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.
Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Prithwiraj » 17 Jan 2019 01:44



incredible piloting skill

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 17 Jan 2019 04:33

Raytheon's APG-79(v)4 AESA radar has won the USMC competition to replace 88 legacy APG-73 radars on the Classic Hornet.

Raytheon selected for classic Hornet AESA radar upgrade


The U.S. Marine Corps selected Raytheon's APG-79(v)4 AESA radar to equip its F/A-18C/D classic Hornet fleet. Raytheon (NYSE: RTN) will begin delivering radars in 2020 and complete deliveries by 2022. "With AESA radars, fighter jet pilots and crews tip the scales in their favor over their adversaries," said Eric Ditmars, vice president of Raytheon Secure Sensor Solutions. "Now that the APG-79(v)4 is slated to fly on the classic Hornet, Marine Corps pilots will be able to identify, track and engage more targets over a greater distance than ever before."

Crews will see improved radar reliability, reducing maintenance hours while increasing availability for flight. Because the APG-79(v)4 shares more than 90 percent commonality with the APG-79, the Marine Corps will benefit from the same global sustainment and upgrade path already in place for the system.


Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 17 Jan 2019 11:27

Turkey refuses to cancel S-400 order, risking F-35 delivery again

10 JANUARY, 2019 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM BY: GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said his country would consider buying Raytheon-made Patriot missiles from the US government, but would not cancel its order of S-400 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia as a condition of the deal.

The US State Department approved the possible sale of 80 Patriot MIM-104E missiles, 60 PAC-3 missiles and related equipment for $3.5 billion to Turkey in December 2018. It was part of an apparent attempt to get the country to cancel its order for the lmaz-Antey S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system. The US military is concerned that the S-400 system, which is advertised as having anti-stealth capabilities, could expose vulnerabilities in the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter, which Turkey has also purchased and is awaiting delivery.

However, in a recent interview with Turkish broadcaster NTV Cavusoglu says that cancelling the S-400 order is off the table.

“The S-400 agreement is already a finished deal,” he says. “We can deal with the United States for the Patriot, but if it's about the S-400, no.”

Turkey is a partner in the development and manufacturing of the F-35. In coordination with Northrop Grumman, the main fuselage manufacturer for the F-35, Turkish Aerospace Industries manufactures and assembles centre fuselages, produces composite skins and weapon bay doors, and air inlet ducts. In total, 10 different Turkish firms make parts for every F-35.

In a letter sent to the House Armed Services Committee Chairman in July, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that removing Turkey’s parts manufacturers from the aircraft supply chain could delay delivery of 50-75 stealth fighters for up to 18-24 months.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Chinmay » 18 Jan 2019 07:16

Japan will shut down its F-35 FACO line

Japan has taken the local final assembly and checkout, or FACO, route since 2013 for the final assembly of F-35As it previously ordered. According to the ATLA spokesperson, the FACO facility, which is operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, will continue to carry out production work until FY22 to fulfill the F-35As contracted by Japan between FY15 and FY18.

Japan has struggled to sustain its local industrial base, with recently released defense guidelines acknowledging it needs to overcome “challenges such as high costs due to low volume, high-mix production and lack of international competitiveness.”


This would apply for the 105 F-35s it plans to order. However, if Japan is struggling with high cost low volume issues, then wouldn't the solution be to extend the existing line for the next lot of fighters? It makes little sense to waste all that trained manpower, for faster deliveries, given that they aren't really struggling with squadron numbers.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 18 Jan 2019 07:29

Chinmay the Japanese government and their industry partners had struggled for months on how to fund the internal investment required to set up the FACO with no direct funding provided by the government. Their industry had assumed that they would receive some sort of subsidy to fund the very small production batch. This means that the costs are rolled into the production and passed along therefore making the F-35 more expensive per unit for Japan compared to them simply acquiring the aircraft from the lines at Fort Worth given both the lack of economies of scale and other costs that are added to the unit price (infrastructure, cost of licencing etc etc.). Their plan even before the talk of additional order was to transform the FACO into a long term sustainment facility that will sustain both Japanese and US fighters in the region and will compete for sustainment contracts for other regional F-35 operators.

The Italian FACO line will do the same after it has delivered Italian and Dutch aircraft. Japan is not an F-35 partner nation. As an FMS customer they will negotiate contracts like any other which means that extending the terms of the FACO to a follow on order would mean a higher price which would then translate to a smaller number of fighters acquired. Japanese OEMs will probably continue to bid for and act as a supplier to the overall program. I don't know why Defense News is reporting this now as this was known a month or two ago but it could be that they are only now learning of this. I doubt that there would be as significant an emphasis on offsets or domestic production this time around because the aim very much appears to be to get the maximum number of fighters they can afford based on their Medium term spending plan.
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Jan 2019 19:10, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 18 Jan 2019 18:22

2 Su-34 fighter-bombers collide mid-flight in Russia’s Far East – MoD

https://www.rt.com/russia/449092-su-34-collide-russia/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 18 Jan 2019 19:09

Singapore identifies F-35 fighter jet to replace F-16s, expects to buy ‘small number’ for full testing

SINGAPORE: Singapore expects to buy a "small number" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for a full evaluation after it identified the jet as the “most suitable replacement” for its ageing F-16s, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) announced on Friday (Jan 18).

This follows a technical evaluation by the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) and Defence Science and Technology Agency which lasted more than five years.

“The technical evaluation also concluded that the RSAF should first purchase a small number of F-35 JSFs for a full evaluation of their capabilities and suitability before deciding on a full fleet,” MINDEF said.

“In the next phase, MINDEF will discuss details with relevant parties in the US before confirming its decision to acquire the F-35 JSFs for Singapore’s defence capabilities.”

In a Facebook post on Friday, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said this phase might take nine to 12 months, adding that relevant agencies will speak to their US counterparts to “move the process forward”.

Details that will be discussed include price, quantity and which variant of the jet to buy, as well as issues like logistical requirements and the training of pilots.


Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/si ... 11139654...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2019 03:57

tsarkar wrote:
This is also true for contemporary fighter development. Whether F22, F35, Rafale or Eurofighter, combat coded software lagged behind airframe.



So F35 FOC will come in 2020's.


There is no set FOC criteria set in stone for the F-35 nor is it milestone driven. IOC absolutely is and this is a defined criteria required by law and was very clearly stipulated as a requirement when the program was re-baselined in 2010.. Technically, the program was established to deliver the capability specified in the SDD documents which was released in block 3F and that has concluded the developmental phase of the program. It is this capability that is currently in IOTE. The USAF and the USMC declared IOC early based on block 2B and 3I capability and have since upgraded majority of their operational aircraft to block 3F, the USAF having brought their entire fleet to that standard.

Block 4 is an evolution of the capability to tackle new and emerging threats, re-baseline technology in its mission systems, integrate new weapons that were in development or had not even been conceived when the JSF was launched and to move to overcome part obsolescence and modernization of other components. Follow-on-development is not tied to FOC in any way. the technical milestones required in US mass produced systems (that come out of LRIP) is a Milestone-C decision that takes the program to full-rate production and that is IOTE dependent. Most US services consider FOC as a capability rather than an event or modernization/FOD based thing as in .."we will call it FOC when we have XXX number of aircraft and XXX number o pilots and maintainers ready to deploy". From a purely programatic perspective the F-35 became fully-operational the moment Block-3F was accepted by each of the three US services and was certified for use by the operational squadrons - 3F being the capability the program set out to develop and field.

Even before block 4 is incrementally fielded in totality, block-5 plans would be on the drawing boards and early work would have been funded and this will be a continuous process as there will probably be more weapons lined up for integration then..FOC isn't dependent on the size, cost, timeframe or the scope of the FOLLOW ON MODERNIZATION program because there is no way you could have used that as a benchmark for FOC in 2001 when you launched the program when the capability set (block-4) was itself not totally defined till 2017.

Other countries in the program define FOC differently. For example, Norway and the UK define FOC not only by the number of operational aircraft but also by the ability of these aircraft to be able to employ their specific weapons like Meteor for the UK, and JSM for Norway. Similarly, Australia declares FOC only when it has received all of its aircraft on order or planned. The capability is no different but they just don't call the system fully operational until they get all of the capability they have on order.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby andy B » 19 Jan 2019 03:58



Just do me a small favour and try and watch this on a big screen and go loud. Forget the silly soundtrack and listen in to those J79s on full song. I penned a small verse for this magnificent samurai in his last glory days.

Long live the Kai!!! For you have stood as the vanguard protecting the land from conniving mandarins to marauding bears. As twilight nears do not go gently into that good night. Rage rage against the dying light like the heat from a thousand suns....for the end is never the end merely the start of your next journey...

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 19 Jan 2019 11:05


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 19 Jan 2019 11:59

IAF should seriously look into AN-132D as LTA option and Lic Manuf it in India

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/saudi-ara ... tion-2021/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 19 Jan 2019 12:04

Demonstration of transport abilities of the An-132D



Ан-132D/ Unique footage of AN-132D aircraft in flight



Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 19 Jan 2019 12:12

Neshant wrote:


Good to see Europe going ahead with its 5/6th Gen Fighter aircraft and UCAV program ......They are more keen on battled field integration across the spectrum over significant changes in aerodynamic capability , The FCAS resembles more like PAK-FA design including blended wing body fuselage and levcons

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2019 17:47

Initial source selection in progress for US Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft and new UAS; Jane's Defence Weekly ; 16-Jan-2019


The US Army is on track to move out with contract awards for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competitive prototype (FARA CP), as well as the Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (FTUAS).

Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Cross Functional Team Director Brigadier General Walter Rugen laid out the army’s evolving plans to build the next-generation of helicopters and unmanned systems for Jane’s on 4 January, and noted that key decisions for FARA CP and FTUAS are forthcoming.
In October 2018 the army released a FARA CP solicitation that anticipates a production quantity of up to 500 aircraft. Although the bidding window closed in late December, Brig Gen Rugen declined to disclose how many proposals had been submitted, citing the sensitivity source section. However, he said the service is “pleased with the responses we’ve got back from industry”.

Around June, the service will select between four to six bids to spend the next nine months developing preliminary designs and providing the government with additional data. Then, about the third quarter of fiscal year 2020 (FY 2020), two proposals will be selected to proceed to a fly off slated for the beginning of FY 2023 before a final downselect in FY 2024.

As the service prepares to fight in an anti-access/area denial environment, Brig Gen Rugen explained that the FARA is designed to “open a corridor of opportunity”, in part with its ability to team up with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and be “deeply interoperable” with LRPF and NGCV, so that the various weapons systems and platforms are “fighting as a team”.

“When we talk about the lethality we need on a future battlefield, the FARA is going to be our synchroniser, our close combat co-ordinator,” Brig Gen Rugen explained.

Up until last year, it appeared that the army would first field a Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) to replace its UH-60 Black Hawk fleet before FARA. However, it is now possible that FARA could be fielded first, set for FY 2028, since a firm FLRAA fielding is not set in stone and will be shaped by the outcome of an analysis of alternatives and findings from the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration.

“One effort is not more important than the other and each air vehicle has its own unique requirements that will drive the schedule,” Brig Gen Rugen explained. “The FVL (cross functional team) is working [on] all of our lines of effort concurrently; some will at times lead, and at other times lag.”
For FTUAS, meanwhile, the army is looking for an aircraft to replace its RQ-7 Shadow fleet within the Brigade Combat Teams. Under a “buy, try, decide” acquisition approach, the service wants to leverage currently available commercial technologies to fill the role.

As of mid-January, a fly off between several vendors was under way with the goal of awarding three vendors with contracts in February. The vendors’ UAS would then be delivered to field operational units for a year-long operational test to help determine FTUAS requirements.
“Our unmanned system efforts are also doing exactly what we said,” Brig Gen Rugen said. “We got an RFP on the street. We got a contract on street and we’re in source selection right now.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2019 18:08

Austin wrote:Good to see Europe going ahead with its 5/6th Gen Fighter aircraft and UCAV program ......They are more keen on battled field integration across the spectrum over significant changes in aerodynamic capability , The FCAS resembles more like PAK-FA design including blended wing body fuselage and levcons


The requirements for the FCAS are yet to be determined so no one knows what they are actually setting themselves out to pursue. Initial contracts and funding will actually go towards determining this very thing and doing the sort of hard analysis and experimentation that will help them hone in on a set of performance and capability requirements that they will then spend the next couple of decades on developing and putting out. The concepts, much like the concepts from other OEM's across Europe and US are PR exercises as you cannot create realistic designs without actually defining requirements first. I remember Boeing taking its tailless fighter design on the road for most of the last decade and even iteratively improving the plastic model to somehow show that they are actually investing a lot of time and money in refining the basic design. If they actually were, they would surely not be showing off their work to their competitors. Same with Dassault, Airbus or BAE.

Case in point - Here's what one of the ATF OEM PR shop was putting out just 4 years before the ATF TD's flew. Germany/France are probably a decade if not more from first FCAS TD flight. Just ignore what they show at trade shows or in publications until the design teams have some hard set of requirements and a lot of cash and time on hand to actually develop an aircraft that can perform based on what their customer desires.

Image


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Karan M » 20 Jan 2019 17:31

Oh good lord, that ATF image is a classic. I had a coffee table book with that painting. Breath taking.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65245
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 20 Jan 2019 17:34

very few looks beat a top down view of the YY23 though, black and deadly with diamond wings.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 22 Jan 2019 03:41

Another armed drone from Turkey. And yet another Predator lookalike from a Cheen private firm.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DroneDeliver/status/1087326470270111744

Turkey's indigenous ANKA-S drone successfully completes first combat mission - Yeni Şafak English
Image



https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1087383582186852353

Yet another new Chinese UAV ... It seems to be called Flying Dragon-1 (Feilong-1 飞龙-1) and it completed its first flight at the Pucheng Neifu Airport in Shaanxi Province. Design team seems to be a private company called Zhongtian Feilong Technology Co.
Image


Growing drone space is giving a lot of noveau firms a chance at the aerospace market.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19801
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Philip » 23 Jan 2019 01:06

Austin wrote:IAF should seriously look into AN-132D as LTA option and Lic Manuf it in India

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/saudi-ara ... tion-2021/

Yes., the AN-132 is a very cute and versatile bird.With Antonov's proven pedigree in IAF service for around 50 years, the MOD should take a serious look at it for local production too.However, it is now a UKR co.The recently unveiled IL-112 is Russia's LTA Both interesting contenders.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 23 Jan 2019 05:02

Thales awarded contract to developing sensors for French Rafale F4
https://defence-blog.com/news/thales-aw ... le-f4.html

Thales has been awarded a contract by the French defense procurement agency (DGA) to contribute to the development of the Rafale F4 standard, enabling the Rafale combat aircraft to maintain its superiority against new threats. Today, the Rafale is capable of performing multiple roles, ranging from reconnaissance to air defence and precision strikes, in the course of a single mission. The aircraft is also central to France’s airborne nuclear deterrence, a crucial component of France’s National Security policy, which calls for the highest standards of levels of technological excellence. Tomorrow’s combat aircraft aircrews will face a broader range of threats in increasingly complex operational environments, and will therefore need to analyse larger volumes of data in very short timeframes to ensure mission success and protect civil populations. The sophisticated electronic equipment and systems Thales equips on the Rafale, from nose-to-tail, will help these aircrews meet these challengers. Under the Rafale F4 standard development programme, Thales engineers and technicians will enhance the aircraft’s onboard sensors and improve connectivity to offer a broader range of capabilities and new operational functions by enabling greater interconnection between the Rafale and all the other assets deployed on the mission.

Collaborative combat is now crucial for taking part in coalition operations, countering new types of threats and conducting sovereignty operations. In particular, Thales will prepare for the introduction of the CONTACT radio; secure, intelligent communications server technology; and a Syracuse IV satellite communications capability. To ensure high survivability, new threat detection and jamming capabilities will be developed for the aircraft’s SPECTRA electronic warfare system. Further improvements to the air-to-ground mode of the RBE2 active electronic scanning array (AESA) radar are also planned. In addition, the TALIOS optronic pod will incorporate artificial intelligence to analyse tactical data almost instantaneously in flight and extract and identify targets. The enhancements will enable aircrews to assess tactical situations more effectively, handle significantly larger volumes of information in real time, and make the best choices in every decisive moment in order to safely and securely locate, identify, classify and engage threats, and to assess and analyse the results of the action taken.

To meet the needs of users, armed forces also need a high level of equipment availability. The development of predictive maintenance based on technologies such as Big Data and artificial intelligence is a key component of Thales’s strategy. The purpose of predictive maintenance is to anticipate failures before they occur: Thales’s new developments for the Rafale F4 standard aim to make this objective a reality. “This contract is a further endorsement by the French Ministry for the Armed Forces of the industrial know-how and advanced technology expertise of French defence contractors. The Rafale F4 standard’s sensors and communication systems will be a key driver of the shift towards collaborative combat, and Thales’s capabilities in connectivity and artificial intelligence will enable Rafale air crews to make the best choices in every decisive moment,” Patrice Caine, Chairman & CEO, Thales.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 23 Jan 2019 05:04

brar_w wrote:Initial source selection in progress for US Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft and new UAS; Jane's Defence Weekly ; 16-Jan-2019

Brar, is that article from the free section of Janes or from the paid section of Janes? Just be careful. Thanks.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 23 Jan 2019 18:06

Philip wrote:
Austin wrote:IAF should seriously look into AN-132D as LTA option and Lic Manuf it in India

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/saudi-ara ... tion-2021/

Yes., the AN-132 is a very cute and versatile bird.With Antonov's proven pedigree in IAF service for around 50 years, the MOD should take a serious look at it for local production too.However, it is now a UKR co.The recently unveiled IL-112 is Russia's LTA Both interesting contenders.


I’ve been saying this for years. Ukraine needed funding and I thought Antonov was willing to give greater rights to IP on the An 132. Saudis parlayed this into a production line for Taqnia and export rights. They are expecting demand of 250 to 300 planes in the region (on easy credits from SA for sure.)

We have such a long history and so much experience with the An-32. It would have been a perfect fit. It has ideal size and economy with two turboprops for a very wide range of missions.

What the Chinis did with their An-24/32 ripoff:

Mil transport:
Image

Maritime Patrol (Coast Guard):
Image

AEW:
Image

Civilian regional carrier:
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65245
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 23 Jan 2019 18:11

problem is they can afford or forced earlier to run a/c that are not as fuel efficient or reliable as the best out there.
india with its access to western products, and privately owned airlines would have gone for easy imports of Q400, ATR72, HS748, DO228, super constellaction, DC3 dakota, de havilland comet, B707, A300, 737-200 ....

the AN32 was fitted with a outsize engine for flying with load at great height. perhaps no western analogue was on table at the time or cheap enough.

there was and is no strategic decision from very top to design and build our own military and civilian transports. RTA talk did not walk.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Jan 2019 18:18

Fuel effeciency is a relative thing you can argue that military today runs less fuel efficient compared to civilian counter part , the same country runs more fuel efficient military transport aircraft today then it did 20 years back perhaps with the same model in upgraded variant.

This is a moving target and no country will start with the most fuel efficient aircraft when it starts its journey it will take a decade or two to catch up but they can catch up provided you start your journey

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 23 Jan 2019 19:30

^^^ Yes, you have to begin the journey. If the criteria is that your nascent domestic must match the gora establishment from the very beginning then you can never get off the starting line.

Look at the world leading auto industries of Japan and Korea. For years they protected their home industries by forcing their consumers (through tariffs and other barriers) to drive less efficient domestic brands like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai — until those brands had developed enough to be unleashed on the world. Look at them now.

I love the free market but there are things like transportation and communication that can never be left entirely to the market forces IF you want to be independent of the global monopolies. You cannot beat these international behemoths straight up. They have too many years of experience on you and they have far too much resources for them to not win in any straight up competition. You have to tilt things in your own favor domestically. If you want a local industry.

Now the An-32 had been in our employment in large numbers for many many years. So we know it would fit our environment. IMO it would be the perfect starter craft for our home industry in the large plane space.

Yet when Antonov was in search of partner for the follow-on of this immensely useful aircraft the Saudis (of all people) bagged this partnership with production line and export rights.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65245
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 23 Jan 2019 21:53

I did not claim the path we took was right :(

infact I feel it was wrong and MTA/RTA should have been judiciously pursued with right partners like Embraer KC390 or that Japani kawasaki C2 and Dornier DO338 which had a good design and prospect.

all 3 could use funds and orders to slash costs. brazil, japan both friendly to india. dornier we license make. some turkish billionaire owns the do338

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 24 Jan 2019 10:01

Singha , GOI is not willing to fund these MTA/RTA types , Deve Gowda gave 50 cr each to 50 and 100 seater in late 90 after there is no funding , even those 100 cr have been fund or not we dont know. Lot of talks slides discussion prior to AI post that things go silent and the next AI same rinse repeat.

For what ever reason GOI since 90's have not funded any initivative other than Saras project which now the IAF is forced to take in absense of any civilian buying into this program , GOI comes with this and that policy on National Aviation and all but remains on paper.

Lets see what this AI throws up if GOI will actually fund the RTA project or we have to wait for the next AI for the same slide to repeat.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 24 Jan 2019 10:10

Israel successfully tests Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile



The video states Arrow-3 has Anti-ICBM capability which is interesting

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby PratikDas » 26 Jan 2019 00:03

Elon Musk's pitch for stainless steel instead of composites:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25953663/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-stainless-steel/
Ryan D’Agostino: You’ve been busy redesigning Starship.
Elon Musk: Yes. The design of Starship and the Super Heavy rocket booster I changed to a special alloy of stainless steel. I was contemplating this for a while. And this is somewhat counterintuitive. It took me quite a bit of effort to convince the team to go in this direction.

But now I believe they are convinced—well, they are convinced. We were pursuing an advanced carbon-fiber structure, but it was very slow progress, and the cost per kilogram of $135. And then there’s about a 35 percent scrap rate—you cut the fabric, and some of it you can’t use. It’s impregnated with a high-strength resin, and it’s quite tricky. And there’s 60 to 120 plies.

RD: How does stainless steel compare?
EM: The thing that’s counterintuitive about the stainless steel is, it’s obviously cheap, it’s obviously fast—but it’s not obviously the lightest. But it is actually the lightest. If you look at the properties of a high-quality stainless steel, the thing that isn’t obvious is that at cryogenic temperatures, the strength is boosted by 50 percent.

Most steels, as you get to cryogenic temperatures, they become very brittle. You’ve seen the trick with liquid nitrogen on typical carbon steel: You spray liquid nitrogen, you can hit it with a hammer, it shatters like glass. That’s true of most steels, but not of stainless steel that has a high chrome-nickel content. That actually increases in strength, and ductility is still very high. So you have, like, 12 to 18 percent ductility at, say, minus 330 degrees Fahrenheit. Very ductile, very tough. No fracture issues.

Fracture toughness is a property where if something has a small crack, does the material tend to arrest the crack, or does the crack propagate? So as you go through repeated vibrational multiple stress cycles, how much will a small imperfection in the material propagate?


RD: Do you have a whole metallurgy team here?
EM: We do have a great materials group, but initially we will simply use high-quality 301 stainless. There’s an important other thing that makes a big difference. For ascent you want something that’s strong at cryogenic temperatures. For entry, you want something that can withstand high heat. So the mass of the heat shield is driven by the temperature at the interface between the heat shield tiles and the air frame. Whether it’s mechanical or if it’s bonded on—whatever the interface point is—determines the thickness of the heat shield.

On the Dragon, for example, the thickness of the heat shield tiles is actually driven by the heat soak from the heat shield getting to the bond line of the tile onto the shell. So it’s not driven by erosion of the tile. It’s actually driven by conductivity of the tile to the bond line so we don’t lose tiles as it’s descending under a chute. You don’t want to be tossing tiles off, basically.

With steel, now you’ve got something where you can comfortably be at a 1500 F interface temperature instead of, say, a 300 F, so you have five times the temperature capability at interface point. What that means is that for a steel structure, the leeward side of the back shell does not need any heat shielding.

On the windward side, what I want to do is have the first-ever regenerative heat shield. A double-walled stainless shell—like a stainless-steel sandwich, essentially, with two layers. You just need, essentially, two layers that are joined with stringers. You flow either fuel or water in between the sandwich layer, and then you have micro-perforations on the outside—very tiny perforations—and you essentially bleed water, or you could bleed fuel, through the micro-perforations on the outside. You wouldn’t see them unless you got up close. But you use transpiration cooling to cool the windward side of the rocket. So the whole thing will still look fully chrome, like this cocktail shaker in front of us. But one side will be double-walled and that serves a double purpose, which is to stiffen the structure of the vehicle so it does not suffer from the fate of the Atlas. You have a heat shield that serves double duty as structure.

Yeah.

To the best of my knowledge this has never been proposed before.

RD: This is a huge change.
EM: Yes.

RD: Where will the steel come from?
EM: It’s just 301 stainless. Let me put it this way: 304 stainless is what they make pots out of. There’s plenty of it.

RD: What will this do to your schedule?
EM: It will accelerate it.

RD: Because it’s easier to work with?
EM: Yes. Very easy to work with steel. Oh, and I forgot to mention: The carbon fiber is $135 a kilogram, 35 percent scrap, so you’re starting to approach almost $200 a kilogram. The steel is $3 a kilogram.

RD: This is a good idea.
EM: Yeah.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 26 Jan 2019 01:41

Egypt won't sign Rafale jet deal during Macron visit: Elysee
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egyp ... SKCN1PJ0WE

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 26 Jan 2019 01:44

https://twitter.com/Tom_Antonov/status/ ... 7850905601 ---> A day without Rafale is like a day without sunshine. Stunning photos of French Air Force Rafale jet fighters over Réunion Island in the Indian Ocean. Photos by Malaury Buis.

https://www.zinfos974.com/%F0%9F%93%B7- ... 36501.html

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6992
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 26 Jan 2019 01:51

More pictures in twitter link below....

https://twitter.com/abdulmoiz1990/statu ... 6742424576 ---> 2 seater Qatar Emiri Air Force Rafale. The delivery of first batch next month.

Qatar to receive first Rafale fighters early for February
https://defence-blog.com/news/qatar-to- ... ruary.html

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 27 Jan 2019 16:37

Russia Registering Massive Movement of US' GSSAP Military Satellites

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The Russian track means are registering massive movement of the US Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP) military satellites in the geostationary orbit, the Russian Astro Space Center said in a document obtained by Sputnik.

In 2014-2016, the United States launched four satellites under the GSSAP program aimed at controlling the space in the interests of the US Air Force.

The Astro Space Center's document said that the Russian systems had registered intensive movement of all four GSSAP satellites.
For example, one of the GSSAP satellites, which was launched in 2014, had carried out more than 400 manoeuvres before 2018, according to the document.


READ MORE: SpaceX Launches US Military GPS Satellite After Several Delays

The paper added that sometimes the GSSAP space vehicles were approaching other US satellites to inspect them.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Jan 2019 19:35

Very interesting video from ISS Live Feed

UFO or Hoax? WATCH Mysterious Space Objects Buzz Across ISS Live Stream

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201901281 ... -sighting/

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 Jan 2019 00:48

^^we've been hearing these things for ages in fact video feeds of objects changing directions very quickly has been observed

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby PratikDas » 29 Jan 2019 01:06

Austin wrote:Very interesting video from ISS Live Feed

UFO or Hoax? WATCH Mysterious Space Objects Buzz Across ISS Live Stream

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201901281 ... -sighting/

Seems like tumbling payload fairings to me.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Neshant » 29 Jan 2019 13:18

PratikDas wrote:
Austin wrote:Very interesting video from ISS Live Feed

UFO or Hoax? WATCH Mysterious Space Objects Buzz Across ISS Live Stream

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201901281 ... -sighting/

Seems like tumbling payload fairings to me.



+1

Looks like a sheet of metal tumbling and reflecting the sun's rays. Nothing unusual.

The ones which travel at great speed and suddenly change directions sometimes at right angles are the interesting ones.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Chinmay » 01 Feb 2019 14:57

Germans to split Tornado replacement between Shornets and Eurofighters

Germany will pick either the Eurofighter or Boeing’s F/A-18 fighter jet to replace its Tornado warplanes, knocking Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter out of a tender worth billions of euros, Defence Ministry sources said on Thursday


The nuclear mission is clearly important for the NATO nuclear mission, however is either of the above aircraft qualified to carry nukes?
From an EW/SEAD point of view it does make sense to use the F-18s, especially if Growlers are also offered. This would replace the EW version of the Tornados. The F-35 omission is surprising, given how many European nations are committing to the platform given that it is already qualified to carry the B61 weapon.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Ashokk, banrjeer, Bing [Bot], brar_w, darshand, Dileep, madhu, Rakesh, Sanju, Snehashis, souravB, suryag, tapan, VikasM and 116 guests