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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 01 Jan 2019 01:37

Austin wrote:Chola good brief read

Flight test review 2018


Great stuff, Austin ji!

The following on the C919 and CR929 are what caught my eye — pretty ambitious imo with local engines and tight timeline:

Also being tested was a Chinese CJ-1000AX high-bypass demonstrator engine, developed as an alternative to the LEAP-1C fitted to initial C919s. It is understood that China plans to build another 24 CJ-1000s for certification work.
...
(on CR929)
Construction is set to start in 2021, and the first flight is scheduled for 2023 – two years ahead of service entry.


Other than Airbus and Boeing, I see that the list is extremely short. Envious of how Brazil is able to put and keep Embraer in this game (at least for the regional jets.) Interested to see how the Mitsubishi Regional that would do as a direct competitor to Embraer and Bombardier.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 01 Jan 2019 21:42

The ultima Thule encounter by New Horizons is going on data acquisition is going on . So far data show that the space craft targetted UT properly. Initial pcitures will be seen around 9 PM IST and you can watch it live on NASA TV. One of my classmates worked on New Horizons craft

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 01 Jan 2019 23:34

Image

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 02 Jan 2019 19:58

In 2018 Kongsberg completed the development flight testing phase of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) a networked air-launched cousin to the Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Next step would be to wait for the UAI interface and software upgrade on the F-35A which arrive in 2021 with block 4.1 and then they will begin integrating and flight testing the missile on the aircraft. Norway expects to declare operational capability with JSM and F-35A in 2023.

Joint Strike Missile development phase concluded ; Jane's Missiles & Rockets ; Robin Hughes, London

Following the conclusion of missile qualification flight testing (FTM) in March, and a Final Design Review in late June, the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) has announced that the development phase of the Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (Kongsberg) Joint Strike Missile (JSM) is now complete.

Designed specifically for use with the F-35 Lightning II multirole stealth fighter in an anti-ship or land attack role, the JSM is an air-launched evolution of Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Development, testing and qualification of the JSM is being funded by the RNoAF and the Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The JSM programme now moves on to the ‘integration’ phase - integration, carriage and release trials with the RNoAF’ F-35A Lightning II platform – which is expected to continue until 2023. In the interim, Kongsberg announced on 29 June that it has signed a NOK700 million (USD85.6 million) contract with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency for the acquisition of a number of JSM test rounds for use with the F-35 in the integration phase.

While the JSM development is technically independent of Norway’s participation in the F-35 programme, its progress, including an initial operational capability (IOC), is essentially being driven by the F-35 timeline, with the missile integration into the F-35A assigned to the Block 4.1 software release in the 2021 timeframe.

“We anticipate an initial operational capability with [the] JSM on our F-35 from 2023 as we build up to the planned F-35 Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2025. In order to meet this requirement we expect to award Kongsberg a production order in the 2019 timeframe,” a Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson told Jane’s

Kongsberg conducted the first flight test (FTM-1) of the JSM in October 2015; in October 2016 the company conducted the first long range powered flight test (FTM-2) of the missile over the Utah Test and Training Range – although FTM-2 was a re-run of an earlier failed flight test. In the May/June 2017 timeframe, the company conducted the FTM-3/FTM-4 trials. In both tests the missile was flown without a seeker capability. FTM-5 was the culmination of a four-year flight test campaign to qualify the missile for integration with the RNoAF’s F-35A. In a first end-to-end flight test for the missile, a JSM equipped with a live warhead was launched from a legacy F-16C/D Fighting Falcon from the US Air Force’s 445th Flight Test Group against a ‘realistic’ land target at the Utah Test and Training Range in the United States.

An air-launched evolution of Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile (NSM), development, testing and qualification of the JSM is funded by the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) and the Norwegian MoD. Designed specifically for the F-35, the missile is a high subsonic, high agility low-altitude engagement weapon, constructed from advanced composites and equipped with passive sensors to deliver a low radar cross section for stand-off survivability against its intended advanced air defence system target set.

Weighing 416 kg, the JSM is 4 m in length, 48 cm in width (stowed) and 52 cm in height. Equipped with a programmable fuze, with custom-designed fuze programmes down-loaded prior to launch, the missile features a 500lb-class combined blast (primary effect) and fragmentation warhead (secondary effect) high explosive charge insensitive warhead encased in titanium alloy, with gross weight of 120 kg and an explosive weight of 100 kg (TNT equivalent). A Link 16-compatible two-way datalink provides for target update, re-targeting, mission abort and Bomb Hit Indication (BHI) communication.

Currently, guidance is delivered by inertial navigation, aided by global positioning (GPS) and terrain contour matching (TERCOM) systems. The missile features a terminal target acquisition capability with Autonomous Target Recognition enabled by an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker. Terminal accuracy is given at less than 0.6 m (distance between the aim point and actual hit point). The specific range of the missile has not been disclosed.

Under the provisions of a NOK150 million (USD17.4 million) contract with the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) announced in April 2017, Kongsberg will integrate and qualify a new low-cost, electronic support measure (ESM) capability with the current IIR package, enabling the JSM to locate targets on the basis of their electronic signature. Developed by BAE Systems Australia, the ESM features a lightweight passive radio frequency (PRF) sensor with an additional land attack and littoral attack capability as well as a two-way communications line for target adjustment and inflight termination.

The JSM is also a candidate for the Australian DoD’s Project JP3023 (Maritime Strike Weapon for New Air Combat Capability) requirement for the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF’s) F-35A, deliveries of which is due to enter RAAF service from 2018. The Australian government has approved the purchase of 72 F-35A Lightning II platforms - the maritime strike capability is also expected to be fielded under the follow-on Block 4.1 capability upgrade, which is due to be incorporated into the RAAF’s F-35A fleet from around 2023.

In September 2015 Australia and Norway signed an agreement under which Australia consented to finance the development of a new capability for the JSM seeker. The September agreement formalised an initial agreement reached during the visit by Norwegian State Secretary of Defence, Øystein Bø to Australia in February 2015; the latest contract is a corollary of that agreement. Should Australia ultimately decide to acquire the JSM, then Norway and Australia will share the cost of integrating the JSM on the F-35.


Image

Image

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 02 Jan 2019 21:04

In depth: Airbus’ Racer fast helicopter set for 2020 test flight

https://www.aerospacetestinginternation ... light.html

Very interesting concept.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 03 Jan 2019 04:35

Shrinivasan wrote:A new variant of Osprey is getting inducted, a new squadron got stood up recently...named V-280 Valor


V-280 is not a a new variant of the Osprey it is a technology demonstrator for a future aircraft to replace the Blackhawk and Apache families starting 2030. It is not in the same class as the V-22 which is a Medium-Heavy lift aircraft and carries about twice as many troops compared to the V-280 tech demonstrator (in the Blackhawk replacement role which the V-280 demonstrator is aimed at). Additionally, the side doors of the V-280 make it unsuitable as a COD which Phillip was referring to as one of the missions the V-22 is going to perform for the US Navy on its CVN.

These two aircraft are essentially built for two different set of requirements so aren't competing with one other for most mission requirements. That said, a Mid Life overhaul of the V-22 design will likely see adoption of a lot of the tiltrotor technology that is being proven on the V-280 so expect some of this tech to be brought into the V-22 if it is still in production in the second half of the 2020's.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 03 Jan 2019 10:16

Image
Second image of Ultima Thule

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 03 Jan 2019 11:05

Chinis are still plugging away at the ARJ21. Seems strange that this plane which supposedly carried its 10000th passenger in 2017 just made its first flight over water.



Mass production certification was given only in 2017 but 8 planes had been in service with Chengdu Airlines since 2016.

So that means they were test flying with passengers on LSP machines at best? Could only happen in Cheen where life is cheap me thinks.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 03 Jan 2019 17:22

No other thread for astronomy, so pasting it here only,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46742298
....
Few things about this flyby & New Horizons that I read, not necessarily this link
1. NH has a fuel left for another flyby. That needs to be selected
2. Full data/images will be available only by Feb
3. NH will not outpace or catch up with either voyagers, even though it is the fastest object launched because Voyagers got gravity slingshots

Amber sir, One question I have is if the flyby or outer solar system will be explored more and more in coming years, are there any plans for placing probes in solar system at "stable solar orbits" to act as relays to message the data back to earth like the folloiwng
Fly by probe -> Relay Orbiter -> Earth Based station. Given that intensity falls off rapidly with distance, it may reduce the power requirements of the space probe. Just curious if scientiets have dabbled with this idea and voila even AC clarke thought about it
https://science.howstuffworks.com/10-id ... tion10.htm

Posted earlier in Physics thread.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 03 Jan 2019 17:55

chola wrote:So that means they were test flying with passengers on LSP machines at best? Could only happen in Cheen where life is cheap me thinks.


Hold on to that , If you say Cheeni life is cheap by Chini manager will kill me for reading that :lol:

You cant fly a civilian aircraft without getting a certification from the Local Civil Aviation authorities or if they wish for Wider Acceptance then EASA or FAA if you want to sell it in the US. So there is no such thing as Unsafe aircraft if you get that cerfied which Chini did with their local aviation authorities ..... Like getting DGCA certification for local build types first

Low flying numbers would indicate the Airlines may not be keen to buy it which can depend on multiple factor , Fuel Consumption being primary one this aircraft may not be competitive compared to other regional types likes Embraer or bombardier or Superjet , Other factor like cost , maintenance/spares ,incentives provided for initial buyers etc also goes into the decision.

I have not read much about this type to see how it compares with its western peers but I would say the factors mentioned above would lead to low flying number even if they have been flying since few years now.

I follow the Superjet program and Embraer RTA more closely so if you consider the new player Superjet in the market which is designed and built by Sukhoi for a 100 seater , They got the type EASA certified by 2012 and just two months back got the engine SaM146 ETOPS 120 certifed was not needed earlier because being a regional type they dont flying long but with Busness Jet variant flying more than 6500 km they had to ETOPS certify it.https://www.superjetinternational.com/d ... ochure.pdf

Embraer is where it is today after 25 years and they have many new types in their fleet and likely Boeing will buy it out much like Airbus did with Bombardier to need 100-150 seater to their fleet.

I find their CR919 program interesting as they managed to build a A320NEO class Narrow Body which is a big achievement for any body to do , will keep a track of this program.

If you find a CR919 , 737MAX and AA320 NEO comparison do share

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2019 18:28

Pictures of MS-21-300 taken during first Roll Out and Flight
via fotografersh

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64007
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2019 18:55

interesting. russia has a completely parallel ecosystem of civilian aeroplanes upto IL96 size (330 seats) that western media does not show. from nuts and bolts to the ps90 engines they have it all inhouse.

only airbus and boeing have built this size of plane in last 5 decades. only lack of market (rich political allies) and trumped up "engine noise regulations" probably hold it back from operations over large parts of the world.....anything is done to kill competition.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 486%29.jpg

its predecessor the IL86 forms the basis of the secretive doomsday "Aimak" plane charged with airborne C3I of nuclear launch assets.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 05 Jan 2019 19:15

I have traveled in such planes. Honestly they are barely functional and not comfortable. They will do the job of getting from point A to B but comfort sorry that's not a part of it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64007
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2019 19:24

can you elaborate?
uncomfortable interior fittings can be surely fixed.
higher noise levels?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 273
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby dinesh_kimar » 05 Jan 2019 20:35

Wiki tells me the Russians themselves stopped flying them in many routes and bought Boeing.

Client states have bought smaller Russian turbo props, but apart from Cuba no one bought the large widebody.

Now even they use Airbus.

I think it's reliability, safety and maintenance issues here.

Russian documentation and safety also not too great.

Also, hull losses of 200 odd Il-86 are an order of magnitude more than 1000 + B-777s.

Safety even worse than the old B-707s, which are older tech than the Il-86.

No one bothers abt GOST standards.

Planes are just bad, Saar.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby prasannasimha » 05 Jan 2019 21:52

Singha wrote:can you elaborate?
uncomfortable interior fittings can be surely fixed.
higher noise levels?

Crude fittings and the f;light was one kitchen mixer shaker. Made me really worried. It looked like a crude copy of a Boeing plane but the ride was just not comfortable. Lots of shaking etc especially when you hit turbulence.Hard jolts so there was no or bad fly by wire

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2019 23:23

That is what i said in Chinese aviation thread all planes are safe as long as they certified by the local aviation authorities because all follow FAA standards if you want to sell your aircraft in US or Europe you need to get additionally FAA or EASA certified.

Boeing and Airbus follow monopolistic practise and don’t allow other player to play the game they just crush them via their financial muscle and then blame each other over receiving subsidy

IL 96 is a safe aircraft and is wide body class they though do not compare well with say 777 in fuel economy , many but having an ability to build a wide body is a national achievement and security requirement because any one can deny you and Chinese have found with their 747 for president it was entirely bugged by US

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 06 Jan 2019 22:19

MiG-31: The Near-Space Plane. Russia’s super-fast interceptor



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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 09 Jan 2019 03:35

From AW&ST

RCAF finalises deal to acquire 25 used Boeing F/A-18 A/Bs from the RAAF

The Royal Canadian Air Force has finalized a deal to acquire 25 used BoeingF/A-18s from Australia to serve as a stopgap until Ottawa chooses a long-term replacement for its similarly vintaged CF-18 fleet.

The Australian F/A-18A/Bs will be delivered in two batches in 2019 after the deal was finalized in November, the Department of National Defense (DND) confirms.

The 25 new F/A-18s include seven aircraft that will be used for testing and spare parts, leaving 18 fighters to supplement the air force’s fleet of 76 fighters, the DND says.


The air force needs more than 76 fighters to meet a goal set in 2016. The new policy directs the service to have enough aircraft to meet commitments to NATO and the highest alert level set by North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad).

In 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government selected Boeing to supply 18 new F/A-18E/F fighters to meet the interim requirement. But Trudeau called off the purchase in mid-2017 after Boeing entered a trade dispute against Canada’s Bombardier over the sale of commercial jets to Delta Air Lines.

In December 2017, the DND announced a new plan to acquire used F/A-18s from Australia instead and modify and upgrade the aircraft to remain in service until 2032. Canada’s Public Works and Procurement agency plans to select a fighter in 2021, which will replace the CF-18 fleet after 2032.

But Canada’s Auditor General has sharply criticized the interim acquisition of used Australian F/A-18s. In a report published in November, the auditor general said the acquisition of used aircraft will put a further strain on a shortage of air force maintainers. As the aircraft becomes serviceable, a severe pilot shortage will prevent the air force from meeting the 2016 capacity goal for operational fighters, the auditor general said.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 09 Jan 2019 22:30

Austin wrote:
I find their CR919 program interesting as they managed to build a A320NEO class Narrow Body which is a big achievement for any body to do , will keep a track of this program.

If you find a CR919 , 737MAX and AA320 NEO comparison do share



https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-china-could-challenge-the-boeing-airbus-duopoly-11546786800

How China Could Challenge the Boeing-Airbus Duopoly
Investors overestimated the competitive chances of Bombardier and Embraer, but now risk underestimating the threat posed by China


By Jon Sindreu
Jan. 6, 2019 10:00 a.m. ET


Boeing and Airbus are very close to neutralizing all threats to their duopoly—with one exception. In time, a Chinese challenger could have the scale necessary to compete in the $190 billion commercial aviation market.

...

For all their growing pains, Bombardier and Embraer could have turned into serious challengers had they been allowed to expand with more time and more government assistance. This should also be a cautionary tale.

The C919, designed by China’s Comac to rival the A320 and 737, started flying last year. The threat looks deceptively distant because the duopoly have better products.

Yet before 1987 Boeing also saw Airbus as an overly subsidized inferior competitor. Then the A320 hit the market: State-fueled growth had turned Airbus into an equal.

China’s pockets are large, too. A conservative estimate for public money spent on the C919 is above $7 billion, according to U.S. think tank Rand Corp. That’s more than the CSeries cost to develop, and on par with the A320 once adjusted for inflation. Unlike Bombardier, Comac has a huge domestic market—the C919 already has about 1,000 orders from Chinese airlines—and could easily expand across Asia, Russia and Africa.

Boeing and Airbus have made the right moves. But competition from China may be knocking on their gates sooner than they expect.



Austin ji, not a technical piece but an interesting look at the prospect of Comac and the C919 from the business standpoint.

BTW bro, I have a chini-amreeki wifu who has no idea that what I do on BR. lol

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 09 Jan 2019 23:06

The duopoly needs to be and will be broken eventually though I doubt the definitive blow would come from the lower end low-margin side of the business. The A320 and 737 have competed away a lot of the profits in this sector and new enterants will only further add to this from an OEM perspective.

I think ultimately someone will think beyond tube and wings and develop faster and/or more efficient airliners and challenge the two. Both A&B have plans to do them themselves, and I believe Boeing was one of the NASA recipients, but they do not really have much incentive to take risks or move fast given the status quo and duopoly position. One big challenge for a new start even if one is state backed is the cyclical nature of the industry which requires building up of a sizable backlog to sustain the business during downturns..If you can't do that at a decent margin you won't be able to raise a lot of capital to fund new projects. China is in a position where it can financially keep one OEM viable (at that scale)..Russia is not so it remains to be seen how rapidly they can produce, what prices they offer, what quality their products have and what their market penetrance is during the up cycle.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Jan 2019 00:33, edited 1 time in total.

A Nandy
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 216
Joined: 06 Sep 2009 23:39

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby A Nandy » 10 Jan 2019 00:31

-- Deleted --

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 10 Jan 2019 08:46

Rafale Deliveries Rise In 2018

Dassault Aviation delivered 12 Rafale fighter jets in 2018, including three jets delivered to France and nine elsewhere, compared to nine deliveries in 2017, the company reports.

In 2018, Dassault took orders for 12 Rafale jets as Qatar took options for the aircraft. Dassault’s backlog includes 101 Rafales, flat with its backlog on Dec. 31, 2017.

Meanwhile, Dassault delivered 41 new Falcon business jets in 2018, down from 49 in 2017, the company says. Deliveries were consistent with its delivery forecast.

Its backlog includes 53 Falcon jets, not including orders for the canceled Falcon 5X business jet. That compares with 52 Falcon jets a year ago, which includes some Falcon 5X jets, the company said.

In 2018, the company took net orders for 42 business jets compared to 38 in 2017.

In December 2017, Dassault canceled the Falcon 5X program following technical issues and a years-long delay with Safran’s Silvercrest engines. Instead, Dassault unveiled the Falcon 6X longer-range variant in February, with Pratt & Whitney engines. The aircraft is expected to make its first flight in early 2021 with deliveries to begin in 2022

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Jan 2019 12:30

chola wrote:Austin ji, not a technical piece but an interesting look at the prospect of Comac and the C919 from the business standpoint.

BTW bro, I have a chini-amreeki wifu who has no idea that what I do on BR. lol


New Entrant always face resistance but eventually they have their chunk of share .......its a long walk for about 2-3 decades to seize even 10-15 % of market share.

Look where embraer is today and where it was 25 years back when they started. Even though even today 90 % of their component are imported stuff

Competition is good ....only the toughest survive , I am all for it ....lets see where does COMAC and UAC is in civilian business 20 years from now.

Had we started even our 50-70 seater program 20 years back we would been at a different level today

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Jan 2019 12:32

Acting Pentagon Chief Used F-Word to Slam F-35 Programme – Report

https://sputniknews.com/us/201901101071 ... 5-program/

an ex-Defence Department official was quoted by Politico as saying.

According to the former official, Shanahan called the warplane "f***ed up", claiming that Lockheed "doesn't know how to run a programme" and that "if it had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better

"The cost, the out-years, it's just too expensive, we're not gonna be able to sustain it", Shanahan allegedly pointed out at the time.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 10 Jan 2019 13:48

Austin wrote:
chola wrote:Austin ji, not a technical piece but an interesting look at the prospect of Comac and the C919 from the business standpoint.

BTW bro, I have a chini-amreeki wifu who has no idea that what I do on BR. lol


New Entrant always face resistance but eventually they have their chunk of share .......its a long walk for about 2-3 decades to seize even 10-15 % of market share.

Look where embraer is today and where it was 25 years back when they started. Even though even today 90 % of their component are imported stuff

Competition is good ....only the toughest survive , I am all for it ....lets see where does COMAC and UAC is in civilian business 20 years from now.

Had we started even our 50-70 seater program 20 years back we would been at a different level today


The key point of the article is perserverance and government support. There are certain things that can’t be done without subsidies and a captive market. Airbus itself is a perfect example of this.

The timeline is so long and the process so complex that after a 100 years of aviation only a handful of nations can do it even today. So there is no thing as being late in this marathon. As long as we persevere with the 19-seater Saras and then move onto a regional 50 to 70 then we’ll be good in the long scheme of things. We cannot stop funding and we must provide our programs with a captive market.

We must not give into the temptation of screwdriver giri if we do not own the ip. Embraer owns its designs even if 90% of the components are imported. We do not own the Flanker design even though we can make 70% of the MKI in India. Once the screwdrivergiri contract ends we cannot use our lines to build anymore and we cannot export to find new revenue streams.

Even Cheen fell victim to screwdrivergiri in the 1980s when they had bonhomie with the West. They gave up on their 707-sized Y-10 which already made over 100 flights for a MD line in Shanghai. They lost decades so this time around with the C919 they are strong-arming their airlines
into buying it by the 100s.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 10 Jan 2019 13:58

brar_w wrote:The duopoly needs to be and will be broken eventually though I doubt the definitive blow would come from the lower end low-margin side of the business. The A320 and 737 have competed away a lot of the profits in this sector and new enterants will only further add to this from an OEM perspective.

I think ultimately someone will think beyond tube and wings and develop faster and/or more efficient airliners and challenge the two. Both A&B have plans to do them themselves, and I believe Boeing was one of the NASA recipients, but they do not really have much incentive to take risks or move fast given the status quo and duopoly position.


Brar ji, there is no hope for new innovation to spring up suddenly from a new entrant that hadn’t build up the industrial capacity already. That must come from nations that had began the process of clawing a piece of the market from the low end.

Look at cars. The barrier is lower than aircraft but still great and even today just a handful of nation-states can build competitive models on the global market.

Or computer chips.

The two non-gora entrants in both are Japan and South Korea and even they did not break into the top with disruptive innovations until well after they established themselves on the low end with subsidies and walled-off home markets.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 10 Jan 2019 14:04

chola wrote:We must not give into the temptation of screwdriver giri if we do not own the ip. Embraer owns its designs even if 90% of the components are imported. We do not own the Flanker design even though we can make 70% of the MKI in India. Once the screwdrivergiri contract ends we cannot use our lines to build anymore and we cannot export to find new revenue streams.

Even Cheen fell victim to screwdrivergiri in the 1980s when they had bonhomie with the West. They gave up on their 707-sized Y-10 which already made over 100 flights for a MD line in Shanghai. They lost decades so this time around with the C919 they are strong-arming their airlines
into buying it by the 100s.


Well doesnt matter if you own a design if they decide to stop selling the imported stuff you are dead any ways other then keeping those paper design, If US stops selling F-404 or 414 today for Tejas this program will end as dead as dodo. There is no way a new engine can replce it and even if it does it would be years of effort. You just not to own the design but if you are a strategic player you need to own end to end component and manufacturing capability for it. People can be nasty when competition starts affecting their business and can use political clout to beat their competitors.

There is good reason why China is developing indiginous thing even if it is started with imported stuff to get it going they know 10 years down the line when competition hurts West will screw them in many ways that can affect them.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 10 Jan 2019 14:25

Austin wrote:
Well doesnt matter if you own a design if they decide to stop selling the imported stuff you are dead any ways other then keeping those paper design, If US stops selling F-404 or 414 today for Tejas this program will end as dead as dodo. There is no way a new engine can replce it and even if it does it would be years of effort. You just not to own the design but if you are a strategic player you need to own end to end component and manufacturing capability for it. People can be nasty when competition starts affecting their business and can use political clout to beat their competitors.

There is good reason why China is developing indiginous thing even if it is started with imported stuff to get it going they know 10 years down the line when competition hurts West will screw them in many ways that can affect them.


I fully agree, Austin ji. But unfortunately you cannot even get started unless you do some importing in the very beginning. The barriers are too high. Especially the propulsion component.

Yes, the US could kill the Tejas today by sanctioning the engine but it is the calculated risk you take in beginning this endeavor. We could have insisted on the Kaveri and we would not have had first flight even today.

Both the Embraer and HAL methods are legimate ways to build that initial capacity. Though we kid with the screwdriver giri term, it still better than 95% of the UN list of 230 plus nations that have nothing

BUT the Embraer’s method of owning the design allowed them to capture new revenue by exporting since they own the IP.

Yes, eventually the end goal for us must be that of what Cheen and Rus are persuing and that is the end to end manufacturing capability. India is a large enough nation that this must be the end game.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2019 00:22

Britain OKs F-35 For Front-Line Service


Britain has declared an initial operating capability (IOC) with the short takeoff and landing version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The UK has become the fourth nation to make the F-35 ready for front-line operations, as Britain’s fast jet fleets undergo a radical restructuring.


Confirming the F-35 operationally ready on Jan. 10, Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson also announced that the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Project Centurion to transfer the capabilities and missions of the Panavia Tornado to the Eurofighter Typhoon had been completed, and that the Typhoon was now equipped with the long-range MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missile and the Brimstone 2 air-to-ground missile. The Typhoon also began flying with the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile at the end of 2018.

The Panavia Tornado, which is supporting the UK’s operations over Iraq and Syria, will exit service at the end of March, ending a 40-year career. Defense chiefs have not confirmed whether additional aircraft will be sent in the Tornado’s place or if the Typhoon will continue the mission alone, given the decreasing tempo of the air campaign.

Formal announcements are expected in late January.

For the UK, F-35 IOC is defined as “having the aircrew, the weapons and the logistics support that we can deploy them [the F-35] worldwide on operations,” said Air Chief Marshal Sir Steven Hillier, the RAF’s chief of staff.

It is a “first step in an incremental progression,” Hillier said.

He said the F-35 would “offer a step-change in our ability to employ air power around the world.”

Williamson said the RAF’s achievements in boosting air capability would make Britain’s “commitment to a role on the world stage clear to both our allies and our enemies.”

The IOC declaration covers operations from land bases, but the UK plans to put the F-35B onto its new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, although IOC for operations from the ships is not expected until the end of 2020. It currently covers the nine aircraft currently based in the UK with 617 Squadron, also known as the Dambusters. Another eight aircraft are back in the U.S. either supporting training or operational test and evaluation. One F-35 will be delivered in 2019.

In readiness for IOC, 617’s pilots have been regularly flying sorties with Eurofighter Typhoons, performing aerial refueling from A330 Voyager tankers and have also performed weapon drops on ranges in West Wales in December.

Now operational, officials say the squadron will likely deploy to an overseas base in the coming months, likely Akrotiri-Cyprus, a UK base with a high level of security because of its role in UK operations over Iraq and Syria, to prove the ability to operate away from their home base.

The squadron is also likely to support a third round of first-class flight trials from the Queen Elizabeth-class carrier planned for the late summer. Planners are hoping to be able to fly four-ship missions from the ship during the embark in the Western Atlantic.

With the British declaration, the F-35 is now in front-line service with the Israeli, Italian and U.S. Air Forces as well as the U.S. Marine Corps.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2019 05:28

2019 is the first year where the official USAF F-35A flight demonstration takes to the sky (Franborough and PAS were done by Company test pilots)..Here's a video someone filmed of the first flight team training for the show season -


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 11 Jan 2019 05:32

From AW&ST

A newly-launched prototyping program could lead to a fleet-wide electronic warfare upgrade for the U.S. Air Force’s more than 900 F-16s.

The proposed upgrades could include a full suite of passive and active systems, including a digital radar warning receiver, self-protection jammer and towed decoy, acquisition documents released on Jan. 3 by the Air Force Research Laboratory say.

Although once expected to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35, the Air Force now wants to make sure the singled-engine F-16 fleet is relevant up to 2046.

In December, the Air Force briefed industry officials on a 15-year-long upgrade strategy that begins with a prototyping phase this year.

The Air Force wants to select two vendors to build prototypes of a digital radar warning receiver with increased frequency bandwidth and an enhanced capability to detect the position of radio frequency emitters.


If the prototypes are successful, the Air Force plans to begin fielding the new upgraded emissions detector starting at the end of 2021.

Two years later, the Air Force could extend the upgrade to active electronic warfare systems, including a new, internally-mounted self-protection jammer and upgraded towed decoy.


The Air Force’s acquisition strategy calls for using prototypes rather than the traditional acquisition process in order to cut 4 1/2 years from the development process, the service says.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2019 05:49

There is already a fully developed and operational, fully digital AESA based active/passive Electronic Warfare/Electronic Attack defensive suite for the F-16 family in the Falcon Edge. The problem is that it is not something they can backfit on USAF aircraft affordably because of its size, power and thermal requirements. They could pursue a smaller for form/fit compatible variant of it or something similar for the current fleet. EW/EA upgrades have always been on the USAF's radar on the F-16 fleet upgrade plans but the problems have always been fitting it into a sustained funding plan.

As far as legacy upgrades are concerned their main priority has always been the F-15E Strike Eagle fleet but since it is now getting a GaN AESA based EW suite and that is in the budget and fully funded perhaps they've found resources to allocate to the F-16 fleet as well.

In 2018 the USAF announced long term plans to add 7 fighter squadrons to its overall strength so that means that they will have to keep a mix of F-15's and F-16 squadrons in the active force longer to meet that goal which means extensive upgrades to keep them relevant. The F-16 is a lower cost system to sustain so I assume they will emphasize it more compared to the F-15C.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jan 2019 06:40, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jan 2019 06:30

Citing 'problems', Israel says sale of F-16s to Croatia dead
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Citin ... ead-577009

After months of delay, a $500 million deal between Israel and Croatia to buy F-16 fighter jets is officially dead because of “unforeseen problems,” Israel’s Defense Ministry announced on Thursday night. Croatia, a NATO member, was preparing to buy 12 used F-16 Barak fighters from Israel in order to replace its aging fleet of Soviet-designed MiG-21s, which had originally entered service in 1959. “The Ministry of Defense attaches great importance to the deepening of cooperation between Israel and Croatia, and initiated the project of the F-16, which includes Israeli know-how and technology, which was conducted professionally in the framework of the GTG deal between the two countries,” said director-general of the Defense Ministry Udi Adam while on a visit to Zagreb.

“Croatia has acted professionally and judiciously all along the way. Unfortunately, we have not been able to realize the deal because of problems that could not have been expected and are not under the control of the countries,” he added. The planes, which originally were bought from the United States, have been upgraded with Israeli technology. Washington reportedly insisted that they be returned to the form in which they were sold to Israel – without the advanced electronic systems – before being sold to Croatia. The sophisticated electronic and radar systems had been a crucial factor in Croatia’s decision to buy the planes from Israel, rather than straight from the US, which was reportedly furious that Jerusalem would unfairly profit from the deal. :lol: :roll:

Croatia was also reportedly furious about the holdup of the sale and had given Israel until January 11 to clear the deal with Washington. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was eager to push through the deal, raised the issue when he met with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Brazil. According to reports, the prime minister was unable to change the secretary’s mind. In early December, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) quoted the US Embassy in Zagreb as saying that the US had been actively working with Israel and Croatia on the details over the past year. “We have been working with Israel for over a year on the details of the proposed F-16 transfer. Over the course of our discussions, we have been consistent and clear about the technical conditions under which we could approve the transfer,” the embassy was quoted by BIRN as saying, adding that “the United States remains firmly committed to supporting Croatia's desire to modernize and upgrade its air force by purchasing aircraft that are interoperable with its NATO allies.”

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2019 06:52

Stratolaunch airplane nears first flight


Image

SEATTLE — The latest taxi test of the giant aircraft being developed by Stratolaunch for its air-launch system is a sign the plane’s first flight may take place soon.

The company announced Jan. 9 that its airplane, the largest in the world by wingspan, performed its fastest taxi test to date at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California, reaching a top speed of 219 kilometers per hour. That test also featured a “rotation authority maneuver” that briefly lifted the plane’s nose gear off the ground.

This was the latest in a series of taxi tests, where the airplane goes down the runway under its own power but does not take off. That test program started in late 2017, with subsequent tests at increasing speeds.

During a briefing with reporters in April 2018, company officials said they were planning three more taxi tests before attempting the plane’s first flight. That final taxi test, they said then, would reach a speech of about 220 kilometers per hour.

At the time, Stratolaunch expected to be ready for a first flight of the aircraft in the summer of 2018, and hasn’t disclosed reasons for the delay. There was industry speculation that Stratolaunch might attempt a first flight before the end of 2018, but the year ended without signs of an impending flight.

Once Stratolaunch’s plane is finally airborne, it will begin a new phase of the vehicle’s test program. The company said last year that it expected to take 18 to 24 months to complete that test flight program and receive an airworthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration before the plane would be ready to serve as an air-launch platform.Stratolaunch plans to initially use the plane for launches of Pegasus XL rockets provided by Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. The plane will be capable of carrying three rockets on each flight, mounted on wing pylons between the plane’s twin fuselages.

The company, though, is creating its own launch vehicles that can be carried by the plane. The Medium Launch Vehicle, capable of placing 3,400 kilograms into low Earth orbit, is scheduled for a first launch in 2022, the company announced last August. The company also has plans for a heavier variant of that vehicle to place 6,000 kilograms into orbit, as well as concepts for a crewed spaceplane.

Those vehicles will be powered by an engine called PGA that Stratolaunch is developing. That engine, using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants, will produce 200,000 pounds-force of thrust. Stratolaunch announced in November that it successfully fired the engine’s preburner in tests at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.

The engine takes its name from the initials of Paul G. Allen, the billionaire founder of Stratolaunch who passed away in October. At the time of his death, executice with Vulcan, Allen’s holding company for his various ventures, said that he “thoughtfully addressed how the many institutions he founded and supported would continue” after his death, but offered no specific details on the future of Stratolaunch beyond a lack of near-term changes.


Image
An illustration of the "family" of launch vehicles Stratolaunch plans to offer, from the existing Pegasus XL (left) to a potential reusable spaceplane (right.) Credit: Stratolaunch - https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-conf ... ent-plans/

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64007
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2019 07:53

Could be a great platform to air launch avengard type weapons also ie weapons too outsize for the b52

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3535
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby hnair » 11 Jan 2019 08:05

Nobody here gonna complain about the shoddy paneling on that ginormous plane?

Even a kensai like Rutan-sama should not be spared of the :oops: :oops: despite the nose wheels leaving the ground for the first time

Let me start off with a "Looks worse than a Shivalik at noon"

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 11 Jan 2019 08:49

Trump’s new Pentagon chief reportedly said the $1 trillion F 35 is ‘****** up‘ and shouldn’t have been made


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 11 Jan 2019 10:08

Came in todays TOI quoting seatle times , seems 737 has serious issue with its rudders , rudder’s propensity to deflect on its own

A question of safety or ethics: The Boeing 737


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, brar_w, Google Feedfetcher and 70 guests