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.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2279
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby abhik » 19 Dec 2018 12:19

JayS wrote:
chola wrote:
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.

This has been my pet peeve for some time. Airbus has been making A320s in China for last 10 years i.e. since their economy was our size now. We will be buying 80 to 100 A320s every year - instead of getting an assembly line here we are trying to do screwdriverigiri for F16 and C295 at @ 12 a year or so :evil:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2955
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 19 Dec 2018 12:44

abhik wrote:
JayS wrote:
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.

This has been my pet peeve for some time. Airbus has been making A320s in China for last 10 years i.e. since their economy was our size now. We will be buying 80 to 100 A320s every year - instead of getting an assembly line here we are trying to do screwdriverigiri for F16 and C295 at @ 12 a year or so :evil:


In the past, I thought Cheen was simply leveraging its market. The market is massively important of course but there was one other reason — precedence. McDonnell Douglas had a plant in Cheen in the 1980s. I learn the reason why after learning of the Y-10.

The MD plant was not haphazard. Unkil allowed it because it was used to short-circuit the Y-10. Imagine if we had a Boeing 707 sized prototype in the 1980s that seated 150 passengers and made over 130 flights including those to a half dozen different cities. Would we have given up on it?

Well, the otherwise cunning chinis did just that. It took them nearly 40 years to get back to that point with the C919. The prize in exchange had to be worth it. That prize was a western aircraft plant.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 19 Dec 2018 13:14

Airbus & Boeing manufacturing in China was part of the larger business deal and manuf in China was in the interest of these two and china has a huge market for them like in thousands

Even if India wants to Airbus and Boeing to build it in India these MNC wont let that happen , All they allowed was to make Doors by HAL

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2955
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 19 Dec 2018 13:34

Austin wrote:Airbus & Boeing manufacturing in China was part of the larger business deal and manuf in China was in the interest of these two and china has a huge market for them like in thousands

Even if India wants to Airbus and Boeing to build it in India these MNC wont let that happen , All they allowed was to make Doors by HAL


India’s market will soon be in the thousands too. You just need to strong arm one to build in India and the other will come.

Irregardless, we need to start our own program. Cheen’s history of airliner projects is an useful lever in getting the Big Two to build there.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64006
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 19 Dec 2018 15:07

the achievement of the UPA era was selling off our market to the gulf airlines reportedly on a bribe/seat allowed basis.
thats why gulfies now fly into even smaller airports using 737 sized planes all day.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 19 Dec 2018 21:06

abhik wrote:
JayS wrote:
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.

This has been my pet peeve for some time. Airbus has been making A320s in China for last 10 years i.e. since their economy was our size now. We will be buying 80 to 100 A320s every year - instead of getting an assembly line here we are trying to do screwdriverigiri for F16 and C295 at @ 12 a year or so :evil:


Well, I had similar thoughts but through some discussions on BRF I got a valid reason why we are not able to dictate what Cheen can. Not that this is to justify GOI's incompetence or to say they did everything they could have. Cheen's procurement is government procurement. While in case of India its private companies who are buying. As per trade rules like WTO, GOI could not have demanded offset or indigenization directly. They could however have circumvented that issue by armtwisting the OEMs to "willingly" give us what we want by coercive means or duties or pitting Airbus against Boeing or may be acquiring all the planes through govt owned leasing entity or some other creative manner which I cannot think of. But since there is complete policy blindness at Min of Civil Aviation and GOI as a whole I am sure they never thought about it seriously. GOI could have taken all desi aviation companies together and through them demaded localization of complete MRO industry at least. Instead they are killing whatever scant MRO companies there are by imposing 18% GST on them where their services become costlier than foreign companies. The MRO sector is in distress due to idiotic policies of GOI. In such scenario what long term thinking one can expect from GOI (and we have the best govt so far, even they are acting like utter fools on this front.).

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4008
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 20 Dec 2018 04:08

From AW&ST

Japan to buy additional 105 F-35s, including 63 F-35As and 42 F-35Bs, for a total fleet of 147 F-35s..they'll be the largest F-35 operator outside of the USA.

Japan is adding 105 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings to its fighter acquisition program, while also upgrading Boeing F-15s and buying aircraft that probably will renew the country’s tanker and airborne-early-warning (AEW) fleets.

The defense ministry’s Medium Term Defense Plan, issued on Dec. 18, further sets out a program to buy 12 P-1 maritime patrollers and five C-2 airlifters from Kawasaki Heavy Industries during the planning period—the five fiscal years beginning April 1, 2019. The army is scheduled in that period to receive three Boeing CH-47JA Chinook and 34 Subaru UH-X helicopters, the latter based on the Bell 412EPX.

STOVL F-35s will fly from converted helicopter carriers

For fiscal 2019, missile defense has priority

As an initial move toward enlarging the F-35 force, Japan will buy 45 in the five fiscal years beginning on April 1, 2019, including eight F-35As previously planned. The defense ministry has decided to drop local assembly of F-35s, which has been blamed for contributing to the high price Japan has been paying for the stealth fighters.

Development of a new combat aircraft, to replace Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-2s in the 2030s, will be launched in fiscal 2019-23; the exact timing is not stated. Japan will lead the program, called the Future Fighter, the ministry says. Twenty F-15s will be upgraded with improved electronic-warfare systems and an ability to use the Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

The additional F-35s will bring Japan’s Lightning fleet to 147 when acquisition is completed after 2023. Of the additional 105 fighters, 42 will be short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35Bs and 63 will be F-35As, according to a cabinet decision published with the defense ministry’s plan. The F-35As are designed to fly from conventionally long runways,

The anti-submarine helicopter carriers Izumo and Kaga will be converted to operate STOVL aircraft, the ministry says, referring to F-35Bs.
They will be “multifunction escort ships” for “defense and disaster relief,” permissible under the constitution, it explains. The ministry conspicuously avoids the expression “aircraft carrier,” the power-projection connotation that could make many of Japan’s generally pacifist people uneasy.

Shipboard STOVL aircraft are needed “to strengthen the air defense of Japan’s Pacific side, which has a vast airspace but few airfields,” the ministry says. It may be thinking particularly of the southwest of the country, where air bases mostly face the Sea of Japan. In the middle of the archipelago, the island of Honshu appears to have no shortage of bases on its Pacific side.

For the AEW fleet, nine Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeyes will join four others previously planned. The total of 13 will be enough for one-for-one replacement of the current fleet of E-2Cs. Acquisition of the four Boeing KC-46A tanker-transports should be a fleet-expansion measure. Japan allocated funds for two aircraft of that type in fiscal 2016-18 and already has four similar Boeing KC-767s.


The navy will get 23 new ships in fiscal 2019-23, including five submarines (of which Japan almost always builds one a year) and 10 “escorts.” In Japanese usage, escort, loosely translated as “destroyer,” can mean a frigate, air-defense destroyer or even helicopter carrier. In 2019-23, there also will be four ships clearly defined as frigates.

The plan further provides for acquiring two Aegis Ashore missile-defense sites, which was announced previously. One Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk UAS is scheduled for purchase in fiscal 2019-23.

A program for naval utility helicopters—already suspended—is absent from the plan, and there is no mention of a new requirement for surveillance drones, which suppliers have thought could emerge.

More immediately, the ministry has requested a 7.2% increase over 2018 for the fiscal 2019 defense budget—the largest hike since 1990. The request will keep spending at 0.9% of GDP, below the politically sensitive 1.0% limit that has been respected since 1961. The government, however, seems to be softening the public to spend more.

Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya noted in October that NATO countries are working toward spending 2% of GDP on defense. While 2% need not be a specific target for Japan, he says an assessment of required forces found spending of about that level is needed. Considering the security environment—mainly the growing Chinese threat—some parts of the budget are insufficient, he says.

The most expensive item in the ¥5.29 trillion ($47 billion) fiscal 2019 request is again ballistic missile defense. Japan plans to place two Aegis Ashore sites, one each at the southwestern and northern ends of Honshu, covering all of Japan including Okinawa. With a total of 48 SM-3 interceptors, the sites are expected to provide a defense against limited attacks from North Korea or China.

Editor's note: This story has been amended to correct the number of KC-46As previously budgeted and to mention the likelihood that additional aircraft will expand the tanker-transport fleet.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 20 Dec 2018 08:06

Kartik wrote:Japan to buy additional 105 F-35s, including 63 F-35As and 42 F-35Bs, for a total fleet of 147 F-35s..they'll be the largest F-35 operator outside of the USA.



Two papers published by LM engineers in AIAA this year around STOVL F-35 and CV integration and testing help shed some light on what the Japanese have ahead of them as they integrate the F-35 into their flat tops and a ship in general. They would also have the benefit of the F-35B having been integrated on three ship classes by the time they begin their effort and with DT/OT well behind them they would access to a heck of a lot of flight test data that could allow them to accelerate flight testing just as the Brits are able to do.

F-35 STOVL Performance Requirements Verification - https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-3681

F-35 Carrier Suitability Flight Testing - https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-3678


Image
Image
Image

*The VL and STO data is only for the 5 aircraft that are part of the test team, not the overall F-35B fleet.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64006
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 20 Dec 2018 12:02

is japan planning to construct more VSTOL carriers other than 2 existing Izumo class.
the 2 smaller Hyugas I assume will remain as ASW sea control ships.

given their funding and shipyard quality, they could easily build some 3-4 bigger 50,000t JSF carriers with EMALS to get full benefit of the JSF-C payload and range over the JSF-B.

its high time they put some teeth on the matter. and they could look at the F22-XL proposal as a VLO mini LRS-B type shooter and raider to deal with the air to surface attack role......japan being a huge long unsinkable carrier they have plenty of land based options, all protected by Aegis ABM systems soon. it will really show up the vaunted J20 as weak and a shame to its biraderi - make it lose face and retreat from zhuhai airshow

the dragon will publicly show rage and contempt but privately shit bricks if japan gets into real horizontal and vertical scaleout mode...same as they got slapped *hard* by our A5 tests and SSBN buildout now commencing in earnest with a proven A4 on the rack and A5 expected to stream in soon.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 20 Dec 2018 19:38

I don't think they have declared their intentions to procure more than these two ships. Not at least in the next budget plan so it could happen beyond the mid 2020's. They are not calling these carriers and most probably would not be deploying them as such. These will remain swing role ships where Japan will maintain the competency of adding a air complement at short notice with a defensive focus. They are looking at 42 aircraft, so they should have a pool of around 30 to deploy. Once those two ships are converted and upgraded they can also reinforce carrier patrols in the region just as USS Essex is currently doing in the ME with an aircraft carrier.

Given their defensive focus, I don't think they will ever consider going to a proper carrier or the F-35C to make use of that greater payload and range.That said one way to extend range is by employing long range offensive capability and they are working on long range hypersonic weapons and they are very much part of their long term plans. Having the option to reinforce their large ships with an Air component increases their survivability and lethality so it gives them additional options and overall under ship based, land based and US based AEGIS capability they have significant wide area coverage when it comes air and missile defense. That they are buying a decent number of E-2Ds is for this reason..Unlike their large AWACS, the E-2D is NIFC-CA enabled and can link up with AEGIS and contribute to both networking, and allows engage on remote capability for over the horizon air and missile defense.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 22 Dec 2018 11:28

Amazing a country like UAE can make a MALE Armed UAV and now they have exported it to Algeria , Multiple photos and video in the link

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3465384.html

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 23 Dec 2018 11:51

Austin wrote:Amazing a country like UAE can make a MALE Armed UAV and now they have exported it to Algeria , Multiple photos and video in the link

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3465384.html


why are a bunch of what looks like Russian guys sitting there in uniform?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64006
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 23 Dec 2018 11:53

Iirc its a italian venture funded by uae under make in uae

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2018 15:40

Neshant wrote:
Austin wrote:Amazing a country like UAE can make a MALE Armed UAV and now they have exported it to Algeria , Multiple photos and video in the link

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3465384.html


why are a bunch of what looks like Russian guys sitting there in uniform?


You need to remove those US Made Glasses and see those are Algerian Armed Forces :wink: least you see Russian every where

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2018 15:41

Long-range aviation VKS Russia 104 years!


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2018 15:44

F-16V suppose to be most advanced version of F-16 till date , Good contender of MMRCA

Image
Last edited by Austin on 23 Dec 2018 16:15, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64006
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 23 Dec 2018 16:04

Uae adcom systems is likely like ST kinetics singapore - a sovereign fund backed mnc who can source tech and hire from wherever they need to. Good work by them.
They also funded piaggio in italy but seems like the order was cancelled
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-piag ... SKCN1NZ12C

This takes nothing away from the fact that we goofed up bigtime on both the vision and execution aspect of male and hale uavs
EU also fcked up bigtime and is attempting to recover with euroMALE project by mid 2020

Right now the high ground is held by usa israel and china

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2018 16:50

Yes and for China to catch up with the Top Dawg in such short time is quite an eye opener , this is a country till late 80s flew reverse engineered 60's aircraft and till late 90s flew nothing better than lic manuf and rev engineerred Su-27S ....... in just 20 years they caught up with every body.

Chini armed UAV was used by Iraqi in combat

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2955
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 23 Dec 2018 17:29

Austin wrote:Yes and for China to catch up with the Top Dawg in such short time is quite an eye opener , this is a country till late 80s flew reverse engineered 60's aircraft and till late 90s flew nothing better than lic manuf and rev engineerred Su-27S ....... in just 20 years they caught up with every body.

Chini armed UAV was used by Iraqi in combat


I wrote about this in the chini mil thread. Their mil drone industry is a product of their US-style competitive eco-system where their biggest sellers, the CH-4/5 series, are from a company with no PLA sanctioned contracts.

They also have ship manufacturers making carrier drones and mining companies making hyperglides.

They made their advances by loosening a part of the MIC to market forces. That should be a lesson to us and why Modi (a known admirer of Chini growth when he was leading Gujarat) is trying to involve the private sector across the board in MII.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 23 Dec 2018 20:47

F-16V suppose to be most advanced version of F-16 till date , Good contender of MMRCA


F-16V is a dead end and makes only sense for F-16 operators who are looking for an upgrade or a top up or perhaps for those who are deeply integrated into NATO gear and want to get something that fits right in with other systems. It has literally zero prospects for growth into the future.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2018 20:50

brar_w wrote:
F-16V suppose to be most advanced version of F-16 till date , Good contender of MMRCA


F-16V is a dead end and makes only sense for F-16 operators who are looking for an upgrade or a top up or perhaps for those who are deeply integrated into NATO gear and want to get something that fits right in with other systems. It has literally zero prospects for growth into the future.


I would prefer a F-16 Block 52 type with latest AESA , Nible and Agile

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 24 Dec 2018 12:03

Austin wrote:F-16V for the Hellenic airforce


How is Greece affording this if they are taking loans from the IMF, EU and everyone in sight just to keep up with their debt obligations.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 24 Dec 2018 12:26

Neshant wrote:
Austin wrote:F-16V for the Hellenic airforce


How is Greece affording this if they are taking loans from the IMF, EU and everyone in sight just to keep up with their debt obligations.


It is an upgrade program (upgrading existing aircraft to block-70) and Greece is doing nearly all of it in house. How are they able to afford it"? Probably by stretching the program out and only upgrading 8-10 aircraft a year since they don't plan to have all 84 aircraft upgraded till 2027.

The structural service life upgrades they are going to do as part of the Blk 70 upgrades will extend half of their total F-16 fleet into the mid 2040's so it is a fairly cheap upgrade for them compared to buying new F-16s or Gripens which they will likely not be able to do for some time. They also cut down their upgrade program from 150+ aircraft to 84 probably also to save money given their current economic condition.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 24 Dec 2018 13:53

How much is all this costing Greece - or more specifically their unpaid lenders?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 24 Dec 2018 19:58

Neshant wrote:How much is all this costing Greece - or more specifically their unpaid lenders?


As per the deal its size and the financial commitment spread over the next 8 or so years, it is is around $990 million so about $120 million a year or about $12 Million an aircraft. This comes to about 2.5% of their annual defense budget if the budget stays at its current levels through the 2020s. They had previously said that upgrading the F-16's would allow them to retire their F-4 phantoms so there are likely some long term savings from the reduced fleet size as an offset to this cost. Those old F-4's are unlikely to be cheap to maintain and keep operational.

They have also previously discussed using parts and mission systems removed from the block 50/52 F-16's (as they are upgraded to Blk 70) to upgrade their older block-30 F-16's so there are going to be some long term savings compared to a larger upgrade program that covers them as well.

Greece still has a defense budget and spends around $5 Billion on defense every year. The truncated upgrade of the 84 jets to block 70 is largely seen as a practical decision given their inability to purchase new aircraft over the next 10-15 years. Since Greece's Blk 50/52's aren't very old they are expected to remain in service with the upgrades till 2048 giving them a lot of breathing room before they need to invest in modernization/replacement which will likely remain beyond their budgets for a long time.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ramana » 26 Dec 2018 23:42

I would like to gather information/data on International Fighter Industry and future plans.
Please post data by country or consortium.
name of the company or corporate entity, financial strength, order book, plans.
and use hashtag #IFIStudy

thanks.
Start with wiki pages

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 27 Dec 2018 21:51

Video: Houthis shoot down alleged Saudi strike drone

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1078319599685373952

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2955
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 28 Dec 2018 06:28

Test cross section of the fuelage of russki-chini CR929 completed. This thing is moving suprisingly fast it seems.
Image

Interview with Maxim Litvinov who's the chief designer from the Russian UAC side of things. Use google translate on link. Interest stuff on division of work. Russians got the critical composite wings and center box while chinis got the fuselage and control surfaces(?) as well as final assembly. Because the wngs are so large and in pne piece, they need to build it in the Russian Far East near a port so they can be transported by ship.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3457594.html

Russians are putting a lot of effort into this. Between the two of them they might make a dent in the Boeing-Airbus duopoly.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Dec 2018 08:55

Chola the status of program and goals are mentioned in this link

Status of the program CR929

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2955
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 28 Dec 2018 16:35

^^^ Thanks Austin. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to involve ourselves in this.

The ambition of the project (280 passengers in the base version) is pretty high but it looks like it is not out of reach. They are depending on their home markets which in the case of Cheen is probably enough even if they never exported it. But the profit margin must be tight.

If we offered them a third market then it will be possible to obtain a line. And an immense bargaining chip with the duopoly. Just thoughts.


The third C919 (B-001D) just flew in Shanghai.

Image
Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Dec 2018 16:46

The Russian in 2010 offered HAL to join Superjet SSJ 100 ( 100 seater regional aircraft program and then later on MS-21 Narrow body airliner , HAL said it has nothing to do with Civil Business and passed it over , I dont think we will join a Wide Body Program and this one is already GATE 3

As far as civilian aircraft goes we are sadly pretty much no where not even building a 50 seater regional aircraft RTA which was promised by Deve Gowda in 1999 and went no where since then.

Why Boeing and Airbus gives Civilian Aviation Ministry , AI and IA good kickback where is the need to develop this aircraft.

C919 looks good got nose shape of Dreamliner also looks like High Aspect Wing Ratio like MS-21/Dreamliner

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Dec 2018 16:56

Video: The newest model of Il-76 flight testing video got all glass cockpit , Watch the footage of the Il-78M-90A aerial refueling tanker test flight

https://twitter.com/UAC_Russia_eng/stat ... 5771385856

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2955
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 28 Dec 2018 17:06

Austin wrote:The Russian in 2010 offered HAL to join Superjet SSJ 100 ( 100 seater regional aircraft program and then later on MS-21 Narrow body airliner , HAL said it has nothing to do with Civil Business and passed it over , I dont think we will join a Wide Body Program and this one is already GATE 3

As far as civilian aircraft goes we are sadly pretty much no where not even building a 50 seater regional aircraft RTA which was promised by Deve Gowda in 1999 and went no where since then.

Why Boeing and Airbus gives Civilian Aviation Ministry , AI and IA good kickback where is the need to develop this aircraft.

C919 looks good got nose shape of Dreamliner also looks like High Aspect Wing Ratio like MS-21/Dreamliner


But the RTA would have involved HAL (and NAL.) At any rate, I don’t think HAL would have or should have been the one to make that kind of strategic decision on the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21. It would have been a GOI decision. Perhaps the offer was never very good (like FGFA.)

We need to have something for the decades coming up. Otherwise our massive market will do nothing except fund goras.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Dec 2018 17:29

Chola , No one will just throw decades of research onto India bowl just because we want to develop something , Civil Aviation is the most competitive segment of market where even delay by a year means financial viability of the entire program can come into question because customer would cancel a firm order and opt for its competitor and so will go the soft order

HAL would be the last yard stick when it comes to efficiency and time management one would measure against even for defence program where leeway is given that can be like years of delay and failing/shortcoming are forgiven , If HAL had been even in 19 seater market they would have been bankrupt long back .. We dont have any institution in India from R&D and Manuf pov that can compete in global civil segment ......HAL is happy making Doors for A-320 for decade and some private player is happy assembling CKD for US copters thats about it.

They can do all the PPT giri at Aero India but nothing good comes out of it , All they do is Rinse it for the next and so on and show goes on

We have to start from some where and we are in no choice to demand we have to grow up gradually and go up the scale building competencies this is a good 3 decades of serious work.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 29 Dec 2018 01:29

chola wrote:.

The ambition of the project (280 passengers in the base version) is pretty high but it looks like it is not out of reach. They are depending on their home markets which in the case of Cheen is probably enough even if they never exported it. But the profit margin must be tight.

Chola, 280 is not pretty high. Its bottomline for a Long Range wide body aircraft. Also its second iteration now for the Chinese and Russians have decent experience at hand overall. Not that steep curve now for them together. As far as market is concerned, Russians have barely sold anything outside USSR/Russia in civil airliner market until now. China has no track record. But China has enough financial muscle to bankroll even a loss making program. I doubt we will see much of these jets selling outside, perhaps some countries might buy with credit lines extended by China or as quid pro quo. But CR929 is up against very strong well established wide body contenders and its still on drawing boards.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 Dec 2018 06:08

Relevant for the future of the AH-64 Apache and UH-60 users and the future engine replacement for those fleets around the world. The ITEP will also eventually be the baseline engine for the next generation US rotor craft programs under the Future Vertical Lift effort.

ITEP downselect expected in early 2019


Vendors competing in the Army's Improved Turbine Engine Program expect the service to downselect to one design in early 2019.

One of the two concepts for the Apache and Black Hawk engine replacement will move onto the engineering and manufacturing development phase after the Army's milestone B decision in late January, representatives of ITEP competitors GE Aviation and Advanced Turbine Engine Co., a joint venture of Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney, told Inside Defense in separate interviews.

The EMD phase will finalize the design and involve thousands of hours of tests on a prototype engine in order to qualify it for use in the Army helicopters before going into full production.

Earlier this year, GE and ATEC finished their preliminary design review, submitting the bulk of it in February and the technical volume as well as proposals for the EMD between June and July. Final proposal revisions were sent to the Army Oct. 31 and Nov. 1.

ITEP is to replace GE's T700 engine with the goal of giving helicopters better fuel efficiency, higher altitudes and greater speeds as well as better acclimating the aircraft to operate in hot arid climates.

ATEC is building the T900 engine which uses a dual-spool architecture, while GE Aviation is offering the single-spool T901.

Spools are the two main rotating parts in an engine, specifically the turbine and the compressor. Single-spools have the two together as one part while the dual-spool separates them.

The T901's architecture offers fewer moving parts and is "fully modular," allowing for easy maintenance, according to Mike Sousa, GE's business development lead for ITEP.

"You can pull modules off, you can access the hot section components in the field, you can do your modular maintenance out in the field at the fight and turn the engines back into service," he said.

ATEC's dual spool is more acclimated to hotter climates due to the two-spool design dividing the engine's workload, according to Jerry Wheeler, vice president of ATEC. The design is supposed to allow for faster start times and decrease the lag between the pilot's control movements and the aircraft's response.

"The pilot is going to find the reaction time of the engine and the accuracy of getting to that new power setting is much more quickly accomplished in a two-spool engine," Wheeler said.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 29 Dec 2018 09:14

brar_w wrote:
Spools are the two main rotating parts in an engine, specifically the turbine and the compressor. Single-spools have the two together as one part while the dual-spool separates them.


:shock: :-?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 29 Dec 2018 13:30

JayS wrote: :shock: :-?


Yeah not too bright on the technical explanation of the differences. :)

AvWeek has been covering the competition and has had a series of articles over the last 6-8 months. This program is eventually aimed at $10 Billion / 6000 engines on the US side and many more engines for export and future applications (FVL). They had a chance to sit down with representatives from both GE and ATSC around April/May to go over their submissions and work so far.

Image

GE Finalizing Proposal For ITEP After Design Review


NASHVILLE, Tennessee—The competitors vying for the U.S. Army’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) are just months away from completing and submitting their final proposals.
GE Aviation and the Pratt & Whitney/Honeywell Advanced Turbine Engine Co. (ATEC) have developed rival engines—the T901 and T900, respectively—to replace GE’s T700 in the Army’s SikorskyUH-60M/V Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64E Apache. The winning engine potentially also could power the next generation of clean-sheet military rotorcraft in the lightweight category of Future Vertical Lift (FVL).

Ahead of the final submission, GE’s ITEP executives Ron Hutter and Mike Sousa say it is a tough competition against a “robust competitor.” But they are hopeful of emerging victorious when the service hands down its verdict later this year.

Hutter, GE’s T901 executive director, says the technical portion of the proposal based on a recent preliminary design review (PDR) will be submitted in June or July. The government’s source-selection decision is anticipated in the fourth quarter, followed by a contract award in the first quarter of 2019.

“We’re going to have to do our best to win this competition, but we’re certainly leaning forward to offer the best product we can,” Hutter says.

The two improved turbine engines, the T901 and T900, spawned from the Army’s Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) science and technology effort. They have increased the power to 3,000 shp compared to the 2,000 shp T700 within the same volume while improving fuel consumption and engine life. As the program stands today, the ITEP winner could deliver as many as 6,000 brand-new engines to replace the T700s in the Army’s numerous Black Hawk and Apache fleets.

Both teams have produced two S&T demonstrator engines for the AATE program, but GE went a step farther by investing in a third prototype, which more closely aligned with the final design. That third engine (pictured) was powered up last year, and GE believes that investment buys down risk for the development phase, if it wins.

As the incumbent T700 manufacturer, GE has the most to lose in this race. Developed in the 1970s for the Black Hawk, the T700 turboshaft remains a lucrative franchise program, and the company expects to keep those engines humming for as long as the Army requires through refurbishment and upgrade.

GE has backed a “simple, proven” single-spool engine architecture that incorporates the latest technology from its military and commercial engine portfolios, such as three-dimensional aerodynamic design, ceramic matrix composites, additive manufacturing, advanced cooling and improved sand tolerance. ATEC has backed a two-spool architecture, which it claims is superior.

The increased power output afforded by ITEP will allow the Black Hawk and Apache, once re-engined, to operate at 6,000 ft. in hot, sandy environments (6K95) while carrying the necessary payload weight.

GE also has been in discussions with rotorcraft manufacturers about leveraging ITEP for Future Vertical Lift, specifically the Capability Set 1/FVL-Light armed scout procurement. GE believes it also could develop a more powerful ITEP derivative for the middleweight category, Capability Set 3/FVL-Medium, if required. “We all want to know where the FVL requirements land,” Hutter says. “We doubled the power of the T700 within the same volume and we could certainly incorporate that technology for FVL.”

Regardless of how the multiservice FVL procurement shakes out, GE says it is squarely focused on the main priority—re-engining the Black Hawk and Apache, which are underpowered in high and hot conditions because of weight gain. “Regardless of what happens with FVL, the Army is going to keep flying Black Hawks and Apaches for a long period of time, so we need to give them the best capability,” says Sousa, GE’s ITEP business development leader.

GE and ATEC are most of the way through their 24-month ITEP Technology Maturation and Risk-Reduction (TMRR) contracts, awarded by the Army in September 2016. As part of that effort, GE completed fit checks with the Black Hawk and Apache in December 2017 using a full-scale engine mockup. On March 2, it finalized the preliminary design review with the Army program office at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville.

The competitors are now responding to a request for proposals issued in November 2017 for the engineering and manufacturing development phase, a two-step process. The non-technical portion of GE’s proposal—including cost, schedule and other details—was submitted in February, GE confirms. Following the PDR, the company is completing the final technical proposal. The TMRR phase will continue as the companies complete post-proposal activities and respond to any evaluation notices.

The winning engine will undergo 5,000 hr. of qualification testing during development. GE won’t say how many developmental engines it proposes to build, since that number is competition sensitive. It is expensive to build developmental engines, but having extra engines allows the winning company to burn through those 5,000 hr. of testing quicker. Flight tests in the Black Hawk and Apache will start once the chosen ITEP engine has completed extensive ground testing and is qualified for a preliminary flight rating.



ITEP To ACE: ATEC Going Full Throttle


As the Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC) battles GE Aviation for the prized Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), the joint venture between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney is also heading into a preliminary design review on another next-generation U.S. Army engine initiative: the Alternate Concept Engine (ACE).

ATEC completed its preliminary design review for the T900 in early April and is now putting together its final “Phase 2” technical proposal for ITEP. Based on ATEC’s signature dual-spool turbine engine architecture, the T900 is challenging GE’s single-spool T901 in the 3,000 shp-class ITEP competition to re-engine thousands of Army Sikorsky H-60 Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters.

Spawned from the Army’s Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine science and technology demonstration, the Army awarded 24-month preliminary design contracts in late 2016 for both ATEC’s T900 (HPW3000) and GE’s T901 (GE3000). Only one team will advance beyond this technology maturation and risk-reduction phase and into full-scale development. The prize is a $10 billion program to deliver more than 6,200 engines to replace the 2,000-shp GE T700 in the Black Hawk and Apache.

Speaking to Aerospace DAILY at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual symposium here on April 25, ATEC President Craig Madden and Vice President Jerry Wheeler said they are feeling confident heading into the downselection. The Army intends to make a contract award in the first quarter of 2019, probably around January 2019.

“A lot of very good work has been done over the last 18 months by the design team,” Wheeler says. “They had the opportunity to show the results of that work and talk about it during the preliminary design review. I think we did it to the Army’s satisfaction.”

He says the ITEP program has been consistently meeting its target milestone and remains Army Aviation’s No. 1 modernization priority, with strong backing on Capitol Hill.

“As long as we keep hitting those milestones, the capability this engine is going to bring sells itself,” Wheeler says. “We promote the program on Capitol Hill, and we’ve seen no naysayers. It’s got good support with everybody we brief.”

If selected, ATEC would roll straight into detailed design of the T900 over the first 12-18 months. Then it would begin building developmental hardware for rig testing, preliminary flight rating testing and eventually first flight in the Black Hawk and Apache. The Army intends to begin fielding ITEP engines around fiscal 2026.

“We feel good. We like our engine and our partnership: Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney,” Wheeler says. “We set out in 2006 to develop a better engine together than either of us would have done apart.”

“We had very good results during the science and technology phase and have done exceptionally well now during the preliminary design phase,” Madden says. “We should be able to win this.”

As work continues finalizing the T900 proposal, ATEC is gearing up for a preliminary design review on the ACE science and technology demonstration program, which it won in October 2016. The review with the Army is scheduled for this month.

The Army’s next technology demonstrator engine, ACE aims to validate a variable speed turbine design for an ITEP-class engine. Then components were first demonstrated on a laboratory test rig, but will now be proven on the back of ATEC’s HPW3000 prototypes.

The goal of ACE is to develop a variable speed turbine that throttles up or down depending on the speed of the main rotor.

Many of the next-generation rotorcraft concepts being proposed for the Army-led Future Vertical Lift program reduce their main rotor speeds considerably during cruise mode. But today’s engines maintain an almost constant speed that is less efficient during slow-rotor phases of flight. One solution is a variable speed power turbine. The other is a variable speed transmission. Or it could be a combination of both.

“Our component technology for a variable-speed powered engine was very successful,” Wheeler says. “We were able to demonstrate the operation of the powered turbine over a very wide speed range with a very good efficiency profile—essentially a flat efficiency profile. That’s what we’re looking to do in the engine development as well.

ATEC hopes to fully demonstrate ACE on the 3,000-shp-class HPW3000 in 2020/21. The company says it is in discussions with all the Future Vertical Lift platform manufacturers about supporting their propulsion needs, perhaps with an ITEP engine or a variable-speed derivative.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 31 Dec 2018 20:06

Chola good brief read

Flight test review 2018

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3724
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 31 Dec 2018 21:09

^^ Excellent Summary. Thanks for sharing.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Kakarat, tsarkar and 69 guests