International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65249
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2019 00:03

they will go with EF as they own a share, better jobs etc. this will help fund the EF's ground attack evolution as tornadoes were mostly a2g.
EF is good airframe but underfunded. F18 is a sluggish airframe in comparison but heavily funded sensors and weapons.

in a2a mode, a EF will tear it apart given comparable radars and missiles esp if fight is high and fast

good footage from multiple cameras of solid booster separation

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 02 Feb 2019 14:35

Kh-101 ALCM on Tu-95MS

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 03 Feb 2019 03:57

Chinmay wrote: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.


This is a political decision but what baffles me is the fact that they are considering the SH when they should really be looking into a Growler that could deliver a B-61 given the type of capability they are loosing. The Typhoon program does not get affected by this decision nor does that mission set. While the Typhoon is now getting air-ground capability it is nowhere comparable to what the Tornado had across each of its mission sets. Being able to launch LGB's, Brimstone and Storm-Shadow's is one thing, but going up and hunting for SAM's and radars along with going low is totally another.

EF is good airframe but underfunded. F18 is a sluggish airframe in comparison but heavily funded sensors and weapons.


They are not looking at an air-superiority fighter but something to replace the Tornado and the mission sets it performs. This was supposed to be a capability recap, not a strengthening of the current Typhoon force or mission set which is expected to be a separate effort. The original RFI specified 10 current German Tornado missions which will be sunset with the type's retirement in 2030 and which the Germans wanted to recapitalize. Additionally, they also asked for 2 additional missions which the current fleet did not perform but which were not disclosed to the public.

Non US NATO forces have a huge deficit in SEAD/DEAD capability with the retiring of the Tornado and only the Italians have decided to retain that capability via the AARGM and the current Tornado which will likely roll into the F-35A and AARGM-ER once those Tornado's are sunset. The Brits have chosen an F-35 variant that won't be able to carry an ARM internally so will be relying on penetrating attacks with SPEAR III weapons while France also lacks an ARM or capability to provide area SEAD/DEAD. In case of a large force NATO deployment most of those forces would be leaning on the USAF and USN to come in and provide the round the clock SEAD/DEAD capability as a force enabler (as opposed to self-defense or escort missions which they still retain).

B-61 cert and testing on the Typhoon will still likely cost hundreds of millions of Euros if not well north of a Billion and will again need to have US cooperation. As I said, this is a political decision and the decision to roll back the F-35 while also entering into a discussion with France on the SCAF is something that the Germans are doing as their relationship with the US administration has been weakened. This extends to some other systems as well particularly on the PAC-3 MSE where the Germans were denied some key modeling and simulation proprietary data after years of negotiations.


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 05 Feb 2019 22:36

UFO? Chilean Navy releases video of mysterious flying object


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 06 Feb 2019 17:38

Hear the declassified story of a secret U.S. AirForce Squadron that trained with real enemy aircraft for nearly 10 years!




More than 15,000 sorties over a ten year period. Dangerous stuff without OEM support, and with parts and equipment being sourced from all over the place. More recently, there was crash that killed a Red Hats Lt. Col a couple of years ago ( likely in a Su-27).

AviationWeek.com correspondent Guy Norris wrote late Monday, September 11, that, “Sources indicate Schultz was the Red Hats squadron commander at the time of his death. The Red Hats became an unnumbered unit within the Detachment 3, AFTC test wing after the 413th flight test squadron (formerly 6513th test squadron) was deactivated in 2004. Over recent years the unit has operated a variety of Russian-developed combat types, including the MiG-29 and several Sukhoi-developed models such as the Su-27P, one of which was recently observed flying in the vicinity.”

Photographer Phil Drake told TheAviationist.com, “I took my camera out and photographed the ensuing dogfight between the Flanker and a F-16. The sortie seemed to consist of a head-on intercept, conducted at descending altitudes from 30 down to 20 thousand feet, and after each intercept a turning dogfight ensued after they had flashed past each other.

The highly maneuverable Flanker was a single seat version, a Su-27P, and it pulled out all of its best moves to get behind the F-16. I watched in awe as the pair fought it out for 25 minutes before they both climbed to altitude and flew back into Groom Lake restricted airspace. My scanner remained silent throughout the whole encounter.”



https://theaviationist.com/2017/09/12/n ... 1-emerges/

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 07 Feb 2019 03:50

Qatar takes delivery of first French-built Rafale jet fighter
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/ ... 52110.html

Doha has significantly boosted defence spending after being diplomatically isolated by its Gulf neighbours in 2017.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65249
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2019 13:45

the defence mins of france and germany have inked a 74B euro deal to develop 5th gen fighter and engine and IOC it @ 2040 to start replacing the rafale and EF.

speaking on the occasion the french lady said many had booed heckled and mocked this proposal but they had worked hard for the aggreement and made it happen. will happen under dassault and airbus defence control. a model of some advanced engine was also shown to ministers.

UK and Italy now seem reduced to cobbling together JSFs from SKD kits designed and built by US brains.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65249
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2019 13:47

https://www.ft.com/content/2d8483b0-2a4 ... 8ef2b976c7


Sylvia Pfeifer 13 HOURS AGO Print this page

France and Germany have moved ahead with plans for a next generation fighter jet, announcing a €65m contract award to Airbus and Dassault Aviation.

Under the terms of the agreement, unveiled by the French and German defence ministers at a meeting in Paris on Wednesday, the two companies will undertake a joint concept study for a “Future Combat Air System” (FCAS).

The initial contract will run for two years and kicks off the Franco-German programme in earnest. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel first announced plans for a next generation manned combat aircraft programme in July 2017, to include a fighter jet as well as a range of associated weapons, including drones. The aim is to replace France’s current jet, the Rafale, and the pan-European Eurofighter Typhoon, from 2040. France’s Safran and Germany’s MTU Aero Engines will jointly develop the new jet’s engine.

The programme is “one of the most ambitious European defence programmes for the century”, said Dirk Hoke, chief executive of Airbus Defence and Space.

Eric Trappier, chairman and chief executive of Dassault Aviation, said “this new step is the cornerstone to ensure tomorrow’s European strategic autonomy”.

The agreement will increase pressure on the UK to move ahead with its own programme for a next generation jet, dubbed Tempest. :lol:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65249
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2019 13:47

perhaps UK and Cheen can form a JV now for true 5th gen jet, or UK can purchase the J20mk2

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2019 17:01

65 Million Euros on an architecture study is definitely not going to send shivers down the UK's spine when it comes to fears of being left out. On the flip side, there seems to be some cooperation being looked into when it comes to a Next Gen fighter between the UK, Italy, and Sweden. There's a lot to go before these efforts materialize into a firm program of record so there will be likely multiple entry points in the coming 2-4 years for the UK and others to enter and on the flip side, for Germany or France to exit.

Singha wrote:the defence mins of france and germany have inked a 74B euro deal to develop 5th gen fighter and engine and IOC it @ 2040 to start replacing the rafale and EF.


The only portion of that "deal" that is binding is the architecture study which is about 74 Million Euros (Million not Billion), and the engine studies which is another 100-120 million Euros. Only once those are completed will the two nations actually be asked to begin to commit to a program of record with a spending profile that will only be determined once these efforts are concluded. The entry into service date is already 2040 so it with that much of a time gap between the studies that are funded and an actual in-service product, it is in the best interest of the program and its original partners (France and Germany) to try to get as many other partners to commit to partnering just to make sure that the program remains healthy through its 20+ year road to IOC.

Singha wrote:UK and Italy now seem reduced to cobbling together JSFs from SKD kits designed and built by US brains.


The UK gets about 12-15% worth of business on every F-35 that is sold (All three variants). From an economic perspective that is a big big deal as it sustains their industrial base well into the 2030's. Absent the cash-flows generated by the F-35 sales they would have had to sustain the base themselves which would have been rather difficult given how much they would have had to increase their defense acquisition to compensate. The orders are also largely more secure and assured than the Typhoon. This year, more than 130 F-35's will be delivered with orders for the next two production lots nearly already complete or already signed when it comes to Partner/FMS nation block buys are concerned. Starting 2020-2021, the USDOD will be negotiating for between 500-600 F-35's at a time as part of the Multi-Year buys which translates to some very stable long term business for UK companies supporting the program. And all this for about $ 2 Billion upfront investment in R&D that the UK committed too.

On the IP side, the lift-fan IP and all the work that was done via that is now owned by RR (be it via acquisition and not organically) and BAE systems has a fair bit of IP that is being created as part of the JSF investment again most of it has been via acquisition but in the absence of the program they would have had to fund that themselves. RR was even awarded a US contract during the early days of the 6th generation fighter program to begin developing technologies for the NG engine (ADVENT).

All these things provide the UK some competitive advantage when it comes to working as part of a team member on a Next Gen. fighter, either as a team member with Germany and France on the SCAF down the road, or as a leader with Sweden and Italy on their side.

The story with Italy is a lot different though they never really had any ambitions of playing a leading role in a NGF anyway.

Bottom line is that there is a lot to do when it comes to the Franco-German partnership. These are very very early days for the SCAF and they are only performing architecture studies and other concept definition work with about $70 Million committed over the next 2 years (about that much more for the engine) which is small change when compared to the total program spend that they are looking at should they actually go and commit full speed under the existing model (Overall well in excess of $100 Billion).

Historically, coming together and studying and exploring future programs has not been hard for European cooperation; sustaining partnerships and seeing products through without partners walking out has, so as I said things could change dramatically and it is very much a possibility that new entrants come in as these efforts move beyond the initial study phase.

It is in France and Germany's best interests to absorb more funding partners to both assure that the program is well funded, to thwart any potential competition, to increase demand which would result in a lower cost, and to make the program cancellation-proof by expanding partnership. The last thing everyone probably wants to see is 2-3 European NGF programs emerging which are largely in the same technology/capability ballpark with the end result being that neither is produced at a large enough rate to make it affordable.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65249
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 07 Feb 2019 17:52

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25 ... et-program

it looks like netherland is with uk-italy tempest program while spain may join the franco-german group. some charts of 1 manned platform and a few types of more ELO unmanned using swarm and extended-stick concepts.

imo its best these 3+3 stay separate. having uk and france in the same team is impossible as EF and Tornado projects show. the last time they broke bread together was the venerable Jaguar.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2019 18:11

Well if you go by history then France just simply cannot play as part of a team if the Rafale is the most recent example. That said, I think past experiences, and future needs will force partnerships and it is still in their interest to converge on one properly funded program as opposed to 2-3 programs with uncertain funding profiles.

The EF program exit on part of France was not because of the UK but because of divergent requirements as France wanted a lot more emphasis on a naval variant. Spain, UK,Germany etc did far better when it came to staying together and seeing the program through, and from an industrial perspective with 500+ orders they have reaped the rewards.

The FCAS with its "systems" provides far more opportunities to distribute design and production work when compared to one airframe-engine combination which was the case with the Typhoon and Rafale so forming and keeping partnerships should be easier. But as I said, an IOC target that is 20+ years away means that there will be a number of political considerations to dodge over this period so its best to cast a wide net. Going from a 4+ generation aircraft to a 6th generation aircraft is not going to be easy or cheap and this will require stable political and funding support.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7106
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Prasad » 07 Feb 2019 20:52

I'd argue that France has probably learnt from the rafale experience that it wont sell as manynext gen jets as the mirage series of fighters. So roping in other countries to spread the risk and bring in scale will help it.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 08 Feb 2019 20:55

Powered JSOW-C (450+ Km range) coming to the F/A-18 and F-35 A/C : -

.@NAVAIRNews to award @Raytheon contract for further development of the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon - Extended Range (JSOW-ER). Powered version that increases range of #JSOW glide bomb from 22km to 463km, and intended for Super Hornet and Lightning II by 2023.


https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/sta ... 0874758144

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Chinmay » 09 Feb 2019 10:20

brar_w wrote:Powered JSOW-C (450+ Km range) coming to the F/A-18 and F-35 A/C : -

.@NAVAIRNews to award @Raytheon contract for further development of the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon - Extended Range (JSOW-ER). Powered version that increases range of #JSOW glide bomb from 22km to 463km, and intended for Super Hornet and Lightning II by 2023.


https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/sta ... 0874758144


Doesn't this overlap with the JASSM (-A) version, albeit at the lower end?

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 09 Feb 2019 12:19

A10 Warthog vs SU 25 Frogfoot - Flying Tank Comparison


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1746
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Manish_P » 09 Feb 2019 12:40

A good interview/article about the Harrier at Hush-kit.

Flying & Fighting in the Harrier: RAF pilot interview

Image

Some Nuggets
What is the hardest thing about flying the Harrier?

“Not screwing up in the VSTOL regime.”


What were the best and worst things about the Harrier?

“The best things were its V/STOL capabilities and its ability to reliably project air power for a reasonable cost; it was ultimately a relatively simple aircraft which kept costs down and reliability up.

The worst things were the unforgiving handling (however, the satisfaction of successfully operating a challenging aircraft was half the appeal) and the V/STOL design compromises meaning we always got whooped during air combat training by F-15s / F-16s / F/A-18s.”


Was the absence of cannon and radar problematic?

“The lack of radar did get you looking out of the window a lot, and building a mental picture of the tactical situation from radio transmissions was a cherished skill. At times you did feel like you were stumbling around in the dark – the absolute opposite of the level of situational awareness that today’s F-35 brings. At least we had a very good EW system, the display for which was in the HUD, to let you know who was looking at you and from what angle.

As for the gun, it’s always nice to have a cheap forward-firing weapon but the attempts to fit a 25mm derivative of the Aden cannon failed and, anecdotally, at that point there was no money to buy the GAU-12 5-barrel cannon (drool).”


And the inevitable comparison with the F-35s

Are there any things a Harrier can do that a F-35B can’t?

“Not many – bow in the hover; operate from a grass runway; punish the pilot for careless handling. That’s your lot!”
:D
What should I have asked you?

“F-35 or Harrier? F-35 for everything bar the satisfaction of mastering the handling challenge of the Harrier.


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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 09 Feb 2019 16:11

Probably the only civil aircraft design far ahead of its time , Jumbo Turns 50 Today

The Jumbo Jet: 50 Years In the Sky


nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2172
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby nam » 09 Feb 2019 16:13

Based on the harrier interview, fundamentally a useless aircraft, when faced with proper jets. Just because you cannot have catapult, you fly a very difficult jet and provides no guarantees of winning.

Ofcourse the noise of those engine is phenomenal and great tv material.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby gaurav.p » 09 Feb 2019 16:25



Sweedish upping their ante in a build up to Finland. By completely ignoring f35 DAS and EW and just considering it for its stealth. Gullible bronk prick, spewing anecdotes.

I cant understand why massa can't strongarm the grip-pen their f414 just like the Israelis were done wrt recent sale of soolah to Croatia.

It is called the Sukhoi killer even before it is operationalized. :rotfl: Pure firang DDM at its best. Comparable to the cheeni propaganda.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2019 16:39

nam wrote:Based on the harrier interview, fundamentally a useless aircraft, when faced with proper jets. Just because you cannot have catapult, you fly a very difficult jet and provides no guarantees of winning.

Ofcourse the noise of those engine is phenomenal and great tv material.


The SHar had a radar.

It allowed the (f)UK to project power to Argentina which at the time was a mil power on level with naPaki.

Without the Harriers, the fleet would have been sunk. The thing shot down 20 Argentinian planes including supersonic Mirages.

So the IN had a system that can handle anything in the IOR outside the carriers of the 6th and 7th Fleet.

Agree the handling was brutal with 17 crashes destroying more half the fleet of 30. Lost 7 brave pilots. But we would have suffered losses with conventional carrier aircraft too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2019 20:02

Chinmay wrote:
Doesn't this overlap with the JASSM (-A) version, albeit at the lower end?


JASSM is no longer in production (only the ER is currently being produced which will transition to the XR in a couple of years) and is not a weapon in the US Navy inventory. JSOW is in production and it appears that at least a part of the JSOW-ER inventory will be JSOW-C's upgraded with the motor so there will be quite a bit of affordability built in to the acquisition program. Moreover, the JASSM does not fit the F-35A/C internal bays while the JSOW-ER does. The only weapon it overlaps with is the Norwegian JSM and perhaps the Turkish SOM and neither of those two are operational as a baseline capability (like the JSOW) nor are they in the US Navy inventory or plan. JSOWER is essentially a JSOW-C with a MALD motor with all of those components individually in service in substantial numbers with either the USAF or USN.

From Jane's IHS :

The JSOW-ER has the same size, shape, and weight as the baseline JSOW glide-weapon, but incorporates a Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet (as fitted onto Raytheon’s MALD [miniature air-launched decoy]) to give it a reported range of about 463 km (compared with 22 km for the JSOW), while Raytheon has said it expects a maximum effective range of 555.6 km when launched under optimum conditions.
As noted by Jane’s Weapons: Air-Launched , the JSOW-ER shares the same upgraded imaging infrared (2IR/IIR) seeker as the AGM-154C-1-variant JSOW, which includes new modes (modified software) to engage moving targets at sea. It is equipped with a Rockwell Collins TacNet 1.0 (two-way strike common weapon datalink [SCWDL]) that enables the launch aircraft or another designated controller to provide real-time target updates to the weapon, or to reassign it to another target mid-flight.

In terms of its warhead, the JSOW-ER can be fitted with the same penetrating effect as the multistage BROACH (Bomb Royal Ordnance Augmented Charge) developed by BAE Systems, but with less blast/fragmentation. It might incorporate less steel in the warhead or adopt a new fragmentation sleeve. The demonstrator airframe flown in October 2009 had a hollow space containing fuel where a BLU-111 warhead would be fitted onto a standard weapon, while Raytheon noted that a production JSOW-ER would have a smaller warhead to accommodate the necessary fuel tank.


Image

An advantage is obviously is that it is just a variant of the JSOW which as a glide bomb is in service in numbers with the US Navy and that by retaining the same OML it still complies with internal weapon bays of the F-35C. It is not going to have the signature or other performance of the JASSMER which is more expensive. The USAF will also field something similar with its Gray Wolf cruise missile which aims to decrease the cost by more than half compared to the JASSM but with more networking abilities.

gaurav.p wrote:I cant understand why massa can't strongarm the grip-pen their f414 just like the Israelis were done wrt recent sale of soolah to Croatia.


Israel tried to circumvent established US regulations while trying to sell aircraft that were essentially gifted to it by hoping that the US Government will look the other way. They tried skirting rules and regulations that they themselves had agreed to comply with.

Sweden on the other hand is doing nothing of this sort. The US OEM involvement on the Gripen and other SAAB and Swedish military equipment has been something that has happened for a long time and there is quite a bit of US-Swedish cooperation in other areas too, so much so that Sweden now has a fairly decent position in the US Military industrial base and has even transferred IP on a lot of its products, particularly radars, to its US subsidiary in order to be competitive in the US marketplace.

Of course the PR on the Gripen-E is going to claim it is the best aircraft competing in Finland. All PR shows for all competitors would be doing this and this is no reason or justification to treat this as anything beyond PR. The Gripen is yet to best the F-35 in a competition and bar the Swiss competition (where the F-35 has little chance) this is unlikely to happen in the next decade or two.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Feb 2019 22:10, edited 4 times in total.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby gaurav.p » 09 Feb 2019 21:09

brar_w wrote:
Of course the PR on the Gripen-E is going to claim it is the best aircraft competing in Finland. All PR shows for all competitors would be doing this and this is no reason or justification to treat this as anything beyond PR. The Gripen is yet to best the F-35 in a competition and bar the Swiss competition (where the F-35 has little chance) this is unlikely to happen in the next decade or two.


Correct brar-ji I was sort of venting out the wild statements which our DDM media pick up and write click bait articles.

SAAB no doubt is an excellent case of MIC to emulate. I sometimes wish what situation of Tejas would have been if we would have had not done Op Shakti in '98. Only fictional scenarios can be imagined out of it now.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3970
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 09 Feb 2019 22:58



LOL..

PS - There is one thing indeed thay we can take ToT from Sweden and which would be really useful for us - Marketing :lol: Good thing is we wont need to buy Gripen for that.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 15 Feb 2019 14:56

The Koreans have cut steel on their 5th gen. Been watching the race between the KFX, the Turkish TFX and our AMCA.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1096084253664821249

Today KAI held a ceremony in order to celebrate the manufacturing / 'cutting' of the first bulkhead, which is the main part of the forward fuselage of the KF-X.
Image

Image


Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1456
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Vips » 15 Feb 2019 15:20

chola wrote:The Koreans have cut steel on their 5th gen. Been watching the race between the KFX, the Turkish TFX and our AMCA.


Expect a Gripen v/s LCA Tejas redux.

KFX and maybe TFX will be flying in numbers across various blocks and the AMCA will be giving one missed deadline after another for the first flight/IOC/Conditional FOC and then sarkari babus taking off for tours to Korea, Turkey, UK and Russia to negotiate emergency purchase of 36 planes for the IAF.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3970
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2019 15:42

chola wrote:The Koreans have cut steel on their 5th gen. Been watching the race between the KFX, the Turkish TFX and our AMCA.




Steel..??

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 15 Feb 2019 15:48

JayS wrote:
chola wrote:The Koreans have cut steel on their 5th gen. Been watching the race between the KFX, the Turkish TFX and our AMCA.




Steel..??



Figure of speech. lol.

It could be aluminum or alloy or who knows what else the Koreans might have concocted.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 15 Feb 2019 15:53

Vips wrote:
Expect a Gripen v/s LCA Tejas redux.


I hope not. I was one of those early keyboard warriors in the LCA/J-10 flameswars nearly two decades ago.

AMCA does have the edge of experience from the LCA — provided that we learnt anything.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3970
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2019 19:04

was just pulling your leg. :P Must be Ti alloy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36228
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SaiK » 15 Feb 2019 20:56

now the media is driven by our defence-media-men, who are now being paid to work for tempest

https://www.janes.com/article/86417/tem ... er-capable

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2019 05:09

Hill Airmen, F-35 a lethal combo at Red Flag

Red Flag aggressors encompass the whole spectrum of an adversary force – advanced integrated air-defense systems, an adversary air force, cyber-warfare and information operations. Because of these diverse capabilities, many Red Flag missions are flown in “contested or denied” environments with active electronic attack, communications jamming, and GPS denial.

“Those situations highlight the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35. We’re still able to operate and be successful. In a lot of cases we have a large role as an integrated quarterback,” said Lt. Col. Yosef Morris, 4th Fighter Squadron commander. “Our ability to continue to fuse and pass information to the entire package makes every aircraft more survivable.”

During the first week of Red Flag, the F-35 pilots flew in a larger force of Blue Air in a counter-air mission. More than 60 aggressor aircraft were flying against them, blinding many of the fourth-generation aircraft with “robust” electronic attack capabilities.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” Wood said. “This is not a mission you want a young pilot flying in. My wingman was a brand new F-35A pilot, seven or eight flights out of training. He gets on the radio and tells an experienced, 3,000-hour pilot in a very capable fourth-generation aircraft. ‘Hey bud, you need to turn around. You’re about to die. There’s a threat off your nose.’”....


>60 Aggressor aircraft (they can also re-generate if simulating more capable Red Force) for Red Flag 19-1. I would have look into the past but this does appear to be a significant quantity increase from most large force exercises. Aggressors have also had some qualitative improvements with live and virtual EW/EA capability added and even full blown GPS black-out happening over hundreds of miles of range space during RF...

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 16 Feb 2019 17:48

Like their drone industry, private players are appearing in their space one. Red capitalism. It’s no joke.

These can’t but have an effect on their innovation, research and development going forward.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/china-increases-investment-in-emerging-private-space-industry.html

China increases investment in emerging private space industry

China led among countries expanding market share in the space industry during the third quarter, according a report from investment firm Space Angels.

Nearly all of China's investment has come since 2016.


Michael Sheetz | @thesheetztweetz
Published 9:35 AM ET Wed, 10 Oct 2018


China is upping bets on private space companies, leading among countries expanding market share in the nascent industry during the third quarter, according a report from Space Angels, an investing firm specializing in private space ventures.

Chinese space companies drew $69 million of investment in the third quarter, more than any other country in that time. This year has seen China already pour $217 million in space companies, nearly matching the $230 million invested in all of last year.

...

LinkSpace received the earliest investment but has yet to send a rocket to space. The company has conducted launch and landing "hop" tests for its rocket but has otherwise remained quiet.

OneSpace became the first to launch a privately-developed Chinese rocket to orbit, reaching that mark on May 17, according to state Chinese agency Xinhua. The startup has drawn more than $74 million in investment, according to Crunchbase.

Another newcomer to the rocket industry is iSpace. The Chinese company launched a suborbital rocket in April but quickly followed it up with a milestone launch on Sept. 5, putting three small satellites into orbit.

LandSpace rounds out the quickly-advancing Chinese rocket companies. While LandSpace has yet to reach orbit, its rockets are the most advanced among China's private companies. The startup is also developing a liquid engine, the type of next-generation engine being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin. LandSpace expects its first launch in the next month.

"It's really only launch companies they're investing in, which makes sense since access to space is a key enabler of other technologies," Anderson said of China.




brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 19 Feb 2019 17:33

Smart move by Boeing in Finland and Germany. Rather than offer only the Super Hornet which is just another 4+ generation aircraft in the mix of other highly capable 4+ generation aircraft and one 5th generation aircraft, they are now more aggressively pushing the AEA option/mix which is a capability unique to only its offering. Europe has lost or is going to lose a lot of qualitative advantage when it comes to the upper range SEAD/DEAD mission with the retiring of the Tornado fleets and eventual retiring of the F-16's kitted for such a role.

More Growlers don't seem like a bad idea for some of these air-forces particularly if the are offered as swing role aircraft with varying degrees of capability across the various missions.

US approves Growler sale to Finland


The approval, announced by Boeing on 18 February, covers the sale of the aircraft to Finland as part of that country’s H-X fighter procurement process.

Boeing has offered the Growler to Finland as part of a package that includes the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter. Although the US’ approval is required for the sale, the granting of approval does not mean that Finland has selected the platform.

Any procurement must first be approved by Congress before a contract can be signed.

Besides the Growler and Super Hornet, Finland is also considering the Dassault Mirage, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, and the Saab Gripen as it looks to replace its ageing fleet of 55 F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornets from about 2025.

The US Navy has a programme of record of 160 Growlers and the Royal Australian Air Force has received 12.
With Boeing offering the Growler to Finland and also to Germany, it now appears to be the company’s strategy to offer the bespoke EW platform as a package alongside its Super Hornet strike fighter stablemate.

Speaking to Jane’s at the ILA Berlin Airshow in 2018, Boeing director for global sales for strike, surveillance, and mobility Bryan Crutchfield said, “There are some good electronic warfare pods out there but they are no comparison to the Growler,”


Once the Block-3 Super Hornet becomes operational, I suspect the US Navy will buy another one to two lots of the Block-3 Growler before the entire F/A-18 production draws down towards the end of the 2020's. Won't be surprised if the eventual US Navy Growler fleet size is closer to 200 as they are already moving to or thinking about moving to a 7 aircraft deployment as part of a more capable air wing. One of the smartest things that RAAF did was hard wire their Super Hornet's to enable them to be converted to the EA-18G configuration down the road. It added a couple of million $ to the cost but was well worth it. I can see them operating an additional dozen or so Growlers once they fully bed down their F-35A fleet as well.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 22 Feb 2019 11:38

A look at the initial bulkhead for K-FX. It looks like internal weapons compartments but previous literature said ordnance will be carried externationally with the primary AAMs being recessed:

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1097385474379993090


Image


Image
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 22 Feb 2019 19:48

chola wrote:A look at the initial bulkhead for K-FX. It looks like internal weapons compartments but previous literature said ordnance will be carried externationally with the primary AAMs being recessed:




Initial variant will have external carriage with the follow on variant accommodating an IWB and sensors.

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

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 23 Feb 2019 10:16

Thermonuclear Plasma Engines! Novosibirsk Scientists Begin New Space Rocket Experiments!



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BALAR025, brar_w, DrRatnadip, Hari Nair, komal, Malayappan, nam, Nihat, Sanju, sudeepj, tapan and 123 guests