 and WS-13 variants and the WS-15 and WS-19 coming up. And lots of planes in PLAAF that can be forced to accept them.

While I do not discount the chini effort, to compare their turbofans to their Western counterparts would be bit of a stretch no? As you say, are they viable? If they were, why is JF-17 flying with a Russian RD-93?


Yes, not comparable at least not yet as far as dependability and lifespan. From what I read, the thrust is there which is why they can put the WS-10 on so many models but they need to replace at multiples of what a Western engine would need to be.

That said, they would be comparable to what Japan, Sweden or India might need to go through if they went for a fully indigenous design. Because no one is sharing this crown jewel in experience you need to develop your own experience through iterations. You might need to make your air force fly on the inferior domestic product for a while to give your industry a chance to grow. If you want the best then of course it will need to come from the Big Four but then you'll never catch up unless a big pie suddenly appears the sky and the US or France simply gives you all their know-how.

So IMHO the amount of projects and aircraft the chinis have put their engine industry through will eventually put them ahead of Sweden and Japan in this space if they aren't already. We'll see if they can export the JF-17 and J-10 with the WS-13/WS-10 or will their customers opt for Russian engines which those chini planes conveniently flies with as well. That will then give an indication to whether they are approaching the Big Four.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 22 Jul 2020 16:47

USAF to take Turkish F-35s forfeited over Russian S400 procurement

The United States Air Force (USAF) is to take the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) due to go to Turkey before that country excluded itself from the programme following its procurement of a Russian air-defence system.\

The US Department of Defense (DoD) announced on 20 July that eight Lot 14 F-35A aircraft intended for Turkey will now be diverted to the USAF instead. The move, which is a consequence of Ankara’s decision to press ahead with its procurement of the Russian S-400 ground-based air-defence (GBAD) system, will see the aircraft modified to the USAF’s fully operational configuration.

The six former-Turkish aircraft that are the subject of this contract announcement are part of a wider USAF procurement of 14 Lot 14 F-35As for USD861.7 million, all of which are due to be delivered by May 2026.

Turkey was due to procure 100 F-35As, and was set to play a major part in the global supply chain for the wider international JSF fleet. However, the US objected to Turkish plans to buy the S-400 GBAD, fearing the Russian system could learn how best to defeat the F-35, and that this knowledge would then be transferred to Moscow via its networked software.

If the S-400 learnt how to neutralise the F-35’s stealth capabilities, then the entire operational effectiveness of the world’s most expensive defence project would be jeopardised, and so in July 2019 Turkey was formally excluded from the programme.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12153
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Jul 2020 17:40

How come China is covered by CAATSA- I think its high time. With China declaring sanctions on Lockheed martin. Pakis must choose either F-16 or JF-17 and retire one of the fleets.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby abhik » 22 Jul 2020 19:57

^^^
Once US moves out of Afghanistan (if and when) its possible US might sanction Pak (or at lest cripple their supply or maintenance of US weapon systems) like they did after Soviet collapse.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Wickberg » 23 Jul 2020 07:19

Rakesh wrote:
Wickberg wrote:I never said it was swedish. I just said It´s not a licensed produced version of the GE F404. It´s a Volvo Aero engine called RM12, which is based on the GE404. After the JT8D and the Viggen export failure IG JAS made sure the Gripen would not be sanctioned due to engine, therefor contracts were signed so that the ITAR does not effect the RM12. Other american products in the fighter does however fall under ITAR but they can easily be replaced. Some years ago SAAB proposed the Gripen with the Israeli EL/M-2052 radar but the americans said no cause the radar contains vital american parts.

(BTW Volvo Aero did propose a souped up version of the RM12 to the Gripen E/F but SAAB chose GE instead)

Saar, you are correct onlee :) I was wrong in stating that it was a licensed produced GE F-404.

The Volvo engine called RM12 sources 50% of her parts from the GE F-404. I assuming that is the hot section of the engine? If tomorrow the Americans sanctioned the Swedes (for some weird reason) and the GE F-404 was on the sanction list, could Volvo make new RM12 turbofans when more than 50% of the engine comes from GE? The Amreekis can agree to whatever they want on paper (i.e. ITAR)....you, I and everyone else (even the Amreekis themselves) know the worth of that paper.

Why did not Volvo offer a clean sheet engine design for the Gripen E? Why go in for GE F-414? Why did Volvo offer a souped version of the engine?


I´m not en aero enginer guy and not got in english. But according to this page https://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.17431 ... -och-stark (you have to translate it to english) the main things was the FADEC and the fans and adept a two-engine solution to a an one engine. And there were lot of things, only 50% of the original engine from GE is in the RM12.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 336
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby pushkar.bhat » 23 Jul 2020 13:41

darshan wrote:With chinese buying up commercial side of Volvo auto and having access in the region, one wonders how much they have vacuumed up the non car related information.

We should stop complaining about what the Chinese do. We don't have a right to do that. Thay break any and all rules to get things done. We use every rule in the book to delay things. Our Babu's have ensured that the armed forces cannot even buy toilet paper without an Acceptance of Necessity and the dreaded 12 steps method.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2378
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby manjgu » 23 Jul 2020 13:52

pushkar.bhat wrote:
darshan wrote:With chinese buying up commercial side of Volvo auto and having access in the region, one wonders how much they have vacuumed up the non car related information.

We should stop complaining about what the Chinese do. We don't have a right to do that. Thay break any and all rules to get things done. We use every rule in the book to delay things. Our Babu's have ensured that the armed forces cannot even buy toilet paper without an Acceptance of Necessity and the dreaded 12 steps method.

16 aane sach

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 23 Jul 2020 20:20

A very detailed article on the P&W F-135 enhancements, F-35 rengining and a bunch of other stuff. F-135 production in full swing with delivery rates approaching 170 engines per year and likely headed to 200 in the medium term, a likely PW9000 derived clean sheet engine for the B-21 already in ground testing, and the adaptive engine demonstrators about to be delivered for ground testing.

In short, lots happening on the propulsion front for 5, 5.5 Gen and 6th gen. capability.

F-35 Propulsion Upgrade Moves Forward Despite Uncertainty


The U.S. military engines market is entering an era of transition with great uncertainty for the timing of the next major combat aircraft program..

The transition era begins with the likely pending delivery of Pratt’s most secretive development project. In 2016, the U.S. Air Force named Pratt as one of seven major suppliers for the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber. The Air Force also has set the first flight of the B-21 for around December 2021. That timing means Pratt is likely to have delivered the first engine for ground-testing. At some point within the next year, Pratt should be planning to deliver the first flight-worthy engine to Northrop’s final assembly line in Palmdale, California, to support the Air Force’s first B-21 flight schedule.

As the bomber engine development project winds down, the propulsion system for the next fighter aircraft continues to be developed, but without a clear schedule for transitioning to an operational system.

The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) is sponsoring a competition to develop an adaptive engine that can modulate the airflow into and around the core to improve fuel efficiency and increase range. The AETP competition is between Pratt’s XA101 and GE’s XA100 designs, with the first engines set to be delivered for ground-testing by the end of this year or early next year....

After spending the last decade focused on completing development of the F-35 and upgrading the software, electronics and mission systems, the JPO is developing a road map to improve the propulsion system through 2035.

As the road map is being developed, program officials also are seeking to stabilize the engine production system. Pratt delivered about 600 F135s to Lockheed through the end of last year, including 150—or about 25%—in 2019 alone. The JPO signed a $7.3 billion contract with Pratt last year to deliver another 509 engines in 2020-22, or about 170 a year...





Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Jul 2020 09:20

Ever just received it's su35s. Now they have
F16s
Rafale
Mig29m
Su35

And they're eyeing eyetalian phoons too :shock:

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Wickberg » 25 Jul 2020 04:30

Rakesh wrote:
Wickberg wrote:I never said it was swedish. I just said It´s not a licensed produced version of the GE F404. It´s a Volvo Aero engine called RM12, which is based on the GE404. After the JT8D and the Viggen export failure IG JAS made sure the Gripen would not be sanctioned due to engine, therefor contracts were signed so that the ITAR does not effect the RM12. Other american products in the fighter does however fall under ITAR but they can easily be replaced. Some years ago SAAB proposed the Gripen with the Israeli EL/M-2052 radar but the americans said no cause the radar contains vital american parts.

(BTW Volvo Aero did propose a souped up version of the RM12 to the Gripen E/F but SAAB chose GE instead)

Saar, you are correct onlee :) I was wrong in stating that it was a licensed produced GE F-404.

The Volvo engine called RM12 sources 50% of her parts from the GE F-404. I assuming that is the hot section of the engine? If tomorrow the Americans sanctioned the Swedes (for some weird reason) and the GE F-404 was on the sanction list, could Volvo make new RM12 turbofans when more than 50% of the engine comes from GE? The Amreekis can agree to whatever they want on paper (i.e. ITAR)....you, I and everyone else (even the Amreekis themselves) know the worth of that paper.

Why did not Volvo offer a clean sheet engine design for the Gripen E? Why go in for GE F-414? Why did Volvo offer a souped version of the engine?


I´m not really sure wich parts were designed by Volvo. According to this page https://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.17431 ... -och-stark (it´s in swedish) the main issues were to make the engine more safe, going from the two-engined Hornet to a single engine Gripen.So the fan is Volvo, to withstand flying into big birds without stalling, the FADEC is also Volvo and so are the entire casing of the engine to withstand more airflow and higher temperatures to create more power.

I don´t know why Volvo did´nt offer a clean sheet engine to the new Gripen. Historically Sweden has never designed an own aircraft- engine. Not even during WW2. The arms companies in Sweden has traditionally only sold their products to the armed forces of Sweden and perhaps a small niche like fighter engines to SwAF onlee were to much of a risk with not enough profit. The same goes with AA missiles.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 25 Jul 2020 05:16

tsarkar wrote:The biggest USP is the Imaging Infra Red seeker that is there only on US SDB-2 that is a much smaller 100 kg class weapon.

No other air to surface tactical weapon in the world today has an IIR seeker.


The Charlie JSOW has had an IIR seeker (along with GPS/INS) for at least 15 years in addition to other powered tactical weapons like missiles (JASSM for example). It's also been fully networked for about 5 years now. The F-16, F-18, F-15E, F-35 and the three USAF bombers can carry it. It's LW-IIR seeker was specifically designed to discriminate objects at long ranges and to be effective against ships in clutter and countermeasures. Adding IIR to a glide guided munition isn't really that big of a challenge for the top players in this field. The challenge is to construct a portfolio and inventory of affordably weapons and to meet unique needs for cost/capability.

The AAASM is highly effective but also highly impracticable to build a large inventory around. IAF will buy and use it sparingly for specific roles and targets. Even the most basic variant is likely 3 times more expensive than a JDAM kit. At least. The JSOW is a lot more expensive too. But it is a specific weapon that sits atop of JDAM, L-JDAM, SDBI/II and can substitute for much more expensive weapons (like a Harpoon or LRASM) when they are not required. So it fills a niche role and the targets it is designed for help justify the cost of buying its inventory. Relying on it when a JDAM would do (and building up an inventory with that strategy in mind) will bankrupt even the US Navy.

Not having the ability to launch either the JDAM or the SDB I (to the best of knowledge) is probably a major handicap for the Rafale when it comes to competing for aircraft procurement in Europe (F-16/18 replacement) and in south east asia. I haven't looked at it but it would be interesting to see what is the lowest cost PGM the rafale can employ in the 100-500 kg class.

The JDAM is bread and butter because it is super cheap. It's super cheap because the cost of its effectiveness resides mostly outside of the weapon (it is in the global GPS constellation, M-code enhancements and the ability to fight the Anti-GPS efforts).

Beyond a specific size of air-campaign, higher capability platform with lower cost PGM's come ahead of lower cost platforms with higher end costlier weapons. This is the same/classic "Cruise Missile" vs Strike aircraft debate and a number of folks have looked at it and done an assessment of cost/value based on a number of war scenarios. You can use these highly exotic and expensive weapons in small conflicts but when you need to chew through thousands of targets if not tens of thousands of potential targets then you can't rely on them.

Hence the pyramid - lower cost, yet highly capable PGM's below and highly specialized, multi-mode weapons at the top for specific targets that justify a $200K+ or more costly weapon. If you can't get that pyramid to work then you need a technological breakthrough because buying your way via quantities of exotic weapons ain't going to cut it. This is why the USAF basically shut down the GBU-X program until Assured PNT technology breakthroughs are made instead of just building a larger SDB II at 5 times ( or more) of a JDAM kit.

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 26 Jul 2020 20:30

The F-35B is really opening up the possibility for many operators as a more affordable way of getting into carrier aviation. Italy, UK, Japan and now South Korea. Spain too and Australia could as well in the future. Even Turkey had plans to field the F-35B at one point.

While the F-35B is the shortest range JSF, and has IWB carriage limitations, it is still more than capable of a 1,000 km combat radius with a payload when operating with STOVL from a flat top. And with reserve fuel to spare for the routine naval margins. That is more than the Harrier with EFT's, and nearly as much with a moderately loaded F/A-18C with EFTs (which probably won't be able to easily take off from a flat top w/o CATs). That is probably plenty of combat radius for almost everyone outside of a very handful of operators who would want longer range and thus a more expensive carrier.

South Korea to buy 20 F-35Bs under phase 2 of FX III


Media reports from South Korea says Seoul has decided that it will buy 20 F-35B stealth fighters for the phase 2 of its FX III fighter program.

The country bought 40 F-35A fighters under phase of the FX III. The original plan was to buy another 20 A models so that the Air Force could replace its aging F-4 and F-5 fighters with 60 F-35As. This plan is now disrupted as the new F-35Bs are slated to operate from a new aircraft carrier that Seoul intends to commission into service in the next decade.

Last year, it was reported that the country is studying two aircraft carrier designs, one is a 70,000 ton design that can carry 32 fighters along with 8 helicopters while the second design is 40,000 ton carrying 12 fighters and 8 helicopters. However, these two designs uses the Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) approach. The move to buy the F-35B could signal that the country is leaning towards the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration that is employed by Britain, Italy and Spain for their carriers

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Cain Marko » 27 Jul 2020 10:25

Cain Marko wrote:Ever just received it's su35s. Now they have
F16s
Rafale
Mig29m
Su35

And they're eyeing eyetalian phoons too :shock:

That's supposed to be Egypt. Damn Swype!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jul 2020 21:09

Not sure how true this is....FWIW.

Brar, please confirm if true or not...

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 03969?s=20 ---> US Government has refused to transfer four critical technologies to South Korea for its fifth generation fighter programme: AESA radar, EO targeting pods, IRST system & RF jammer, despite these being promised by Lockheed Martin when South Korean Air Force signed up for the F-35A via @ShephardNews.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 28 Jul 2020 21:22

Lockheed Martin (Boeing or anyone else for that matter) has no power to promise anything. They sought permission to offer a set of technologies and their own internal data (wind tunnel data for various 5th gen configurations) and other defense wares (I think it was satellite tech). It wasn't that LM just promised all this unilaterally. It originated in the ask from the South Koreans. An ask to all potential bidders. The GOTUS approved some things and didn't approve others. It was a negotiation between the South Korean government and the US Government and they agreed to some things and not others. Where there were sticking points (AESA technology transfer, EO/IR and EW, South Korea chose to go indigenous or looked towards Israel for assistance). Nearly 100% of Israel's fighter AESA program is export focused so they would be more than willing to come in and help out.

Lockheed can't unilaterally promise technologies that were developed by the US taxpayer or are otherwise restricted for commercial sale without prior approval. No country will allow that much independence to its defense industry. So far not even a single F-35 deal has been scheduled as a Direct Commercial Sale. They are all G2G FMS cases so the South Koreans negotiate with the GOTUS on technology transfer and with the vendor only on offsets once they are approved based on G2G level discussions.

There were two US proposals for the South Korean FX competition. Both would have involved assistance with developing ROKAF's home grown NG fighter. Both would have required US approval. There was no other 5GFA available for South Korea to chose from. The Rafale and Typhoon (and more F-15 K's) were significantly inferior from a technology and from a future proofing perspective especially given that the ROKAF already had an F-15K program in place which made buying yet another 4+ gen type a rather pointless exercise (it had evaluated some of the same aircraft then). You must realize that when the ROKAF was looking at offers, neither the Typhoon nor the Rafale even had an AESA radar either operational or beyond single digit test numbers. Not much had changed on these aircraft since the ROKAF last looked at them with most of the improvements not yet fielded (F3R came in a few years later).

The way Boeing scrambled and offered the "Silent Eagle" was a pretty clear sign of how much they thought the ROKAF valued stealth for its next generation fighter purchase. China had 2 stealth fighter programs, one stealth bomber program and a whole host of steatly UAV efforts underway. Plus they could always buy Su-35 or SU-57 over the timeframe/span of the FX. South Korea evaluated the aircraft offered to it under such a security situation and evolving tactical aircraft capability in the region (plus Japan had already secured large F-35 order). If there was "real" competition perhaps the GOTUS would have been more flexible. But why would they want that significant a technology transfer when they are the only game in town? especially in a market where they enjoy a significant position and a security agreement? So the SoKo's got Lockheed's wind tunnel and trade study data, an engine and some other stuff. The rest they would have to develop on their own with Israeli assistance or buy directly from Europe (like Meteor). Not too different from how they approached the much simpler T-50 program for example. And in addition to that they got the F-35A at or lower the cost of what they would have paid for an enhanced Typhoon or Rafale. And in hindsight, the prospects of getting into carrier aviation with the F-35B is just an added bonus with its mission system and some component commonality with the rest of their F-35 fleet. The fact that both South Korea and Japan are upgrading their F-35 fleets to include a STOVL sea borne variant goes to show how much they value the platform and capability. With nearly a dozen nations funding incremental improvements, first with block 4, and later with block 5, it is miles ahead as far as future proofing is concerned. This buys them plenty of time to develop their indigenous capability without having to rush it which entails huge technical and financial risk. Had they gone in for a 4+ gen bird, would their AF have accepted a 4.5 gen interim NG aircraft without IWB and other goodies? As China, and Japan bulked up on 5GFA? Probably not which would have added more cost and risk to their KFX effort.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1147
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Lisa » 28 Jul 2020 23:59

Rakesh wrote:Not sure how true this is....FWIW.

Brar, please confirm if true or not...

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 03969?s=20 ---> US Government has refused to transfer four critical technologies to South Korea for its fifth generation fighter programme: AESA radar, EO targeting pods, IRST system & RF jammer, despite these being promised by Lockheed Martin when South Korean Air Force signed up for the F-35A via @ShephardNews.


Might help, please read (from a very long time ago)

Suspicious of stolen technology, U.S. suspends weapon exports to S.Korea

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ ... 06385.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 31 Jul 2020 21:11

Rakesh wrote:
Sumeet wrote:What people are also forgetting with Rafale which has planned F4 and very possible F5 version (~2030) with 6th generation tech...

Typo saar? Did you mean 5th generation tech? But the main USP of fifth generation is VLO.


It is both VLO and the ability to generate and very efficiently offload lots of data without compromising their signature. High bandwidth, LPD mesh topology links are quite unique to VLO fighters and are miles ahead of what current TDMA based DLs deliver for the relevant parameters. These are unique challenges in terms of discretely offloading lots of data and developing a common actionable fire-control level connectivity.

Since these are high frequency to approaching MMW coverage in the near term, they can't really be tied into an existing comms suite. They require dedicated antennas and apertures that impact OML so if they are baked into the design from the start, then it is a big positive. The way these are heading it won't be long before they undergo yet another significant leap (multi-beam and common apertures with simultaneous receive and transmit capability) in capability when it comes to connectivity. Because these hardware are provisioned and flush mounted on 5GFA, that specific networking aspect will always be a positive going forward.

Image

Also, the impact of VLO on sensor performance and data-fusion is not to be underestimated. An EW suite will be far far more effective when the aircraft is flying at 30,000 ft then when it is flying at below 1,000 ft. It can sense farther, generate a battlefield picture, categorize threats and offer a plethora of offensive and defensive options. When you are at 500 ft altitude you can't really see all that far or all that well so organic capability to generate a comprehensive picture of the battlefield is greatly diminished. You have to rely on other partners in the fight and their ability to maintain favorable flight conditions at an appropriate range to provide that data. This may be easier to do for defensive ops, but for penetrating operations inside the forward edge of the battle area there may be limitations to how many aircraft can penetrate and at what altitudes with what SA. This is why AF's are willing to pay a premium for penetrating stealthy platforms and why the German/French (and even IAF) are incorporating VLO in the designs. these benefits aren't lost on the operators. Not all targets are cooperative to a point where they can allow you nice mission_planned GPS coordinates prior to taking off. Sometime penetrating platforms have to find, fix and do BDA organically or part of the penetrating force. For this you need your sensors to function optimally. There is a great quote from the Israel Air Chief on the SA and EW picture the F-35 develops the moment it gets airborne. The ability to stay up high and use the sensors to their highest potential allows this to happen. If they were forced to go really low they wouldn't have this capability.
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Jul 2020 21:55, edited 9 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9322
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jul 2020 21:15

Thank You brar. Greatly appreciated.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7754
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby nachiket » 31 Jul 2020 23:05

YashG wrote:
nachiket wrote:The J-20 is by no means a copy of the F-22. The designs are significantly different. If it can be compared to anything it is the Mig 1.44 MFI prototype that flew in 2000 although with stealth shaping and modern avionics added in. Even that resemblance is probably by accident.


I have read on multiple sources - reputed ones that (J-20, F-35) have external similarities and PRC was able to steal data from US F-35 program. But I'll not debate. I can agree I'm mistake here.

Yet majority of my question was if we just copy the external design - do we accelerate our aircraft design by 5-10 years ? Could we have done that ?
But now that we have been honest and learnt our design lessons over time - does it take us ahead of PRC on aircraft design in some aspect. Like was the ROI good enough for a completely new design.

If you have similar design goals and use similar techniques to try and reach them you will end up with similar looking aircraft. Even then, a cursory look at the J-20 will show its design is quite different from the F-22. But all stealth fighters will look broadly similar. Look at the Korean KFX. It looks like a baby F-22, but that doesn't mean the Koreans copied the F-22 design. Even the AMCA designs shown during Aero India have a resemblance to the F-22 and even the F-35 (air intakes, vertical tail fins). Again, does not mean we copied anything.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8860
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 31 Jul 2020 23:08

The F-22 was designed (optimized) for OCA in a European mission scenario for circa late 1990s/2000s. The J-20 is designed as a Strike aircraft for SCS operations and beyond. Totally different requirements. The USAF had already fully fielded the entire F-117 force by the time the F-22 EMD contract was awarded. Had the cold-war not ended, the F-117 would have been retired with a proper replacement (perhaps based on the F-22 like the FB-22, FB-23 and the X-44 proposals). But those design constraints weren't put on the ATF.

The J-20 has long range strike, maritime strike and possibly DCA/OCA all rolled into its mission needs as it is China's first VLO platform. It remains to be seen how well it does in each area. My guess is that it will need a few iterations of refining before it begins living up to the hype.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 31 Jul 2020 23:42

YashG wrote:
nachiket wrote:The J-20 is by no means a copy of the F-22. The designs are significantly different. If it can be compared to anything it is the Mig 1.44 MFI prototype that flew in 2000 although with stealth shaping and modern avionics added in. Even that resemblance is probably by accident.


I have read on multiple sources - reputed ones that (J-20, F-35) have external similarities and PRC was able to steal data from US F-35 program. But I'll not debate. I can agree I'm mistake here.

Yet majority of my question was if we just copy the external design - do we accelerate our aircraft design by 5-10 years ? Could we have done that ?
But now that we have been honest and learnt our design lessons over time - does it take us ahead of PRC on aircraft design in some aspect. Like was the ROI good enough for a completely new design.


The PRC aerospace industry is of an infinitely greater depth and breadth than HAL (which is basically our entire
industry.) The more you chinimil-watch the more you are impressed with not their fighters but all the other stuff like the CJ-6, Jl-9, Y-5, Y-7, Y-8, Y-9, Y-12 that are powered by pistons, turboprops, turbojets.

There is nothing we can do in the short term to take us ahead of all that.

The reason is they built an underlying industrial framework and eco-system in their 60 years from cropdusters to large transports from prop trainers to airliners that'll take decades of our own to build up. We have nothing in transports beyond the Saras.

We skipped the turbojet stage and went straight to a turbofan project. The chinis built thousands of turbojets for thousands of J-6s and J-7s, exporting hundreds.

Right now, we have one domestic fixed wing in production. There is really nothing else being built (farewell MKI line.) The chinis have, in addition to that piston/turbofan/turbojet list I posted above, the turbofan jets in the J-20, J-16, J-15, J-11B/D, J-10C, Y-20 being pumped out in numbers. The H-20 and FC-31 will be coming soon.

How can we get in front of that any time soon?

Again, I am most impressed by that first list. They did their due diligence in the turboprop and turbojet spaces because those support the whole industry as a whole. It is the mark of a mature industry not just a series of projects.

We have the high profile fighters programs onlee.

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby darshan » 31 Jul 2020 23:49

Even when chinese build the commerical places, they have dual purpose in mind. Their eyes are never off the target.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AshishAcharya, souravB, veejey and 49 guests