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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 14 Oct 2018 17:10

when stamford raffles declared singapore a free trading port under british (royal navy + mostly indian soldiery in british service) protection , a lot of traders from the state of Johor and malay coasts, java, khmer, champa (vietnam), sumatra made a beeline for singapore and started building it up. seems like indians, muslims, chinese, british have always been part of its fabric. the dutch who were ruling java under their boots were pissed but were not strong enough to push their case....their own play controlling the sunda strait between java and sumatra as a alternative route to the malacca straits lost push after that....

the dutch like to project themselves as a dharmic anti-colonial race of hardworking protestants but they committed untold massacres in Bali where some the rulers, royal families and elites preferred to commit suicide or conduct a last charge into dutch rifles and machine guns rather than pay tribute. the main airport in bali at denpasar is named after Ngurah Rai one such patriot.

finally american threats forced the dutch to reluctantly withdraw while still fanning the flames of unrest and Indonesia became one nation under Sukarno who set about rebuilding the ancient "Mahajapit" kingdom from tatters. independent india's first act was to support the independence of Indonesia.

the Balinese hindus had their own version of the rajput Jauhar and Shaka called Puputan

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Dutch-inte ... %281908%29
https://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2015/1 ... iscovered/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 39153.html

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 14 Oct 2018 17:14

I shall impassively wait for the admins to demand what my post has to do with international aerospace?

my pov is silos, org charts, boundaries , design methods, directorial empires are all bunkum - if the customer does not get something in their hands that serves their use cases and works reliably. customer does not care where or how its made or what cool stuff went in.

likewise we should use every opportunity to expose the real truth which is what I try to do.

have you had enough of the truth? are you not entertained? can you handle the truth? - these are questions we must all ask ourselves rather than scoring points for protocol and decorum.

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Dutch-inte ... Bali-(1906)


The force marched to Denpasar, Bali, as if in a dress parade.[2] They approached the royal palace, noting smoke rising from the puri and hearing a wild beating of drums coming from within the palace walls.

Upon their reaching the palace, a silent procession emerged, led by the Raja being borne by four bearers on a palanquin. The Raja was dressed in traditional white cremation garments, wore magnificent jewellery, and carried a ceremonial kris. The other people in the procession consisted of the Raja's officials, guards, priests, wives, children and retainers, all of whom were similarly attired.[2] They had received the rites of death, were dressed in white, and had had their ritual kris blessed.[6]

When the procession was a hundred paces from the Dutch force, they halted and the Raja stepped down from the palanquin and signalled a priest, who plunged his dagger into the Raja's breast. The rest of the procession began killing themselves and others, in a rite known as Puputan ("Fight to the death").[2] Women mockingly threw jewellery and gold coins at the troops.[2]

A 'stray gunshot' and an 'attack by lance and spear' prompted the Dutch to open fire with rifles and artillery. As more people emerged from the palace, the mounds of corpses rose higher and higher.[2] The whole procession numbered hundreds,[6] and is said to have been over 1,000 people in all. It was mown down by Dutch gunfire.[7]

Alternative accounts describe that the Dutch first opened fire on the Balinese people moving outside of the palace gate, only equipped with traditional krises, spears and shields, and that survivors killed themselves, or had themselves killed by their followers according to the dictates of the puputan.[7]

The soldiers stripped the corpses of the valuables and sacked the ruins of the burned palace. The palace of Denpasar was razed to the ground.[7]

The same afternoon, similar events occurred in the nearby palace of Pemecutan, where the co-ruler Gusti Gede Ngurah resided. The Dutch let the nobility at Pemecutan kill themselves, and proceeded with the looting.

The massacre is remembered locally as the "Badung Puputan" and is glorified as an example of resistance to foreign aggression. A huge bronze monument was elevated on the central square of Denpasar, where the royal palace used to stand, glorifying Balinese resistance in the Puputan.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 14 Oct 2018 17:20

so the guardians of hooman rights and the international court of Hague only spent enough time after massacring 1000 innocent people to loot the corpses and palace of jewelry before moving to the next small balinese kingdom.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1573
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Manish_P » 14 Oct 2018 18:16

chola wrote:
Lol. Like something from a cartoon.


Retd. Air Marshal Anil Chopra has recounted (on twitter) an incident with an IAF MiG 21. A technician was doing post rocketry tests flight checks on a pod, when an unfired rocket got set off blasting his head from the rest of his body.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 14 Oct 2018 20:49

gaurav.p wrote:As per the article, there was another F16 near the one that caught fire. Also in the previous image on the left bottom side, it seems like the radome of the other damaged F16.


Yeah. But for 2nd to be a "collateral" damage, the first one has to be an intended damage. But both are accidental damages. Might be translation error.

gaurav.p
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby gaurav.p » 14 Oct 2018 21:15

JayS wrote:Yeah. But for 2nd to be a "collateral" damage, the first one has to be an intended damage. But both are accidental damages. Might be translation error.

I just copy pasted the headline from the site. :lol:

Collateral meaning from Hoogle baba says "additional but subordinate; secondary" / "situated side by side; parallel". From my understanding, the intent of action doesn't matter to deem it collateral.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Oct 2018 11:15

gaurav.p wrote:
JayS wrote:Yeah. But for 2nd to be a "collateral" damage, the first one has to be an intended damage. But both are accidental damages. Might be translation error.

I just copy pasted the headline from the site. :lol:

Collateral meaning from Hoogle baba says "additional but subordinate; secondary" / "situated side by side; parallel". From my understanding, the intent of action doesn't matter to deem it collateral.


I didn't mean it was error on your side, I know you only copy pasted.
Its OT here so this is last from me on this. "Collateral Damage" has a specific meaning. It was amusing for me that the 2nd aircraft damage was termed "collateral damage". Anyway, back to topic.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36013
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SaiK » 15 Oct 2018 14:44


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Oct 2018 15:25

^ The trials are going better than they expected. As per reports, SRVL's were not supposed to have been carried out until phase 2 of the trials. Next milestone would be an SRVL with an external load and envelope expansion.

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 15 Oct 2018 20:20

The Pentagon's Weapons Are 'Easily Hacked' With 'Basic Tools'

A new government report reveals that it took hackers just one hour to gain access to a weapon system, and the Pentagon didn't change the default password on "multiple" systems.


America’s newest weapon systems—the F-35 jet, missile systems, and other cutting edge machines—aren’t ready to withstand cyber attacks and can be “easily hacked” using “basic tools.”

That’s the finding of a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—a non-partisan agency that investigates issues at Congress’ request. In a report published on Tuesday, the GAO found “mission-critical cyber vulnerabilities in nearly all weapon systems that were under development.” According to the report, software-enabled functions that are “potentially susceptible to compromise” include targeting missiles and flying aircraft.

<snip>

The Pentagon didn’t bother to change the default passwords on “multiple” weapon systems using commercial or open source software, the report says, essentially treating cutting edge military tech like a lazy person treats a new internet router.

“The [Pentagon’s] own testing shows they can be pretty easily hacked,” Cristina T. Chaplain, the lead author of the report, said on the GAO’s podcast on Tuesday. “Until recently, [the Pentagon] was not prioritizing cybersecurity in the development process. Over the past decade or so, [the Pentagon] has really emphasized networking [the weapons systems] and bringing them together which increases the span of their challenge in terms of cyber.”

It was shockingly easy for the GAO’s team to hack into the Pentagon’s weapon systems and take complete control. “In one case, it took a two-person test team just one hour to gain initial access to a weapon system and one day to gain full control of the system they were testing,” the GAO report said.

Another team easily took control of the operator’s terminal for an unspecified weapon system and watched in real-time as the operators responded to the hackers’ disruptions. “Another test team reported that they caused a pop-up message to appear on users’ terminals instructing them to insert two quarters to continue operating. Multiple test teams reported that they were able to copy, change, or delete system data including one team that downloaded 100 gigabytes.”

<snip>

"It points to a potential point of catastrophic failure, which an adversary could exploit in a war,” Peter Singer, a strategist at the New America think tank, and a former researcher for the Council on Foreign Relations, told Motherboard in an email. “The sad thing is that this risk was easily predictable; indeed it has been warned about for literally years.”

<snip>

In another test, simply scanning a weapons system for vulnerabilities was enough to shut parts of the system down. “One test had to be stopped due to safety concerns after the test team scanned the system,” the GAO said. “This is a basic technique that most attackers would use and requires little knowledge or expertise.”

<snip>

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 16 Oct 2018 04:26

Cyber Tests Showed 'Nearly All' New Pentagon Weapons Vulnerable To Attack, GAO Says

October 9, 20185:14 PM ET

[READ THE GAO REPORT HERE]


Passwords that took seconds to guess, or were never changed from their factory settings. Cyber vulnerabilities that were known, but never fixed. Those are two common problems plaguing some of the Department of Defense's newest weapons systems, according to the Government Accountability Office.

<SNIP>

The GAO says the problems were widespread: "DOD testers routinely found mission critical cyber vulnerabilities in nearly all weapon systems that were under development."

When weapons program officials were asked about the weaknesses, the GAO says, they "believed their systems were secure and discounted some test results as unrealistic."

<SNIP............> the report states, "DOD does not know the full scale of its weapon system vulnerabilities."

Part of the reason for the ongoing uncertainty, the GAO says, is that the Defense Department's hacking and cyber tests have been "limited in scope and sophistication." While they posed as hackers, for instance, the testers did not have free rein to attack contractors' systems, nor did they have the time to spend months or years to focus on extracting data and gaining control over networks.

<SNIP>

One issue facing the Pentagon, the GAO says, is the loss of key personnel who are lured by lucrative offers to work in the private sector after they've gained cybersecurity experience.

The most capable workers – experts who can find vulnerabilities and detect advanced threats – can earn "above $200,000 to $250,000 a year" in the private sector, the GAO reports, citing a Rand study from 2014. That kind of salary, the agency adds, "greatly exceeds DOD's pay scale."

In a recent hearing on the U.S. military's cyber readiness held by the Senate Armed Services Committee, officials acknowledged intense competition for engineers.

"The department does face some cyberworkforce challenges," said Essye B. Miller, the acting principal deputy and Department of Defense chief information officer. She added, "DOD has seen over 4,000 civilian cyber-related personnel losses across our enterprise each year that we seek to replace due to normal job turnover."

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 18 Oct 2018 12:57

Exposed by Michael: Climate Threat to Warplanes at Coastal Bases

By Dave Philipps

Oct. 17, 2018

When Hurricane Michael wrecked much of Tyndall Air Force Base near Panama City, Fla., last week, the storm exposed a significant military vulnerability. The base’s F-22 stealth fighter jets may be unmatched in the skies, but they were all but defenseless on the ground, as the powerful storm ripped apart hangars, flooded buildings and scattered debris.

Most of Tyndall’s 55 F-22s were flown away to safety before the storm hit, but 17 of the aircraft had been grounded for maintenance and could not be made airworthy in time. Those jets, worth about $5.8 billion — more than three times what it would cost to rebuild the entire base from scratch — had to be left behind, and many were damaged.

<SNIP>

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Khalsa » 19 Oct 2018 00:47




Found something interesting down that thread you posted.
The Russians did it more than 50 years ago.

https://twitter.com/VtemeTema/status/10 ... 0534553600

Rolling landing, they are just using basic principles mastered by Yak and Harrier teams and applying them.
It is a first for the F-35 team but hardly a first for a VTOL a/c.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 19 Oct 2018 03:06

It is a first for the F-35 and QE. No one ever claimed it was a first in the world. Navies around the world have been doing SRVLs for a while on sea and land. The F-35 itself has been doing it on land for a while now.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 20 Oct 2018 18:01

F-35B test aircraft complete DT-1 trials on Queen Elizabeth; Jane's Navy International

Two F-35B Lightning II aircraft from the F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) have left the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth after completing a first phase of first-of-class flying trials (FOCFT) activity off the east coast of the United States.

Instrumented aircraft BF-04 and BF-05 returned to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, on 16 October on completion of a first phase of Development Testing (DT-1). Queen Elizabeth arrived in New York on 19 October to begin a week-long visit.The two F-35B aircraft from the ITF embarked on Queen Elizabeth on 25 September. According to the RN, the aircraft completed 98 ski-jump launches, 96 vertical landings, and 2 shipborne rolling vertical landings during the course of DT-1.

Prior to completing DT-1, aircraft BF-05 performed first weapon drops during a sortie from Queen Elizabeth . Two inert GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided precision bombs – carried externally on hardpoints 3 and 9 – were successfully released. Queen Elizabeth is planned to depart New York on 26 October to resume FOCFT. Following a short shakedown period, the ITF is due to re-embark the ship in early November to undertake DT-2 trials. These are intended to further expand the F-35B operating envelope on board. Flying during DT-1 exceeded the required threshold, allowing some test points earmarked for DT-2 to be brought forward into DT-1.


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5848
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 21 Oct 2018 05:21

To keep its fighters flying, US military learns from commercial airlines
https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/10 ... itary.html

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2018 16:23

France Started EMALS Talks with U.S. for its future PA NG Aircraft Carrier


The French defence procurement agency (DGA) and the French Navy (Marine Nationale) started discussions with the United States regarding Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for the potential future French aircraft carrier. According to our information, the program will be known as "PA NG" (for porte-avions de nouvelle génération in French).

During the Euronaval 2018 press conference held on September 24, General Sellier, DGA's head of naval programs told Navy Recognition that discussions on EMALS with American counterparts started in the summer of 2018. While he stressed that those were preliminary talks and that no firm decision have been taken (about fitting EMALS on a future aircraft carrier) yet, he acknowledged that the discussions included technical aspects.

As we reported several times in the past, France's future aircraft carrier will likely feature EMALS by General Atomics. The French Navy was briefed by NAVAIR on both EMALS and AAG at the test facility in Lakehurst in 2017.

Issued in February this year, the 2019-2025 military planning law mentions the following about the aircraft carrier: Studies will be initiated to define how a new aircraft carrier could be implemented during this period. They will define as a priority the propulsion system of the vessel and the integration constraints of new technologies, particularly in terms of catapults. These studies will help decide on a possible anticipation of its construction and the format of this component to guarantee its permanence. (ed. note: only one aircraft carrier or two...)

These preliminary definition studies started in June. These preliminary studies involved the DGA, French Navy and industry (Naval Group, Chantiers de l'Atlantique [formerly STX shipyard] and Technicatome specializing in compact nuclear reactors). A second study, focusing on design and systems is expected to be launched in the coming weeks. A "collaborative platform" has been set up to streamline the exchange of information between all parties (procurement agency, end user and industry) which accelerates the project progress. The collaborative platform was first tested (and proven) with the FTI mid-size frigate program. Contacted by Navy Recognition back in August, a DGA spokesperson said the ongoing work would help define several key aspects including schedule, pricing and technical aspects (including the choice of propulsion type) to be presented to the ministry of the armed forces.....


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2018 16:31

The E-7 is no longer in production so Boeing and its suppliers would have to start production of some of its mission equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK is the launch customer for an upgraded variant (beyond the software and computers that they have just recently finished upgrading for Australia) given some of the other non US E-3 users will also require AWACS replacement in the mid to late 2020s and beyond making the product refresh worth it.

U.K. Could Hand Deal Straight To Boeing For New Royal Air Force E-7 Radar Planes

The U.K. Ministry of Defense has confirmed it has been talking with American planemaker Boeing about a multi-billion dollar purchase around six E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft to replace its existing fleet of E-3D Sentries. The United Kingdom argues that the new design is a capable and cost-effective option that will share some components with the country’s forthcoming P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, as well as improve cooperation with the first Wedgetail operator, Australia. Unfortunately, there are already concerns and complaints brewing about whether the U.K. government’s potential decision not to hold an open competition doesn't provide enough benefits to the country's own domestic defense industry.

In public comments ahead of a meeting with other top defense officials from NATO member states on Oct. 3, 2018, U.K. Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson acknowledged the discussions with Boeing and offered more detail about the prospective deal. Britain’s Financial Times had been the first to report that the country’s authorities were in “exclusive talks” with the American company about the Wedgetails. The prospective deal is reportedly for the purchase of between five and seven E-7As, as well as ancillary equipment and services, for a total cost of more than $2.6 billion.

“The Wedgetail is the stand-out performer in our pursuit of a new battlespace surveillance aircraft, and has already proved itself in Iraq and Syria,” Williamson said. “Running air operations from the sky, it could be an excellent asset for the RAF and give us a real edge in this increasingly complex world.”

Boeing began development of the aircraft, which is derived from the 737 Next Generation airframe, in the 1990s at the request of Australia. The Royal Australian Air Force formally took delivery of the first two aircraft in 2010. As Williamson noted, the country has since deployed them to support operations against ISIS terrorists in the Middle East. South Korea and Turkey have also bought small numbers of the aircraft.

The E-7A, also known as the 737 AEW&C, standing for airborne early warning and control, features a large Northrop Grumman Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar mounted on top of the rear portion of the fuselage. The system has air and sea-search modes and a maximum detection range, depending on various environmental and other factors, of more than 370 miles.

In addition, it has an expansive communications and data link suite to help coordinate friendly operations and share information between various assets in the air and down below. Australia has already embarked on a $443 million plan to upgrade the radar capabilities, networking functionality, and other features on its six aircraft in the future, enhancements that may then also be available for future Royal Air Force aircraft.All of this offers significantly improved capability over the Royal Air Force’s E-3Ds, another Boeing product, which first entered service in 1992. The smaller, more modern 737-derived design is also more fuel efficient and less maintenance intensive.

On top of that, the Royal Air Force is already slated to begin operating Boeing's P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft in 2019, another aircraft based on the Next Generation 737 (the closest commercial equivalent is the 737-700). With the two aircraft sharing the same engines and various other components, the United Kingdom could further reduce operating costs and streamline portions of the maintenance and logistics pipelines by selecting the Wedgetail.....


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2018 16:43

Northrop Grumman readies Hatchet for all-up testing
Jane's Missiles & Rockets


Image

Northrop Grumman is set to conduct the first live end-to-end test of an all-up Hatchet miniature precision strike munition by the end of this year.

Developed with internal research and development (IRAD) funding, Hatchet was originally unveiled in April 2012 as a low-cost gravity-dropped weapon concept to equip unmanned aircraft systems (UASs).

The Hatchet development programme has now picked up pace. The weapon system has since evolved in design and concept of operations, and is now optimised as a precision-guided low-collateral-damage glide munition, designed to be launched from all airborne platform types – fixed wing, rotary wing, and UAS – in a close air support role (CAS) against soft-skinned targets, light structures, and personnel.

A series of tests in the past 24 months – including flight trials and arena/height of burst testing – culminated in full guide-to-hit trials in early October. “These were company-funded guide-to-hit trials using two inert rounds against threat representative targets, both of [which] were successful,” a company spokesperson told Jane’s. “The trial also successfully demonstrated the release sequence, including deployment of wings and control surfaces, flight stability, and GPS guidance.” The height of release and range to target data for both munitions in the guide-to-hit trials were not disclosed

The spokesperson said that for the live test at the end of the year – which is also company-funded – a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker will be incorporated into Hatchet to demonstrate the munition’s capability against a moving target. The live test milestone will mature Hatchet to Technical Readiness Level 7, the spokesperson added.

Hatchet is a guided glide munition featuring a tri-form fold-around mid-body wing and deployable aft control surface arrangement. The munition weighs approximately 2.72 kg (6 lbs), is 60 mm (2.4 inches) in diameter, and approximately 30.1 cm (11.9 inches) in length.

Hatchet leverages Northrop Grumman’s Lethality Enhanced Ordnance (LEO) technology to deliver a warhead solution that comprises the majority of the weapon. Rather than using submunitions, LEO technology relies on inert projectiles inside the warhead to deliver low-collateral, precision effects on its intended target, without the residual unexploded ordnance issues associated with legacy cluster munitions.

Developed by the former Orbital ATK Fuze and Warhead team, now part of Northrop Grumman, the LEO design has been selected by the US Army for the M1061 mortar cartridge, to which Hatchet is most closely aligned in terms of form factor. The company’s LEO design has also been selected as the Alternative Warhead (AW) solution for the M31 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, for Aerovironment’s Switchblade loitering munition, and potentially as the warhead solution for application with a hypersonic missile.

The initial variant of the completed Hatchet weapon will be equipped with global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS) midcourse guidance and an SAL package for terminal guidance. Future navigation/guidance combination options include GPS/INS midcourse and terminal guidance, GPS/INS midcourse and electro-optic/infrared terminal guidance, and GPS/INS midcourse and possibly active radar terminal guidance.

Designed for compressed carriage on an air platform, Hatchet can be deployed as a single weapon against lightly protected targets or as a swarming weapon where multiple munitions are released for a wider area or multiple target engagement. Northrop Grumman has designed two proprietary weapon dispensers to support Hatchet: a 500 lb-class rotary weapon dispenser (54 munitions) and a 125 lb-class rail weapon dispenser (12 munitions). Compressed carriage supports a variety of low-drag launcher designs. For example, a 500 lb rotary launcher in an F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter would complement its ability to perform either CAS or area attack missions.

A near-term opportunity for Hatchet is with the US Army’s prospective MQ1 Gray Eagle Lightweight Precision Munition (LPM) requirement – a rapid acquisition initiative for a low-cost precision weapon intended to complement the AGM-114 Hellfire and other larger air-delivered weapons on the army’s MQ1 Gray Eagle UAS.

At the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) 2018 exhibition in Washington, DC, in early October, Northrop Grumman displayed a Hatchet load-out concept for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle – with a pylon-mounted 125 lb carry rail dispenser under each wing – and an MQ-Reaper UAS, with a pylon-mounted 500 lb rotary dispenser under each wing.



chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2767
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 21 Oct 2018 16:59

Assembling the chini C919. Parts shipped from all over to TFTA looking facility in Shanghai. They are halfway to grabbing a chunk of their own market back from goras.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1573
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Manish_P » 23 Oct 2018 15:11

Dassault NGF - to be made by a European team led by France

(which probably means it will be entirely french)

Optionally manned ?

From twitter courtesy Tom Antonov - @Tom_Antonov

Image

From the front looks very F22 minus the twin verticals

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 23 Oct 2018 15:58

Shades of ESAV, X-44, and the Boeing FA-XX but that is to be expected since its just something they put out there to get the media talking about them. You cannot actually have a solid design until you have a firm set of requirements, and you don't have a firm set of requirements until you have spent a fair bit of time, and money arriving at them. Both France and Germany have just signed agreements so it will be a while before there is an established, and well funded program in place and we have a solid idea on where the requirements are taking them in terms of capability.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1573
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Manish_P » 24 Oct 2018 14:44

Yes, the resemblance to one of boeings concepts is uncanny

Almost makes one wonder if the designers from various countries have all arrived at the same ideal shape for the 6th/Next Gen - broadly a flat twin-engined tailess delta

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2018 15:48

This is just marketing and PR that companies put out. When they begin working on something, and that is backed by serious money the requirements define design characteristics of the flight vehicles they propose. Until you have a program in place, and the operators define what they want the designers can't really begin putting together a technical solution. This process takes a number of years. For example, in the US the NGAD effort was launched a few years ago and they have committed about $10 Billion over 5 years to it. Yet, the operator won't conclude its Analysis of Alternatives and put out an initial RFI (preliminary) to industry by 2020. This despite maturing technology on propulsion and other sub-systems. The final RFP may not be ready till the early to mid 2020s. The Franco-German effort is not even a formal program of record yet, it is just a set of agreements that will, in the future, be backed by a funding stream.

Out of all these (Dassault, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed and BAE) only the Lockheed ESAV and the BAE designs have actually been funded as purely S&T investments (but likely since they are openly talking about these past efforts they are probably irrelevant for future programs). The rest are more of placeholder designs to get the media talking and what the companies actually have in terms of what they are showing to their customers is likely much different.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 24 Oct 2018 16:27

Bell V-280 Reaches 250 Kt. As Flight Testing Relocates



Bell’s V-280 Valor advanced tiltrotor has reached 250 kt. airspeed as it continues to make progress under the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi Role Technology Demonstration (JMR TD), the precursor to the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program.
The V-280 achieved 250 kt., en route to a target of at least 280 kt., at 80% proprotor speed, the most efficient rpm for cruise, Bell says. The aircraft has now logged almost 70 flight hours and 155 hr. of rotor turn time, the company says.

In other flight-test milestones, the V-280 has flown to 45 deg. angle of bank at up to 200 kt. true airspeed; achieved a 4,500 ft./min climb rate at about 160 kt.A; exceeded 200 kt. with less than 50% torque; and recorded a peak load factor of about 1.9 G in a banked turn in cruise mode, with proprotors fully down.

The V-280 also made its longest flight to date, covering 270 mi. in 2.1 hr., with full instrumentation and two flight test engineers on board in addition to the two test pilots. The aircraft subsequently ferried from Bell’s assembly plant in Amarillo, Texas, to its flight test center in Arlington, Texas, a distance of 360 mi.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/bel ... -relocates



SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36013
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SaiK » 30 Oct 2018 06:00

from 25k mph to 20 mph / Orion Recovery Tool
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/team-to-va ... -mission-1

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21980
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 30 Oct 2018 09:06

Good view of Airforce 1 including cockpit


Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 167
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Chinmay » 31 Oct 2018 18:18

We have company in MRCA deals

A draft bid package for 88 fighters was issued to companies for their feedback by the end of this year, said Pat Finn, assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence. From there, the final bidding instructions for the CA$16 billion (U.S. $12 billion) procurement will be issued and bids required by May 2019, he added.

The aircraft will replace Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. The aircraft expected to be considered include Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, Saab’s Gripen and the Boeing Super Hornet


I know that they are buying up second hand Shornets from the Aussies, so this is in addition plus eventual replacement of those aircraft.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 02 Nov 2018 03:02

Cracks appearing in the Franco-German effort to build a fifth gen fighter

From AW&ST

LONDON—Less than six months after signing agreements to jointly develop a future fighter, French and German officials have reportedly had a falling-out over potential aircraft exports.

German publication Der Spiegel said France threatened to withdraw from the program if Berlin did not allow more freedom of export.

Der Spiegel said it had been sent copies of cables from the German ambassador to France suggesting tensions were already bubbling between the two nations about their approach to the export of arms to countries like Saudi Arabia.

France and Germany previously used an agreed framework for the international sale of jointly-developed weaponry. But recently Berlin has taken a more national stance, even calling for a halt of European arms sales to Riyadh since the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul on Oct. 2.

French officials said full exports of the new fighter would be “central” to financing the program, so long-term guarantees for exports would be “indispensable.”

“Only if such guarantees are given, the political starting point for billions of investments can be launched,” the French are reported to have said.

In a statement to Der Spiegel, Airbus CEO Tom Enders called for the two sides to quickly find agreement.

It was at the ILA Airshow in Berlin in May that German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen and her French counterpart Florence Parly jointly gave the green light for the two countries to begin study work on the new Future Combat Air System. It will go on to replace both the Dassault Rafale operated by France and the Eurofighter Typhoon flown by Germany by 2040.

The two countries are due to begin work on a joint concept study to get underway before year’s end. These studies will pave the way for architectural work which will lead to the rapid development of technology demonstrators, which could be flown by 2025.

France will lead development of the platform, which Dassault is referring to as the Next Generation Fighter.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 02 Nov 2018 03:05

New Japanese 5th gen fighter to be likely based on F-22 design

From AW&ST

BEIJING—A new fighter based on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stands a high chance of becoming Japan’s next combat aircraft, the Mainichi newspaper said.

“The defense ministry began investigating the feasibility of a joint development plan with Lockheed Martin after the company changed its proposal from an F-22 upgrade to developing a new model together,” the Mainichi said in the English version of its report, citing “people close to the arrangement.”

The requirement, Future Fighter, is intended to replace the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) F-2 in the 2030s.

The government has said it will decide this fiscal year, ending March 31, whether to develop a new fighter, perhaps in partnership with another country, develop an improvement of an existing foreign type, presumably with its manufacturer, or import aircraft of a model that is already available.

The option based on the F-22 is a likely candidate, the Mainichi says.

The Mainichi reported on Oct. 4 that upgrades of the F-22, Boeing F-15 Eagle and Eurofighter, the latter offered by BAE Systems, had been rejected. Lockheed Martin had failed to show that the F-22 could be sold to Japan; U.S. law forbids F-22 exports. Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya later said no decision had been made.

The implication of the latest report is that the fighter based on the F-22 could not be regarded as an F-22 version. Defense ministry studies have emphasized the importance of range, endurance and a large internal load of large air-to-air missiles. The F-22 would need great modification to include those features.

Japanese technology would be incorporated in core components of the derivative fighter, such as the engine, the Mainichi said. IHI is developing the XF9-1 technology demonstrator for a possible indigenous aircraft for the Future Fighter requirement.

The Nikkei newspaper says the government has decided to defer the decision on how to proceed until the five-year defense acquisition planning period that will begin in fiscal 2019.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 02 Nov 2018 04:28

Gripen E fires its first air to air missile- an IRIS-T WVRAAM

From AW&ST

LONDON—Sweden’s Saab has conducted the first missile firing from the prototype Gripen E.

The first flight test aircraft, 39-8 unleashed an IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missile over the Vidsel weapons range earlier in October, Saab announced on Oct. 26.

The aircraft has also jettisoned an external fuel tank as flight trials continue to open the flight envelope of the new aircraft.

The tests follow initial trials with the RUAG-made underwing weapon pylons the company revealed at the Farnborough Airshow.

“The program is on track, and we are making good progress in the program towards delivery to our Swedish and Brazilian customers,” said Jonas Hjelm, SVP and head of Saab’s Aeronautics business.

“These early tests are good for future work when the project is now entering an intensive phase with an increasing focus on testing,” says Thomas Eriksson, project manager for the JAS 39E at the Swedish defense materiel agency, FMV.

Saab is gearing up to fly the second prototype in the coming weeks. Earlier in October, the company’s social media accounts showed test aircraft 39-9 painted up and performing engine runs.


Sweden and Brazil are the launch customers for the aircraft, with 96 aircraft currently on order—60 destined for Sweden and 36 for Brazil, including eight two-seat aircraft being specially developed for the Brazilian customer. Follow-up orders from both customers appear likely with Stockholm expected to order at least a further 10 as a result of increased defense spending. Brazil could also add as many as 70-100 more to its order. The aircraft also are involved in fighter tenders in Finland and Switzerland.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 02 Nov 2018 04:30

British officials claim there is "great interest" in the Tempest program

From AW&ST

LONDON—Senior British officials say there is “great interest” from potential international partners in the UK’s vision to develop a sixth-generation fighter.

Richard Berthon, director for strategic programs in the UK defense ministry, said many factors helped “reinvigorate the international debate around next-generation [combat aircraft] capability.” They included the publication of the Combat Air Strategy, the creation of Team Tempest to help push forward the development of new technologies, and the kick-starting of a new acquisition process for a future combat aircraft last summer at the Farnborough Airshow.

Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute defense think tank here on Oct. 24, Berthon said officials had “moved quickly” to start work on an initial business for a future acquisition program that would deliver a strategic outline case for a future acquisition to ministers by year’s end.

An outline business case will follow in 2020, Berthon said. A full business case, also known as a main gate investment decision, would come in 2025 and potentially deliver a capability that could fly alongside Eurofighters and F-35s by 2035.

Berthon suggested a future development program could look very different than the multinational development and procurement programs that had resulted in the Sepecat Jaguar, Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon.

Technology such as an open systems architecture could enable a “much more agile and flexible collaborative approach,” Berthon said.

He suggested that nations could enter and leave the program as they saw fit.

“Partnering at a subsystem level can enable fits and variants for partners or export customers,” he suggested. “We will keep our options open and find those sweet spots for mutual benefit.”

Team Tempest is a joint industry/government team including the defense ministry, the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Rapid Capability Office, BAE Systems, MBDA, engine maker Rolls-Royce and Leonardo. It is now engaged in the £2 billion ($2.5 billion) Future Combat Air Systems Technology Initiative (FCAS TI) that is developing new technologies for a future combat aircraft. It could also be reused in future upgrades for the Typhoon.

“Our plans are now based on the continuous development and reuse of capability and treating the platform as just another system,” Berthon said. “Doing this reduces cost and risk and squeezes the maximum return from our investment in technology.”

He said the Team Tempest approach was being used as a catalyst to drive behavioral change both in industry and government and that technology was being increasingly recognized as a “driver of ability and not of cost.”

He warned that the development of a future combat aircraft could not be a normal acquisition program, but rather different in pace, agility and behavior.

Britain will need partners because it cannot afford to develop such a platform on its own, particularly when it is still paying for purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The UK wants to buy 138 F-35s through the life of the program.

No details have yet emerged about which countries may be interested in partnering with the UK. Senior RAF personnel briefed international air chiefs during the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough airshows. Reports suggest that Japan, which was said to be interested in a UK partnership to develop a fighter to replace the F-2, may now have decided to team with U.S. industry instead.

Berthon said the UK had opted to maintain its ability to “choose how we deliver our future combat air capability. Without this strategy, we would have lost that choice.”

He added that critical engineering skills were at significant risk because of the increasingly widening gaps between air system design phases.

A Nandy
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 175
Joined: 06 Sep 2009 23:39

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby A Nandy » 04 Nov 2018 23:56

SpaceX BFR facility almost ready to start development at Boca Chica, Texas. Easterly launch site going above Cuba:

https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedMan ... Track.aspx

It will be a beauty to behold while taking off and landing during the test campaign due to its sheer size - almost Tintinesque like :D

Image


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 05 Nov 2018 02:07

Kartik wrote:New Japanese 5th gen fighter to be likely based on F-22 design


Why would Lockheed be creating its own competition ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 05 Nov 2018 02:23

Neshant wrote:Why would Lockheed be creating its own competition ?


Why did Lockheed (General Dynamics) help Japan create the F-2?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby John » 05 Nov 2018 02:28

Neshant wrote:
Kartik wrote:New Japanese 5th gen fighter to be likely based on F-22 design


Why would Lockheed be creating its own competition ?

They will protect themselves by negotiating a contract where it prevents Japanese 5th Gen fighter from competing against F-35 in export markets.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 05 Nov 2018 02:54

John wrote: They will protect themselves by negotiating a contract where it prevents Japanese 5th Gen fighter from competing against F-35 in export markets.


Japan is not big on export but regardless, a clean sheet 5th generation aircraft (with the capability they seem to want) even in the most optimistic scenario is a good 15 year program from contract to full-rate production which they'll need to deliver enough aircraft to meet domestic demand and have surplus for export.

By the mid 2030s the F-35 would have been in production for 2 decades and delivery rates would have peaked, production costs would be rising because economies of scale would no longer exist (US acquisition programs runs out in the 2035-2038 timeframe) and most of the demand from new customers would have been met with the program focusing on follow on sales and upgrades to the existing installed base (including Japan).

Having a financial and design interest in another program wouldn't be unwise regardless of how competitive a future Japanese fighter is to the F-35. Given Japan's choices, it will likely be in the F-22A class and would be larger, heavier and probably much more expensive so how much of the remaining F-35 sales it could cannibalize is debatable.

Meanwhile, Lockheed is currently jockeying for Billions in USAF contracts for the Next Generation Air Dominance / Penetrating Counter Air programs. USAF has already disclosed $10 Billion in early funding over the next 5 years excluding propulsion funding which adds another $3 Billion. This points to an RFP in the 2020-2021 time-frame which would mean that tech demonstrators would need to be in the air by 2023-2025. The ATF cost Lockheed close to a $1 Billion of internal funding (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) on top of CRAD to get technology and the demonstrators done. Cash flows from a future Japanese fighter design work would be very welcomed in Palmdale if it means that Lockheed can continue to invest in its design capability especially at a time when its main rival is having a booming commercial business, profits from which it is leverging to bid very aggressively on defense programs.

Finally, Japan is a long standing customer and Lockheed has partnered with Japan on both the F-2, and on F-35 FACO. If they say no, either Northrop Grumman or Boeing (or a European competitor) will likely say yes, so there is really little downside to not pursuing a long term relationship. If Japan wants to spend tens of Billions of dollars to get a 5th generation aircraft it will get it one way or another..better for Lockheed to get a slice of that pie then sit it out just to protect F-35 sales a decade to two decades out. In a nutshell, Lockheed created the F-22 design more than 28 years ago, tried selling the aircraft to Japan in the mid 2000s but were denied. Now all they really have to do is work with Japans designers to tailor it to their current needs.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 06 Nov 2018 04:19

An Egyptian AF MiG-29M (basically based on the MiG-29K) crashed during a training flight. Pilot ejected.

Egyptian MiG-29M crashed during a training flight in Egypt, according to Kommersant. The pilot managed to eject prior.


Twitter link

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 06 Nov 2018 18:17

Get a behind the scenes look at how the F-35 is built


Interesting Information: Lockheed has already completed assembly of the 91st aircraft for LOT-10 which means that they deliver all 91 aircraft well before the year end deadline which is pretty good given that they went from 66 deliveries in 2017 to 91 this year. LRIP-11 which has entered the assembly line is a 141 aircraft lot so they'll need that extra time to deliver more than 120 aircraft scheduled for next year.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6711
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Nov 2018 17:03

Dassault pulls out of race to supply Canada with jets - sources


OTTAWA, Nov 6 (Reuters) - France’s Dassault Aviation SA has withdrawn its Rafale fighter from the race to supply Canada with 88 new military jets, three sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

The move means that four manufacturers are left in the competition, which Canadian officials say will be worth between C$15 billion ($11.4 billion) and C$19 billion. Canada is due to issue its final requirement for the fleet next May.

Defense sources have long said the Canadian air force favors a U.S. plane, either the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 or Boeing Co’s F-18 Super Hornet.

Canada’s Liberal government, stung by a series of procurement mishaps over previous decades, insists the contest will be an open one despite the armed forces’ close links to the U.S. military and widespread use of American equipment.

The three sources, who declined to be identified given the sensitivity of the situation, said Dassault was not convinced it could meet the necessary security requirements.

France does not belong to the so-called Five Eyes group of nations that share top secret intelligence - Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. This would have made operating with U.S. forces complicated, the sources said.

Sweden’s Saab AB, one of the four remaining contenders, faces the same challenge with its Gripen jet.

The Airbus consortium, makers of the Eurofighter, includes Five Eyes member Britain.

The office of federal Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough, in overall charge of major military purchases, said it was looking into the reported withdrawal.

Canada has been trying unsuccessfully for almost a decade to buy replacements for its aging F-18 fighters, some of which are 40-years old. The former Conservative administration said in 2010 it would buy 65 F-35 jets but later scrapped the decision, triggering years of delays and reviews.

Canada is a member of the international consortium that developed the F-35. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015 vowing not to buy the plane on the grounds that it was too costly, but Ottawa has since softened its line.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bala Vignesh, Bart S, brar_w, Karthik S, Vips and 44 guests