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: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 04 Dec 2018 00:39

Singha wrote:can the Izumos carry some 25 JSF-B + a few asw and utility helos?
that in conjunction with the SSKs, Akizuki and Atago class capabilities, land based P3 and E2D/E3 would make a formidable combined task force in the westpac. they can also throw in land based Aegis and Thaad as defensive linebackers while the fleet goes wingbacking..and land based ballistic missiles and ASMs.



In a defensive role they only need air cover and perhaps some strike capability as a deterrent. They will likely deploy them differently than the "Lightning carrier" concept of the USMC. Japan is an AEGIS operator and will be getting the latest baseline, and already has E-2Ds on order. Having F-35B's supported by AEGIS capability will allow them to extend air-defense capability over large regions utilizing NIFC-CA. Plus they will be able to augment USN's capabilities just as the USMC will do with its L-class vessels. Moreover when a USN carrier is not available these ships could buddy up with L-class ships and AEGIS destroyers and put some serious capability in both defensive and offensive roles.

Japan is an SM3 IIA partner. The SM6 Block 1B is in early development and if they join (or later buy) you are likely looking at a 350 mile+/550km+ ranged (air-breathing targets) SAM so they can do a lot with the capability to extend their reach great distances against an opponent that would likely field higher numbers.

https://insidedefense.com/inside-pentag ... cket-motor
Last edited by brar_w on 04 Dec 2018 02:17, edited 1 time in total.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 275
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rishi_Tri » 04 Dec 2018 01:09

Colombian Air Force operates first nano-satellite
Alejandro Sanchez, Washington, DC - Jane's Defence Weekly
03 December 2018

The Colombian Air Force (Fuerza Aérea Colombiana: FAC) now operates its first nano-satellite, FACSAT-1, after a successful launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, India, on 28 November.

FACSAT-1 will orbit at around 500 km and circle the earth every 90 minutes. It weighs 4 kg and operates a 30 m per pixel lens.

According to the Colombian armed forces, the satellite will remain in service for between three and five years.

The nano-satellite was constructed by the Danish company Gomspace and it is reportedly the first of an order for three platforms. It was launched aboard a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20989
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Prem » 06 Dec 2018 11:48

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-us-warplan ... 18896.html
2 US warplanes crash off Japan; 2 found, 5 missing

TOKYO (AP) — A Marine refueling plane and a fighter jet crashed into the Pacific Ocean off Japan's southwestern coast after colliding early Thursday, and rescuers found two of the seven crew members, one of them in stable condition, officials said.The U.S. Marine Corps said that the 2 a.m. crash involved an F/A-18 fighter jet and a KC-130 refueling aircraft during regular refueling training after the planes took off from their base in Iwakuni, near Hiroshima in western Japan.The crash took place 320 kilometers (200 miles) off the coast, according to the U.S. military. Japanese officials said it occurred closer to the coast, about 100 kilometers (60 miles), and that's where the search and rescue mission found two crew members.
The two aircraft were carrying seven crew members in total, two in the F/A-18 and five others in the KC-130, when they collided and crashed into the sea south of the Muroto Cape on Shikoku island in southwestern Japan. The cause of the crash is under investigation.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23048
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 08 Dec 2018 11:57

This Pictures Should Terrify Russia, North Korea and China Like Nothing Else

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... else-37987

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 08 Dec 2018 20:30

none of these 3 are dumb enough to let US use its conventional & ELO superiority to run a desert storm campaign :rotfl:

such an attack will result in a nuclear exchange within 30 mins because these 3 have no other option when pushed to the wall.

it may be used on easier targets to beat up iran, syria etc. :lol:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Dec 2018 20:33

^ It's National Interest, the Sputnik of US National Security and Defense reporting. :roll:

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3509
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Paul » 09 Dec 2018 18:21

Iran's successful quest to keep it's F14 Tomcats flying


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 09 Dec 2018 22:54

:rotfl: nice

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Dec 2018 00:05

Probably the largest Land based Surveillance Radar acquisition program in the West in the coming decade. I expect this to be very closely linked to the MRCA program in Canada given that Lockheed is considered the front runner for both given the Canadian F-35 participation and them being the incumbent on the radars.

US Air Force studying North Warning System improvements



The US Air Force (USAF) is studying potential improvements for the North Warning System (NWS) of 47 radars, jointly owned with Canada, which serves as the first notification of airborne threats across North America’s polar region.

Iris Ferguson, USAF senior advisor Headquarters Air Force/A3 Operations, said on 4 December that the service is considering these upgrades as the Arctic region is quickly changing. Once considered a strategic buffer between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era, Ferguson said the region is becoming more porous, physically through environmental changes and technologically, as adversaries improve their ability to come across the North Pole.

Ferguson told
Jane’s that this effort is a USAF-funded binational collaborative study led by Air Combat Command (ACC). The study, she said, is in the early stages of evaluating potential solutions for the modernisation of sensor coverage in North America to detect, track, and enable defeat of existing and emergent airborne threats on their approach to the continent.

Ferguson, in her presentation, said the USAF is eyeing these potential NWS improvements as the Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy (NDS) has re-aligned the US towards great power competition against nations such as China and Russia. The NWS, operated by Raytheon Canada Limited (RCL), provides command-and-control (C2) capability to the Canadian Air Defence Sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The NWS spans the Arctic from Labrador in northeast Canada to Alaska.

Public Works and Government Services Canada awarded RCL a five-year contract in May 2014 for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the NWS. The contract also includes two options totalling an additional five years. The entire system is composed 36 short-range AN/FPS-124 radar and 11 long-range AN/FPS-117 radar sites, five logistics support sites, a monitoring and control centre, and a radar depot. RCL partnered with Canadian Base Operations Inc in bidding for the contract, according to a RCL statement.

The Arctic Ocean is beginning to open as climate change raises sea temperatures. Ferguson said the USAF is evaluating whether its infrastructure in the region can withstand some of the climate changes as much of its infrastructure relies on permafrost. Permafrost is perennially frozen ground with a temperature of 0°C for two or more years.

“We have permanent base structures, but are we able to have less permanent base structure and utilise that,” Ferguson said at the Wilson Center think tank.

The USAF, Ferguson said, is also evaluating whether it can operate in austere Arctic environments and if it is able to create rapid operational exercises in the region.

The Arctic, a region 1.5 times the size of the US, is heavily dependent on airpower for manoeuvring, domain awareness, and timely responses to potential attacks. Roughly 79% of Pentagon resourcing in the Arctic is from the USAF.

Ferguson said the Arctic will have more advanced fighter aircraft concentrated in the region than anywhere else once the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) arrives in 2022. The Arctic, she said, already hosts the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Other important aircraft in the region include the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and Lockheed Martin LC-130H Hercules with modified wheel-ski gear for Arctic and Antarctic operations.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Dec 2018 17:25

Australia’s First Two F-35A Jets Have Arrived Home At RAAF Williamtown


Image

Australia’s first two locally-based F-35A fighter aircraft arrived on home soil today at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Williamtown (accompanied by 4 F/A-18 Hornets).

F-35A Lightning II serialled A35-009 and A35-010, in the colors of the 3 SQN, arrived at their new homebase at RAAF Williamtown, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, on Dec. 10, 2018.

With the arrival of the first two aircraft, Australia becomes the 7th nation with F-35 aircraft based locally on their home soil, and with the formal stand-up of RAAF Williamtown, F-35s are now operating from 16 bases worldwide.

The aircraft, which had departed Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, on Dec. 3, arrived overhead RAAF Williamtown alongside four “legacy” Hornets (one of those was the camera ship from which most of the images you can find in this post were shot): A21-39, A21-38 and A21-109, representing the 77 SQN, 75SQN, 2 OCU, were among them, based on the photographs released thus far.

Before the 5th generation aircraft touched down on home soil for the very first time, the formation flew over Nelson Bay, Stockton Beach and Newcastle.

Australia’s has committed to 72 F-35As, which will be flown by Australian pilots, and maintained by a joint team of Australian maintenance personnel and industry partners including Lockheed Martin Australia. Australia has received 10 aircraft to date, the remainder of which are stationed at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona where they are part of the international cooperative F-35 training operations.




Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 12 Dec 2018 00:02

US refuses to allow Israel to sell 12 F-16s to Croatia. Totally unbelievable reason offered for why the sale couldn't go ahead! :roll:

US blocks sale of used Israeli F-16 fighters to Croatia

Israeli media reported on Thursday night that US Secretary of Defence James Mattis has not allowed Israel to sell 12 F-16 combat aircraft to Croatia.

Namely, the US government must approve the sale of any of its planes that it sold to one country, if they are to be sold to a third country. Israel requested the said approval but did not get it. The article claims that people close to the Trump administration were angry because Israel modified the planes and thus attracted Croatia to choose their offer instead of the American offer. The Americans claim that Israel does not have the right to sell the planes, especially if the USA also made an offer in response to the tender.

Meanwhile the US embassy in Croatia has issued a statement. They said that the USA strongly supports Croatia in its desire to modernize its air force and to be interoperable with allies in NATO.

"For more than a year we have been working with Israel on the details of the proposed F-16 aircraft purchase. During these talks we were consistent and clear regarding technical conditions under which we can approve the sale," said the embassy, adding that they are currently working actively with Israel and Croatia in order to find an acceptable solution that is suitable to Croatia's needs within the given deadline.

The news has caused a stir in Croatian political circles.

“From their statement, which I only saw briefly, it is clear that they are very interested in resolving this problem, if it exists to that degree,” said Prime Minister Andrej Plenković adding that he doesn’t believe the deal will fall through.

Croatian Minister of Defence Damir Krstičević also displayed a calm composure. “It is a fact that the government of the United States of America gave the state of Israel approval to offer the Israeli F-16 to Croatia and we have that document. The second fact is that the state of Israel has taken on the obligation in their offer to deliver a NATO compatible aircraft to Croatia and that the prolonging of its life span will be done with the approval of the original producer, Lockheed Martin. And third, the approval for delivering the planes to Croatia is the responsibility of the state of Israel,” said Minister Krstičević in a statement to the press.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: US opposition to the sale is mainly due to the fact that the aircraft have been modified without its permission with unspecified Israeli-manufactured electronic systems.
This equipment made them more attractive to Croatia than the F-16s that Washington was offering in competition. The US considers this was an unfair advantage, and is now insisting that they should be returned to the previous standard.

Croatian Defence Minister Damir Krstičević said Dec 9 that Croatia will not pay any additional costs to modify the aircraft to the technical criteria set by Washington, which is insisting they be retrofitted to their original configuration.
Croatia is reportedly furious about the holdup of the sale and recently told Israel to work out the matter with the US, the Times of Israel reported Friday, adding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised the matter during his meeting with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Brussels on Dec. 3.)


Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Lisa » 12 Dec 2018 00:50

Not the first time. When Israel tried to sell its Elta Phalcon AWACS system to South Korea, Washington withheld approval in order to convince Seoul to buy American and not Israeli equipment.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 12 Dec 2018 00:52

From AW&ST


LONDON—A German think tank has suggested Berlin could go down the route of a split buy of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and Eurofighters as the country mulls replacing its Panavia Tornado fleet.

The German Association for Foreign Policy’s (DGAP) study on the Tornado’s successor and Berlin’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS), published on Dec. 6, suggests Germany could buy F-35s primarily to support the nuclear strike mission—a silver bullet force carrying the B61 weapon controlled under a NATO dual-key arrangement with the U.S.—while Eurofighters will take on the conventional air-to-ground role.

“Such a solution is conceivable, effective and justifiable,” say authors Christian Mölling and Torben Schütz of the DGAP. But “it is very expensive,” they note. Germany would then be able to proceed with its work with France on the FCAS, joint studies on which are due to get underway in early 2019.

“Politically, Germany could use this solution to balance the tension between European and transatlantic partners,” the study suggests.

At the other end of the scale, it suggests that Germany could extend the life of its Tornados, exit the FCAS work with France and then just purchase a U.S. or a resulting European-made system later. But the report points out this would result in the loss of industrial and technological competence in Germany.

The report also notes a variety of options in between the two extremes.

Germany began its search for a combat aircraft to replace the Tornado with an off-the-shelf aircraft in 2017, having concluded that the costs associated with keeping the platform in service were simply too high and it had become too vulnerable to the new generation of air defense threats. The German Air Force currently has around 90 Tornados to perform the ground attack, nuclear strike and suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) mission. German studies are looking at the U.S.-supplied F-35, advanced versions of the F-15 Eagle and the F/A-18 Super Hornet family, as well as the Eurofighter. The competition is now widely believed to be a two-horse race between the Eurofighter and the F-35, with German politicians reportedly favoring the Eurofighter due to the industrial benefits. But the Eurofighter would need significant development work to take on Tornado’s SEAD/DEAD role and the nuclear mission.

The DGAP says it could take seven years to get the Eurofighter certified for the nuclear mission. It also questions the credibility of a deterrent using the Eurofighter, which it says was “not designed to fly low and penetrate heavily protected enemy airspace.

Germany is looking at purchasing additional Eurofighters to replace early-model Tranche 1 standard aircraft, thus standardizing the fleet to Tranche 2 and 3.

Media reports suggest Berlin could announce a selection on the Tornado replacement before the end of December.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 12 Dec 2018 01:02

From AW&ST

Japan reveals future fighter AESA radar

Image

For a few years, Japan’s defense ministry has allowed glimpses of the technology it has been preparing for its proposed Future Fighter program: an engine, cooperative engagement, a weapon bay and much else. Now it has unveiled an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) for a radar.

The antenna was displayed on a ground-testing trolley but was similar in shape and size to the Mitsubishi Electric J/APG-2 fitted to the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) F-2, suggesting it is intended for flight-testing in that Japanese fighter. Moreover, models of the F-2 and the complete radar, including the antenna, were placed together in a case next to the AESA.

The ministry’s Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency presented these exhibits at the Japan International Aerospace Exhibition, held in Tokyo on Nov. 28–30. The real antenna was described as a high-power AESA and the modeled radar as an advanced integrated sensor system. An agency official says the radar is in development for the Future Fighter program but no other details were released.

High-power sensor appears to be liquid-cooled

Gallium-nitride technology is likely

Japan has been acquiring technology for the Future Fighter with the aim of deciding in the fiscal year ending March 2019 whether to launch full-scale development, possibly with a foreign partner; the proposed aircraft would enter service in the 2030s. Another official of the agency, describing Future Fighter plans in a public presentation at the show, noted that the aircraft would have a high-power radar.

As Japan’s fighter-radar specialist, Mitsubishi Electric, has probably been working with the agency on the sensor project. Given that the displayed radar is evidently intended to be fitted to an F-2, it is probably a technology demonstrator, like the other equipment Japan has been making in preparation for the possible Future Fighter program; a follow-on program to fully develop a sensor would be needed for the new aircraft.

Scant information could be gleaned from the displayed array and accompanying model. The array has a width of about 74 cm (29 in.) and, as revealed by tubes attached to its rear face, is liquid-cooled. An analyst of radar technology comments that fitting liquid cooling for a radar in a small fighter is difficult. The coolants are flammable and need to be kept well away from the pilot. Unlike the F-2, an expanded derivative of the Lockheed Martin F-16, the Future Fighter would be a large aircraft, exceeding the size of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

A meter on the back of the antenna reads “500 hr.,” evidently the accumulated running time. Since that is a notably round number, researchers have perhaps completed a scheduled 500-hr. test program with the AESA. The trolley had an elevating function, so the antenna has obviously been evaluated on the ground. Judging from the clean look of the AESA’s paint, which has few scratches, the sensor is not more than a few years old.

As depicted in the 1:5 scale model of the complete radar, the antenna is angled up by a few degrees, as is common in modern fighters, to minimize radio-energy reflections to enemy radars.


Small differences between the model and the real antenna are evident. These notably include cutouts on the perimeter of the model’s antenna that presumably represent the distribution of transmit-and-receive modules; these were not visible under the cover on the face of the real array. Transmit-and-receive modules are, in effect, little radars that collectively comprise an AESA, working together to form the beam.

Judging from its apparent newness and the reference to high power, the radar probably uses gallium-nitride transistors, which offer increased output and reduced noise, thereby improving range against a target of a given size. Japan has been working on this technology since no later than 2010 and has incorporated it in a seeker that it is developing for a version of the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile.

Using the radar as an upgrade for the F-2 appears unlikely. Large-scale installations of the current J/APG-2 began only six years ago. That radar, with a 72-cm AESA, is an update of the F-2’s original J/APG-1, a pioneering AESA fighter sensor that did not work well. The 92 surviving F-2s are due to be retired in the first half of the 2030s, the government has suggested, so new radars in them would not get many years of service.

A sensor based on the technology in the new radar could be installed in Boeing F-15 Eagles, however. The ministry has requested funding for an upgrade for at least some aircraft of that type (see page 37). Though the F-2s are younger, they are evidently intended to leave service sooner than updated Eagles. Installing a new radar would require prolonged flight testing, however, whereas Raytheon’s APG-63(V)3 AESA radar has already been integrated in the F-15. The APG-63(V)3 uses traditional gallium-arsenide technology.

A crude illustration of the systems intended for the F-15 upgrade includes an electronically scanned radar that does not look like the APG-63(V)3.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 12 Dec 2018 01:40

Japan Wants 50 F-35s In 2019-23, 50 More Later—Report


BEIJING—Japan’s imminent five-year defense plan will include the purchase of 50 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings, to be followed by a further 50, the Mainichi newspaper says.
A committee of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has approved replacement of 99 older Boeing F-15s with F-35s, the same newspaper said.

Other Japanese media have reported that Japan will buy 100 F-35s to replace F-15s. Japan has 201 F-15s. The older half are the least modern and would cost more to upgrade. Therefore, they are the most likely candidates for replacement. The F-35s that replaced them would reportedly include some units of the F-35B version, capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings on ships or small airfields.

Japan is already buying 42 F-35s. The next 50 would be bought under a defense acquisition plan due to be issued this month and covering the five years beginning in April 2019, according to Mainichi. Then 50 more would be bought later.

The government decided on Dec. 11 that the helicopter carrier Izumo would be modified to operate F-35s but would not do so permanently and would not be classed as an aircraft carrier, the newspaper said.

A need to operate fighters from short runways on the chain of islands stretching southwest toward China may be a more important factor.

The defense acquisition plan for fiscal 2019-23 will cost ¥27 trillion, 9.8% more than the 2014-18 plan, Mainichi said. But comparisons need allowance for inflation and growth in gross domestic product.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 12 Dec 2018 02:04

It will get interesting to see which way the Germans go. Eventually they are going to run into the political problem of placing too many orders with Lockheed over a short time (MEADS, CH-53K and F-35 if they go down that path) but then the prospects of adding the Nuclear and SEAD/DEAD mission on the Typhoon sound very very expensive and time consuming. Besides Italy, not many in Europe will be maintaining a dedicated SEAD/DEAD capability so a German Growler would have also made sense.

It does seem that they'll split the total demand b/w the Typhoon and the F-35..F-35 with the AN/ASQ-239 and the AARGM-ER would be quite a capable SEAD/DEAD platform for them and a good Multi-Role compromise compared to a dedicated Growler acquisition. That is the direction the Italians are likely to head once they sunset their Tornados. Positive in the sense that more tactical fighters in Europe would be able to swing into the EW mission if need be, but also negative that dedicated ECR role is going away.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 12 Dec 2018 04:35

Next time someone talks about the radius of fighter jets, here is a data point that cannot be refuted- E/A-18G Growler has a threshold radius of action of 370 nautical miles (685 kms) as can be figured out from the NGJ-MB's drag profile. A 4% variance in drag was stated and at the lower end of that potential variance, the Growler's radius of action would fall below 370 NM, which means its top end radius of action with the NGJ would be just a shade over 370 NM.

from AW&ST

An unplanned redesign of the Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band (NGJ MB) system in 2017 played a role in the U.S. Navy’s rejection last August of a Raytheon bid to use the same pods for a NGJ Low Band demonstration program, a new government legal document reveals.

The Navy is replacing five ALQ-99 jamming pods on the Boeing EA-18G with three versions of the NGJ. The mid-band system, which was awarded to Raytheon in 2013, will replace four ALQ-99 pods under the aircraft’s wing. The low-band system, which is now the subject of a competition, will replace a single ALQ-99 pod mounted on the EA-18G’s centerline “Station 6.”

In April 2017, the Navy discovered the NGJ-MB pod must be redesigned due to “deficiencies in modeling, assumptions and methodologies,” according to Navy budget documents released in February.

As the redesign continued, Raytheon submitted a competitive bid for the NGJ-LB Demonstration of Existing Technologies (DET) contract, a 20-month effort worth about $35 million to show the Navy the maturity of available technologies for the new pod.

Raytheon’s proposal based the NGJ-LB pod on the design of the NGJ-MB. Three more competition teams—L3 Technologies, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman—submitted offers based on new pod designs.

After the Navy selected L3’s and Northrop’s proposals, Raytheon protested the decision to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The GAO rejected Raytheon’s protest on Oct. 22, but sealed a redacted copy of its decision until Nov. 28.

The decision, which affirmed the Navy based the rejection of Raytheon’s protest on reasonable grounds, also confirmed the reason for the 2017 redesign of the NGJ-MB. The critical design review of the system had shown that the size of the new pod would increase the drag on the EA-18G and shorten the aircraft’s mission radius, the GAO document says.

In assessing Raytheon’s proposal for the NGJ-LB pod, the Navy concluded that replacing the ALQ-99 on the EA-18G’s centerline with the derivative of the original NGJ-MB would further reduce the mission radius of the aircraft, GAO’s decision shows. The details of the mission radius shortfall with the original NGJ-MB pod design were redacted.

It is possible that Raytheon’s redesigned NGJ-MB pod will solve the mission radius problem. A footnote in the GAO’s decision cites a Raytheon argument that the Navy failed to use the latest information about its design when it assessed the company’s bid. But the Navy’s rebuttal suggests that Raytheon’s performance data includes a 4% margin of error. At the lower end of the potential variance, the NGJ-MB’s drag would cause the EA-18G to fall below the 370-nm mission radius threshold.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 12 Dec 2018 05:09

Kartik wrote:Next time someone talks about the radius of fighter jets, here is a data point that cannot be refuted- E/A-18G Growler has a threshold radius of action of 370 nautical miles (685 kms) as can be figured out from the NGJ-MB's drag profile. A 4% variance in drag was stated and at the lower end of that potential variance, the Growler's radius of action would fall below 370 NM, which means its top end radius of action with the NGJ would be just a shade over 370 NM.



The Growler mission performance requirements (threshold and objective) in the USN's EA profile, with the 3 ALQ-99's, 2 Aim-120s, 2 EFT's, 2 AARGM's, and 2x ALQ-218's using a specified (altitude and pattern etc) jamming profile TOS and the usual bring back reserve for recover profile is quite a bit inferior to the Super Bug.

Overall this translates to a combat range of 850 nautical miles (1500 km). That 370-390 nautical miles radius (threshold-objective) is with the two External Tanks and in the EA profile. The mission adds a lot of drag and weight...and keep in mind that unlike a strike sortie, they are bringing most of draggy and heavy payload back.

It has been known that the NGJ-MB was coming in draggy and heavy, I had mentioned it here and on a number of other occasions and the weight is also going to be higher given the capability required is quite a bit more than what the current system is capable of. Even the program manager for the NGJ-Increment 1 mentioned that a year or so ago in a panel while providing update on the program (West 2017 or 18 IIRC).

Given the power requirements from the system (65kW per pod) and the USNs unwillingness to compromise on front and rear coverage (pick a sectored pod design) there was no way around having really massive pods. So expect around a 10% combat radius and TOS reduction with the Mid Band pods (2 x NGJ-MB + 1 CL ALQ-99 LBT).

Raytheon's move to stick to the same pod design on the Low Band system was foolish when given the trade space they could have shaved off both drag and weight by choosing something new. They obviously wanted to sell their more mature and proven pod design but given that most of the risk is going to be around the RF components it was not a great strategy especially when the pod PS and its supplier lacked an exclusive arrangement with them and RTNs competitors could have picked the same PS supplier if they wished. They tried to convince the USN and later through the appeal process that their weight reduction efforts on the MB program would not only transfer over to the LB pod, but they'll gain some margin over time as well. The USN was not convinced and excluded them from the awards which went to two other teams.

These aren't small pods, though there will be less pressure on power and weight with the Low Band pod just given the frequency it is covering.

Image

From the report cited in your article :

The Navy explains that Raytheon’s proposal shows that mission radius
decreases by [DELETED] NM from [DELETED] NM to [DELETED] NM when two
ALQ-99 pods under the aircraft wings are replaced with Raytheon’s mid band pods and
the center pod (at station 6) is an ALQ-99.


Raytheon and the US Navy would have done a pretty good job if they % in the red above is around 10-12% so 30-40 nautical miles. They can re-gain that margin elsewhere by flying more efficient profiles because the RAT performance (altitude) on the new pods is more forgiving.

This along with other reasons, was why the US Navy has now funded the CFTs for the family, and why they will likely also fund the Engine enhancements in the future.

Furthermore, on the tanker pecking order the Growlers are right up there in terms of the most important assets to support. These are highly valued force multipliers in terms of what they can do, particularly for legacy aircraft heading into harm's way.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... uel-tanks/

The real pressure would be when in the mid to late 2020s they field the High band pods. There you are probably looking at power performance (densities) 20-25% better than the current MB pods with a considerable increase in cooling resources as well. I think the USN may just defer that capability and look to do the mission differently perhaps by offloading it to a UAV or to a USAF EC-37B which is already beginning to have some overlap with the NGJ capability even in the MB space.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 12 Dec 2018 21:39

Kartik wrote:(EDITOR’S NOTE: US opposition to the sale is mainly due to the fact that the aircraft have been modified without its permission with unspecified Israeli-manufactured electronic systems.
This equipment made them more attractive to Croatia than the F-16s that Washington was offering in competition. The US considers this was an unfair advantage, and is now insisting that they should be returned to the previous standard.[/b]
3.)


We shouldn't expect anything different from Brigganti's "Editor's Note" and his usual bias. Israel, like any other FMS customer signed the TPT clauses when it acquired the F-16's either as a purchase or via accepted aid, and as such it must adhere to what it had promised. The end result of all this will likely be that Israel will seek a waiver and this sale will likely go through. If they wanted to sell modified F-16's acquired via US aid, they are free to do so after seeking the necessary approvals or waivers which they hadn't through the entire bidding process and are only getting to now. The TPT restricts the modifications for which they could have sought a waiver much earlier in the process.

On top of this there are also likely IP concerns because Israel does not hold IP rights over the F-16, and while they have been allowed to modify certain equipment for their own use (and a few things for export) they do not appear to have signed a commercial agreement with Lockheed or any other sub-system supplier where they can do this without paying for it in the commercial market. It is one thing to do it for yourself, but no one else adhering to IP would be able to compete if they work with the lead integrator when one competitor just decides to do it themselves undercutting any royalties which need to go back to the IP holder. Besides Israeli suppliers, Raytheon and Boeing both modify F-16's for different uses in the US and both have a commercial agreement with Lockheed to be able to do so.

Wednesday's US embassy press release said that according to the rules of so-called Third Party Transfers (TPT) which regulates any re-sale of American-made arms, the military equipment originally purchased by an ally country must be returned to its original state before being transferred to a third country, and that Israel was obliged to communicate this in its negotiations with Croatia.

On Tuesday, Croatia's Defence Ministry said that only the delivery of the type of planes contracted with Israel would be acceptable to Croatia, and that the matter of getting US clearance for the sale was purely the responsibility of Israel. Later on Tuesday, Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic also commented on the issue, and said that unless the contracted aircraft are delivered, the procurement tender would be declared void.

http://hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a3551 ... oatia.html


Based on this Israel had a few options. They could have re-sold those F-16's in the state they were sold to them (as in approved as an FMS case or Aid) and I believe if these were pre-1985 acquisitions this would have been a pretty routine transfer. They could have then bid for, or supplied Croatia an upgrade package as per the end-user's ultimate needs. They could have also modified the jets and sought US approval to sell them with those modifications after getting a waiver from the TPT clause they had signed. It appears that they chose to bid with modified F-16's without communicating to Croatia that there may be added cost or procedural processes required to ultimately execute on the contract in case they are selected in they only did not specifically raise the issue of modifications on the earlier approval process with the US.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Dec 2018 03:03, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 13 Dec 2018 00:26

Thanks for the insights Brar. Wasn't aware of these details. AW&ST had this article but it didn't go anywhere near the details you provided.

AW&ST

TEL AVIV—The U.S. and Israel are hashing out last-minute differences over the sale of secondhand F-16 fighter aircraft to Croatia.

Israel was among a number of countries, including the U.S., to offer its used F-16s to the Eastern European NATO member, which wants to replace its fleet of aging MiG-21s.

Croatia ultimately chose the Israeli F-16 A/B aircraft, which are equipped with an Israeli Aerospace Industries Elta EL/M-2032 Fire Control Radar, an advance synthetic aperture radar.

Israeli sources say U.S. officials are angry that in order to defeat the U.S. in the Croatian air force tender, Israel added to advanced electronic systems manufactured by Israeli companies. F-16 manufacturer Lockheed Martin may have to make a small number of upgrades to the Israeli fighters for them to remain compatible with NATO.


No official statement could be obtained from officials in Israel, and the U.S. State Department disputes reports that the U.S. is blocking the deal.

“The United States strongly supports NATO ally Croatia’s defense modernization efforts, including a purchase of F-16 aircraft from Israel. After almost two years of consultations with all parties, the U.S. government has proposed a clear path for completion of this deal by the end of the year‎,” a State Department official said.

On Dec. 11, the State Department formally notified Congress about this potential transfer of aircraft, marking the start of a 15-day notification period, a State Department official said.

Such transfers of U.S. defense equipment purchased under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program require the original FMS purchaser to obtain written approval from the U.S. before it is modified for resale to a new country.


But the official added that the U.S. had made that clear to the parties involved at an early stage in the process of bidding for the Croatian contract. “‎As with any such transfer, the United States needs to ensure that there are basic safeguards to protect sensitive U.S. military technologies.”

The official added, “It is the responsibility of the country seeking to divest itself of a particular U.S.-origin system to understand the requirements and to communicate these conditions to the receiving country.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 13 Dec 2018 00:36

Yes in this case it is a bit complicated from what I gather. There could be many underlying things to this around both the technical process of how you dispose off or sell equipment sold to you under FMS, or given as Military Aid but also around IP. Israel gets special concessions not afforded to many other nations as far as being allowed to modify equipment on its aircraft which are usually partly or wholly financed via US aid. However, unless they follow the IP rules and pay royalties just like anyone else, they will run into commercial and legal issues if they begin to market those systems in a competitive environment where other OEMs who pay royalties also play. It does that on some systems like with F-16 mods for Singapore for example.

In this case, I believe Israel had already developed those modifications for aircraft for its own and for export on other aircraft but use but it appears that Croatia was not informed of the TPT requirements by Israel during the bidding process and now expects to receive the aircraft in the configuration it selected which requires Israel to work the process out with the US. Any nation that buys Military systems from the US can re-sell them by following a process where the US DOS/DOD green lights the deal. This is a pre-requisite and agreed upon during FMS/DCS transactions for military equipment.

Only complications arise when you try to sell to a party that the US DOS/DOD do not approve of or when the military equipment being sold was part of military aid. In the latter case, systems acquired after 1985 have their current values determined based on depreciation and the user is required to compensate the US government post transfer/sale. The one requirement in both cases is that the equipment being sold must be in the same configuration which was APPROVED in the original FMS/DCS sale. If it is not then you have to deal with the DOS/DOD on a case by case basis and seek a waiver and will likely also involve an FMS notice to the Congress informing them of changes made to the aircraft and any compensation to US industry or Government (depending upon who owns the IP on the systems being modified).

This also applies to systems Israel has developed using US funding. Their missile defense programs for example have been supported by the US MDA and there is a US funding component as well including US industry participation (Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop are suppliers on the Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow programs). If there is US technology or IP on the system and Israel sells it, they have to pay the OEM involved and have the sale of sensitive technology from the US DOS/DOD or develop alternatives/substitutes.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 13 Dec 2018 04:58

100 more F-35s for Japan? Possibly so!

from AW&ST

BEIJING—Japan’s imminent five-year defense plan will include the purchase of 50 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings, to be followed by a further 50, the Mainichi newspaper says.

A committee of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has approved replacement of 99 older Boeing F-15s with F-35s, the same newspaper said.

Other Japanese media have reported that Japan will buy 100 F-35s to replace F-15s. Japan has 201 F-15s. The older half are the least modern and would cost more to upgrade. Therefore, they are the most likely candidates for replacement. The F-35s that replaced them would reportedly include some units of the F-35B version, capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings on ships or small airfields.

Japan is already buying 42 F-35s. The next 50 would be bought under a defense acquisition plan due to be issued this month and covering the five years beginning in April 2019, according to Mainichi. Then 50 more would be bought later.

The government decided on Dec. 11 that the helicopter carrier Izumo would be modified to operate F-35s but would not do so permanently and would not be classed as an aircraft carrier, the newspaper said.

A need to operate fighters from short runways on the chain of islands stretching southwest toward China may be a more important factor.

The defense acquisition plan for fiscal 2019-23 will cost ¥27 trillion, 9.8% more than the 2014-18 plan, Mainichi said. But comparisons need allowance for inflation and growth in gross domestic product.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4132
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 13 Dec 2018 05:01

brar_w wrote:Yes in this case it is a bit complicated from what I gather. There could be many underlying things to this around both the technical process of how you dispose off or sell equipment sold to you under FMS, or given as Military Aid but also around IP. Israel gets special concessions not afforded to many other nations as far as being allowed to modify equipment on its aircraft which are usually partly or wholly financed via US aid. However, unless they follow the IP rules and pay royalties just like anyone else, they will run into commercial and legal issues if they begin to market those systems in a competitive environment where other OEMs who pay royalties also play. It does that on some systems like with F-16 mods for Singapore for example.

In this case, I believe Israel had already developed those modifications for aircraft for its own and for export on other aircraft but use but it appears that Croatia was not informed of the TPT requirements by Israel during the bidding process and now expects to receive the aircraft in the configuration it selected which requires Israel to work the process out with the US. Any nation that buys Military systems from the US can re-sell them by following a process where the US DOS/DOD green lights the deal. This is a pre-requisite and agreed upon during FMS/DCS transactions for military equipment.

Only complications arise when you try to sell to a party that the US DOS/DOD do not approve of or when the military equipment being sold was part of military aid. In the latter case, systems acquired after 1985 have their current values determined based on depreciation and the user is required to compensate the US government post transfer/sale. The one requirement in both cases is that the equipment being sold must be in the same configuration which was APPROVED in the original FMS/DCS sale. If it is not then you have to deal with the DOS/DOD on a case by case basis and seek a waiver and will likely also involve an FMS notice to the Congress informing them of changes made to the aircraft and any compensation to US industry or Government (depending upon who owns the IP on the systems being modified).

This also applies to systems Israel has developed using US funding. Their missile defense programs for example have been supported by the US MDA and there is a US funding component as well including US industry participation (Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop are suppliers on the Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow programs). If there is US technology or IP on the system and Israel sells it, they have to pay the OEM involved and have the sale of sensitive technology from the US DOS/DOD or develop alternatives/substitutes.


Understandably complicated. But this may not have been the first time that FMS or military aid equipment was being sold by the nation that received them..only that Israel modified those in the intervening period and that caused more confusion in the process of selling it to a third nation.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 13 Dec 2018 05:35

That too would not have caused complication had Israel either informed the customer (Croatia) that they need to undertake this process or negotiations (beyond approval for re-sale which the US government has already proved), or had they sought the requisite waivers from the US DOS/DOD ahead of time as they wanted to sell modified aircraft as is.

My guess is that for competitive reasons they waited till after they were declared best value to begin this process which has now caused a delay.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7122
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 14 Dec 2018 17:40

An update on the current status of the USAF's operational F-35A units out in Utah. Currently, they have 52 F-35'As delivered with combat coded squadrons and the full complement of 78 F-35As at Hill Air Force Base in Utah would be delivered by the end of 2019 after completing deliveries of all the aircraft to the base's 421st Fighter Squadron. I believe aircraft #50, #51 and #52 were delivered over the last week so these conclude 2018 deliveries to USAF.

All F-35A's delivered to the USAF starting 2020 would then make their way to Alaska (Eielson Air Force Base) where two squadron's with a total of 54 F-35As will be permanently stationed. This should get them into 2021 as far as deliveries go. I believe the plan is then to stand up F-35A squadrons at RAF Lakenheath with deliveries heading to those units begining sometime in 2021.

421st Fighter Squadron receive first F-35A combat aircraft


The United States Air Force has announced on 13 December that the 421st Fighter Squadron here received its first pair of F-35A Lightning II combat aircraft.

The squadron is the last of three squadrons in Hill’s 388th Fighter Wing to take possession of combat-ready aircraft, bringing the 388th Fighter Wing closer to full strength.

The United States Air Force’s first operational F-35As landed at Hill Air Force Base in October 2015. Since then, the 34th and 4th Fighter Squadrons and Aircraft Maintenance Units stood up and generated nearly 10,000 sorties with more than 15,000 flying hours.

The arrival of the first jets in the 421st brings the total number of F-35As at Hill to 52 and is a big step toward the 388th Fighter Wing having a full complement of 78 F-35A Lightning IIs by the end of 2019.

The 421st Aircraft Maintenance Unit, which will support the 421st Fighter Squadron, has been preparing to receive the aircraft for some time by maintaining and launching jets loaned from the wings two other squadrons.

“The 421st has a proud history in the 388th Fighter Wing and we’re all excited to receive our first aircraft,” said Lt. Col. Richard Orzechowski, 421st Fighter Squadron commander.

He added: “Our pilots and maintainers have been working hard and we’re ready to fill the squadron out and fulfill the wing’s mission: to rapidly employ combat power.”

The active duty 388th FW and Air Force Reserve 419th FW fly and maintain the F-35A in a Total Force partnership, which capitalizes on the strength of both components.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 15 Dec 2018 18:11

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1073849453700890624

Myanmar Air Force inaugurated the JF-17M Thunder fighters (Dec. 15.)

Image

Image

Pakis are celebrating on their forums despite the fact that the Blunders cannot do much besides dropping iron bombs on their rohingya brothers.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23048
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 16 Dec 2018 17:24

The landing gear of Su-34 is massive


nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2183
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby nam » 16 Dec 2018 17:32

chola wrote:Myanmar Air Force inaugurated the JF-17M Thunder fighters (Dec. 15.)



They are not JF17 fighter. These are FC-1, from China. Paks have done diddly squat to build the jet.

Let's see if now we see a BVR firing video. And ofcourse we need to have a air exercise as part of Bimtec. :D

We could give them more sonars if they like..

Edit: Paks must have blocked the deal until the AESA radar was confirmed for tehir JF17. They might have concern we will get access to FC-1M.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 16 Dec 2018 17:54

nam wrote:
chola wrote:Myanmar Air Force inaugurated the JF-17M Thunder fighters (Dec. 15.)



They are not JF17 fighter. These are FC-1, from China. Paks have done diddly squat to build the jet.

Let's see if now we see a BVR firing video. And ofcourse we need to have a air exercise as part of Bimtec. :D

We could give them more sonars if they like..


From what I can gather, Cheen doesn’t have the assembly lines for the Blunder (remember, this a PLAAF reject.) CAC is at capacity pumping out J-10 and J-20 variants.

Parts are from Cheen but screwdrivering them together must happen in Pakiland. So any exports must come from TSP as the JF-17.

Cheen has a couple of other cheap planes (FTC-2000 and L-15) competing directly with the JF-17 for donkey role in the stables of sundry turd world air farces. Pakis be complaining of this in the forums.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2183
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby nam » 16 Dec 2018 18:26

chola wrote:From what I can gather, Cheen doesn’t have the assembly lines for the Blunder (remember, this a PLAAF reject.) CAC is at capacity pumping out J-10 and J-20 variants.


I don't think that is the case. Cheen would then become answerable to Pak's build quality and testing process when they sell it to other countries. China may not be assembling for Pak, but for other countries it must be. Since all the prototypes are created and tested in China, they must be having a low volume assembly line.

If Burma jet came from Pak, Paks would have show it been assembled and painted in Pak. They would have done a ceremonial hand over in Pak.

Edit: There you go. It was assembled and tested in China

http://www.asianage.com/india/all-india ... anmar.html

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 17 Dec 2018 10:55

^^^ You might have a point, Nam ji.

Looks like it comes with SD-10 MRAAM and an anti-ship mijjile? Nice livery.
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 17 Dec 2018 11:21

This is gonna be interesting:

https://qz.com/1497137/boeings-china-plant-delivers-first-jet-a-737-max-for-air-china

Boeing’s new plant in China just delivered its first plane

By Steve Mollman
December 16, 2018


Boeing, America’s largest exporter, delivered its first plane finished in China this weekend. Built for Air China, the 737 Max was completed and delivered on Saturday at a new facility in Zhoushan, outside of Shanghai.

Many more will follow. With its burgeoning middle class, China is expected to need about 7,700 commercial planes over the next two decades—representing $1.2 trillion in potential sales, according to Bloomberg (paywall). China’s airlines are already the biggest buyers of 737s, which are Boeing’s largest source of profit. China will soon be the world’s biggest airplane market.

The Zhoushan facility is a joint venture with state-owned plane maker Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac), which last year completed the maiden flight of its C919, roughly the same size as a 737.
...

While yesterday’s delivery was a big step for Boeing—it has no other overseas factories—rival Airbus has been assembling its A320s in China for about a decade, and it recently added a completion and delivery center for A330s at its Tianjin campus, according to Bloomberg.

Beyond competition from Airbus, Boeing faces another challenge in its most promising market: the simmering trade war between the US and China. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump criticized Boeing’s plan for a China plant, saying it would take jobs away from US. His administration has imposed various tariffs on China, which has responded in kind. The US has also set a hard deadline of March 1 for a trade deal to be worked out, indicating that otherwise tariffs will be raised to 25% from 10% on $200 billion of Chinese goods.


Will Trump allow this Boeing factory in Cheen to stand?

Or will he exact some price — maybe force Cheen to drop development of the C919?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 17 Dec 2018 11:26

Funnily enough, the 3rd C919 prototype just began runway testing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/dafengcao/status/1073772634062479360


Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11053
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Gagan » 17 Dec 2018 12:50

So Cheen is building the A-320 series, the B-737 series and its own Xeroxed C-919 series.
All three are narrow bodied, single aisle jets with similar capacities and ranges

They will now use this to export to Asia, Africa, Latin America.
India must have its own domestic production. Mota Bhai & Tata needs to jump into the fray

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 18 Dec 2018 12:21

Gagan wrote:So Cheen is building the A-320 series, the B-737 series and its own Xeroxed C-919 series.
All three are narrow bodied, single aisle jets with similar capacities and ranges

They will now use this to export to Asia, Africa, Latin America.
India must have its own domestic production. Mota Bhai & Tata needs to jump into the fray


I think the GOI is using Cheen’s entry into this space to kickstart at least discussion of civilian airliners. We can’t afford to not leverage our market which is destined to be a top three one that is match only by the US and PRC.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 18 Dec 2018 12:29

Russkies are pushing the CR929 and now the Frenchies want in.

https://www.rt.com/business/446700-france-china-russia-civil-jet/
Forget sanctions? France wants to participate in jetliner project with Russia & China

French firms are planning to take part in a Russian-Chinese project to build a wide-body long-haul passenger airplane, according to Bertrand de Lacombe, Director of International Cooperation at French Civil Aviation Authority.

“France is interested in participating in the project together with Russia and China,” Lacombe told journalists on the sidelines of the Russian-French Council for Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Issues (CEFIC).
...
Parties will cooperate in the project on a competitive basis if French suppliers meet economic and technical demands and are ready to work under sanctions, according to Ravil Khakimov, the head of the department of aviation sector at Russia’s Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Khakimov added that producer of aircraft electronics Zodiac Aerospace, designer of electrical systems aerospace Thales Group and aircraft engine maker Safran are among the French enterprises that have showed willingness to compete in the tender so far.
...
The CR929 jetliner is a jointly designed plane set to make its maiden flight in 2023. The aircraft is expected to compete with the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787. Its prototype fuselage, which was demonstrated at China’s largest airshow in Zhuhai, was 22 meters long, 6.5 meters tall and 5.9 meters wide.

The basic version CR929-600 is projected to carry 280 passengers over a distance of up to 12,000 kilometers (7,500 miles). The aircraft family will reportedly include a modification with an extended fuselage (CR929-700) and a shortened fuselage (CR929-500). The aircraft length will be 63.25 meters, with a wingspan of 58-61 meters and height of 17.9 meters.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 18 Dec 2018 17:43

chola wrote:
Gagan wrote:So Cheen is building the A-320 series, the B-737 series and its own Xeroxed C-919 series.
All three are narrow bodied, single aisle jets with similar capacities and ranges

They will now use this to export to Asia, Africa, Latin America.
India must have its own domestic production. Mota Bhai & Tata needs to jump into the fray


I think the GOI is using Cheen’s entry into this space to kickstart at least discussion of civilian airliners. We can’t afford to not leverage our market which is destined to be a top three one that is match only by the US and PRC.


Indian elephant is moving like an ant. Its only some time back that the Min of Civil Aviation has got the clearance so that they are free to follow their own path to build Civil airliner. No need to beg to MoD anymore. GOI is still forming committees and having chai biskut sessions so the almighty (but surprisingly brainless) babus can grasp the need to kick start desi civil airliner project.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11053
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Gagan » 18 Dec 2018 17:55

The civil airliner was in the news when Prafool Patel was aviation minister.
But then the Air India workers were saying there was corruption in procuring the B 777 fleet.
The 70-90 odd seater has been in the planning stage for atleast 2 decades.
As we've seen, with certain governments, indigeninsation and domestic production is low priority - imports and scams during imports is a priority.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23048
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 19 Dec 2018 10:26

Presentation of the new South Korean military helicopter LAH

Image
Image
Image
Image


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 19 Dec 2018 12:12

^^^ Looks like a derivative of the Frenchie Dauphin/Panther. I wonder if they got exporting rights. They always seems to be able to export their JVs — whether it is submarines from the Germans or aircraft from the Amreekis.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ambar, brar_w, Chinmay, dnivas, Google [Bot], komal, manjgu, mmasand, Varuna and 115 guests