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: 66124
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 24 Mar 2019 20:52

turkey needs to develop and deploy its own 4+ gen fighter and local radar and weapons first, than try to jump from tinkering with F16 licensed upgrades into 5th gen. they are not as tfta as they project.

my prediction is their 5th gen plans will fall flat on face. the france-germany combine wont let them in. and the tempest partners will also have political issues with letting turkey in unless funds are really tight.

so pakistans hope of a new sugar daddy to get american goodies for cheap and on the sly may not really pan out.

looks like RR has withdrawn from the 5th gen project and they are trying to make meal out of the F110 for now.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 24 Mar 2019 20:59

DETONATION RAMJET Engine for high-speed aircraft Tested
Joint project

The goal of the project is the manufacture and carrying out of bench tests with imitation of the conditions of high-speed flight of a full-size demonstrator of a detonation direct-flow-jet engine (RAMJET) for a high-speed aircraft. In the course of the project, it was necessary to explore the possibilities of increasing the engine thrust and economic characteristics by organizing detonation combustion, as well as ways to ensure the efficiency of the engine design in the flow of hydrocarbon fuel combustion products. In addition, work was to be carried out to study the possibility of providing supersonic combustion of liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a ramjet combustion chamber.

The novelty of these studies is determined by the use of fundamentally new ways of organizing the working process in the combustion chamber of a high-speed ramjet engine and using high-performance ceramic-matrix composites with specific properties to create its design. These materials have a low density and make it possible to ensure the operability of the combustion chamber wall without a cooling system for a specified time.

Project Result

The project was successfully completed on January 31, 2018. For the first time in the world, the possibility of implementing continuous spin detonation on an air-fuel mixture in a supersonic flow and its successful use in a ramjet engine was experimentally confirmed, and the correctness of the choice of the geometry of the flow path was experimentally confirmed. A full-size DPDGD demonstrator with an OVC was manufactured and successful tests were performed in a free stream at simulating high-speed flight conditions.


https://fpi.gov.ru/projects/fiziko-tekh ... nnyy-pvrd/

Last edited by Austin on 24 Mar 2019 21:10, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 24 Mar 2019 21:01

some one mentioned to me that a detonation engine does not burn fuel but explode it.

> The amount of energy released by the explosive combustion is way higher than subsonic burn
> You don't need to slow down the air before adding it to the combustion chamber so you avoid thermal problems and increase massively the efficiency of the propulsion

These could be used from subsonic to highly hypersonic speeds so would open interesting possibilities

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 24 Mar 2019 21:08

Another project by Foundation for Advanced Study is liquid rocket engine demonstrator operating in continuous spin detonation mode

More details https://fpi.gov.ru/projects/fiziko-tekh ... -dvigatel/

Video of the Engine Tested


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 25 Mar 2019 18:51

Big capability boost coming to the U-2 with a new SAR. Interestingly, many of the capabilities and technologies that went into the UK's sentinel program were an offshoot of the ASARS-2A effort so I wonder if the ARAS-2B will continue to go down that line as far as Raytheon's ISTAR offerings are concerned (of which the IAF is expected to buy an aircraft..)

Raytheon developing new version of advanced synthetic aperture radar for U-2 aircraft


EL SEGUNDO, Calif., March 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon (NYSE: RTN) is developing a new version of the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar that flies on the U-2 Dragon Lady aircraft under a $320 million undefinitized contract from the U.S. Air Force.

Equipped with an active electronically scanned array antenna, ASARS-2B doubles the surveillance range while maintaining the mapping and imagery resolution of the current ASARS-2A system. ASARS-2B completed flight test at Edwards Air Force Base in California in early 2019.

"ASARS-2B allows the Dragon Lady to see further than ever before," said Eric Ditmars, vice president of Raytheon Secure Sensor Solutions. "That kind of range is crucial for commanders to achieve decision superiority - and it ensures that the U-2 remains a preferred option for manned airborne surveillance operations."

ASARS-2B is a high-resolution, multimode, long-range, air-to-ground radar that provides operators with critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data. Capable of operating in all weather, day or night, ASARS detects and precisely locates fixed and moving targets on the ground.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7187
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Prasad » 26 Mar 2019 10:51

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mide ... ghter-buy/

purchase of 25 F-16C/D Block 72 fighters, estimated at $3.787 billion, as well as upgrades to the country’s existing 23 F‑16s to the more advanced F‑16V Block 52+ configuration, estimated at $985.2 million. Combined, the two sales could net American contractors roughly $4.8 billion.

And more. Link-16 systems, AESA radars, SDB etc etc. They'll likely be better equipped than the Fizzleya.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66124
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2019 10:58

is this detonation engine thing a modern supersonic version of the pulse jet used in the V1 cruise missile of WW2 ?
history comes in circles if so.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 26 Mar 2019 17:32

Prasad wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2019/03/25/morocco-cleared-for-massive-f-16-fighter-buy/

purchase of 25 F-16C/D Block 72 fighters, estimated at $3.787 billion, as well as upgrades to the country’s existing 23 F‑16s to the more advanced F‑16V Block 52+ configuration, estimated at $985.2 million. Combined, the two sales could net American contractors roughly $4.8 billion.

And more. Link-16 systems, AESA radars, SDB etc etc. They'll likely be better equipped than the Fizzleya.


If the Taiwanese order gets through the US political process, the new F-16 production line in South Carolina could well be looking at 100+ fighter production in the 2020's which is quite remarkable since it was initially envisioned as a low rate of production operation and primarily aimed at upgrades, sustainment and overhaul.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Mar 2019 05:37, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 27 Mar 2019 04:49

Morocco approved for F-16V procurement and upgrades for existing fighters

link


Morocco will become the latest customer for the Lockheed Martin F-16V Block 70/72 Fighting Falcon, with the US government announcing its approval for a procurement on 25 March.

The US State Department approval, disclosed by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), covers the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) purchase of 25 new-build F-16Vs, associated equipment, and support for an estimated USD3.79 billion, as well as upgrades to the north African country’s 23 existing F-16C/D Block 50/52s for an estimated USD985.2 million.

While the notification did not break-down the new-build procurement into aircraft variants, the retrofits to the Royal Moroccan Air Force’s (RMAF’s) current fleet will comprise 15 single-seat F-16Cs and eight twin-seat F-16Ds.

Further to the aircraft, the potential sale includes Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS) DB-110 Tactical Reconnaissance Pods (TRPs), Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper pods, and Exelis AN/ALQ-211(V)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suite (AIDEWS) podded electronic warfare (EW) systems. Weapons listed include Raytheon AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), Boeing GBU-38/54 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits, and GBU-10/12/16/39/49/50 precision-guided bombs.

As noted by the DSCA, the proposed sale to Morocco will improve interoperability with the US and other regional allies, and will enhance the RMAF’s ability to undertake coalition operations, as it has done in the past in flying sorties against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

As the most advanced variant of the F-16 available today, the F-16V Block 70/72 features the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-83 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar (derived from the F-16E/F Block 60 AN/APG-80, also known as the Scalable Agile Beam Radar [SABR]), a new Raytheon mission computer, the Link 16 datalink, modern cockpit displays, an enhanced electronic warfare system, and a ground-collision avoidance system.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4018
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 27 Mar 2019 12:19

Question in my mind is, lets say if India buys F16, will LM still stick to its word and shift the MFG base for F16, lock stock and barrel to India as a sole supplier facility for all international orders, including of coarse Indian order..? If we have around 250 jets on plate, the proposition gets rather attractive I would say. That is if GOI is hell bent on getting a MII project through MMRCA 2.0 to "create jobs".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2019 16:18

JayS wrote:Question in my mind is, lets say if India buys F16, will LM still stick to its word and shift the MFG base for F16, lock stock and barrel to India as a sole supplier facility for all international orders, including of coarse Indian order..? If we have around 250 jets on plate, the proposition gets rather attractive I would say. That is if GOI is hell bent on getting a MII project through MMRCA 2.0 to "create jobs".



It is a little late in the day to begin negotiating on F-16 assembly in India in the 2020's when it has pretty much tapped out on potential future growth. All the other platforms, barring possibly the Gripen-E, have room to grow and add capability. Out of the two US offerings, at least the F-18E (not to mention teh EA-18G variant) will be the one of the most important strike fighter programs for the USN going into the 2030's (it will be available in far greater numbers than the F-35C for example so will be vital for them to support). The USAF is replacing its F-16's at a rate of 2-3 squadrons a year and will be doing it at a pace closer to 3-4 by mid next decade so their interest in adding incremental capability beyond the middle of next decade will be minimal at best.

Hard to believe that, if this goes through, this turns out to be anything other than another Rafale order given the money invested in creating domestic support and operational infrastructure and to customize the aircraft and weapons.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 27 Mar 2019 17:11

F-16 is a good fighter in terms of its 30 years OPEX cycle with fairly good capability offered being single engine is a plus point as well same like Mirage

The thing with F-16 or for that matter F-18 would be the entire new line of capability building IAF will have to invest into right from Infra to Maintenance to Weapons and every thing that comes with it , IAF has no experience of operating a US fighter.

Weapon interoperability will be another issue what ever BVR/WVR or PGM Teens will operate wont be compatiable with rest of fleet and US allowing Indian Weapons like BVR or PGM to be integrated to its fighter even if its a old F-16 model would be another question that needs answer.

Adding a new type is a huge logistics mess to the already big one IAF is in at the moment , That gets impacted with Fighter Life of around 35 years plus with upgrades and OPEX keeps rising.

Better to keep this race with known fighter in IAF fleet either Rafale or Mig-35 .......Gripen can be a contender too as likely it will have the same engine as Tejas has.

I hope IAF seriously looks into streamlining its fighter types along with Logistics , Weapons and Training plus MLU that goes into these things. IT would do a lot good to them in the long run with indiginising the few types to maximum possible it can.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2019 17:26

OPEX is only one aspect of the life cycle cost matrix. The other is the ability to affordably upgrade and enhance capability. That drives a lot of CAPEX if you have to go in for custom options. A good case to look at is that of the UAE's F-16 block 60's. Such a large degree of customization in the radar, Electronic warfare suite and other mission systems meant that they had ZERO commonality with other F-16 users and were therefore forced to go it alone and fund 100% of their upgrades and enhancements or even component replacement for obsolescence. Even the F-35 and F-22 upgraded to 3rd generation T/R modules for their radars, forcing the UAE to either upgrade or pay a lot of money to the OEM to sustain something that was about to go out of production. They had insisted on IP rights for all their funded R&D work towards the block 60 but were soon willing to surrender that for free if that meant component or software commonality between their variant and the block-70 as that would lower future upgrade costs for them as well..

In the future, no one really has the incentive to invest a lot in modernizing the F-16 given that most higher end users would have, or would be on a path to acquiring the F-35 or another aircraft to replace their fleet. I expected the Singapore AF to be one of the users that would have held on to relatively young F-16's through the 2030's but it appears even they are interested in finishing up their F-35 acquisition in the 2020s. This then leaves perhaps Poland and the UAE (and Israel though with a much smaller fleet) as the two operators who will have a decent sized, and relatively young fleet but the former is now considering the F-35 and the latter is likely to be its first GCC customer next decade..

If the IAF commits to a 100+ F-16's in the 2020 time-frame, it will be left with a huge MLU and upgrade cost a decade or two down the road with no other user having either the need or the pockets to co-fund that. This will probably not be the case for the Rafale, as it will soldier on in the French Air Force as its most important fast jet aircraft till perhaps the early 2040s when it expects the SCAF to arrive.

I don't expect weapons integration to be an issue on either the F-16 or the F/A-18. Operators already have custom weapons (US or non US) on these aircraft, like the Israelis with an entire portfolio of PGMs and other non kinetic solutions, Fins and the Aussies with non USN weapons on the Hornet (ASRAAM and JASSM) and the Norwegians about to declare their domestic JSM operational on their F-16's. I believe even the German IRIS-T is integrated on the F-16 which means pretty much all of the main western WVR missiles are integrated or flight tested. If you go with Israeli mission computers then even the Derby and Stunner are integrated.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 27 Mar 2019 18:53

Since IAF does not operate a single US fighter till date its a guess work on how IAF will maintain a fleet of fighters from US , Russia , France and India

Why make matter more complex and just increase your burden and I am not even counting the Political Aspect like Sanctions or CAASTA leave that aside.

India is neither the Israel or UAE or Poland and we are not a NATO allay or Treaty Bound partner or depend on US for any of its security so those comparision are not really valid for India which might look good for these countries.

Just keep simple and buy an existing type and streamline your fighter types which will have a long term effect.

IAF is already reeling under the effect of operating 6-8 fighter types bought in 70 . 80's or much earlier in 60''s ranging from 2-3 dozen to couple of 100's

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2019 18:59

Austin wrote:Since IAF does not operate a single US fighter till date its a guess work on how IAF will maintain a fleet of fighters from US , Russia , France and India

Why make matter more complex and just increase your burden and I am not even counting the Political Aspect like Sanctions or CAASTA leave that aside.

India is neither the Israel or UAE or Poland and we are not a NATO allay or Treaty Bound partner or depend on US for any of its security so those comparision are not really valid for India which might look good for these countries.

Just keep simple and buy an existing type and streamline your fighter types which will have a long term effect.

IAF is already reeling under the effect of operating 6-8 fighter types bought in 70 . 80's or much earlier in 60''s ranging from 2-3 dozen to couple of 100's


I don't think you bothered reading my last two posts. I am not advocating for the IAF to acquire the F-16. I've been clear on a number of occasions in that I think the IAF would be best served by more Rafales. The MiG-35 is also a pretty bad idea given the IAF is already inducting the Rafale..It has nothing in common with the systems the IAF has been acquiring (mission systems), and makes no use of the nearly $2 Billion the MOD has spent on customizing the Rafale.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 27 Mar 2019 22:24

Sure I am all of acquiring the Rafale too after sunk investment , If Dassault agrees to unit price of $60 million with TOT as DPP asks and for local lic production and what ever RFP asks for. It will just cost is around $7 billion then

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2019 22:45

I don't think it is as simple as that. There is much that can change from RFI to RFP and even post RFP. Somehow, I think the IAF wants the Rafale and the case for not getting at least a few squadrons more of them is quite weak and the same applies to getting something else like the MiG-35 if one takes the long run view of things.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2019 16:37




This could be the follow on vehicle for the family of attritable "loyal wingman" aircraft that starts with Gremlins and UTAP-22 sized vehicles, covers the runway independent mission with the XQ-58A and the larger conventional TO and landing variant probably at a slightly higher price point...

The idea seems to be to produce thousands of the smaller sized attributable vehicles, high hundreds of the mid sized ones and low hundreds of the large sized ones. Each is attritable so is expected to average out to about 3-4 missions before being lost/damaged beyond repaired or retired.

Skyborg program seeks industry input for artificial intelligence initiative


Image

The Air Force office of Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation at the Air Force Research Laboratory is working on fielding a prototype Autonomous, Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle as an Early Operational Capability as early as 2023.

The program, known as Skyborg, and the SDPE office issued a request for information to industry March 15 to conduct market research and concept of operations analysis to learn what is commercially available now as high technology readiness level capabilities which can meet the requirements and timeline of the Skyborg program.

Skyborg officially stood up as a fiscal year 2019 funded pathfinder program through SDPE in October 2018, according to Ben Tran, Skyborg program manager.

“There was a lot of analysis that determined what was put into the CRFI,” Tran said. “We’ve been given the overall objective to have an early operational capability prototype fielded by the end of calendar year 2023, so this is our first step in determining what the current state of the art is from a technology perspective and from a systems engineering perspective to provide that EOC capability in 2023.”

Low cost, attritable, unmanned air vehicles are one way to bring mass to the fight when it comes to addressing potential near-peer engagements in the future, according to Tran.

“We also know there is heavy investment by our near-peer adversaries in artificial intelligence and autonomy in general. We know that when you couple autonomy and AI with systems like low-cost attritables, that can increase capability significantly and be a force multiplier for our Air Force and so the 2023 goal line is our attempt at bringing something to bear in a relatively quick time frame to show that we can bring that kind of capability to the fight.”

Matt Duquette, an AFRL Aerospace Systems Directorate engineer, brings a background in UAV control, autonomy, and modeling and simulation of UAVs, especially teams of UAVs to the effort while assisting the Skyborg program with formulating its approach to the autonomy system and some of the behaviors that the UAVs will have.

“Skyborg is a vessel for AI technologies that could range from rather simple algorithms to fly the aircraft and control them in airspace to the introduction of more complicated levels of AI to accomplish certain tasks or subtasks of the mission,” Duquette said.

This builds on much of the AFRL foundational work with AI shown with programs such as Have Raider and the Auto Ground and Air Collision Avoidance systems, which prove that levels of autonomy in high performance aircraft are not only possible, but also practical.

“Part of our autonomy development is building assurance into the system. You can either build assurance by using formal methods or approaches where at design time, as you develop these autonomous capabilities, you guarantee certain behaviors, or a more practical approach is to assess the capabilities of these behaviors at run time, meaning while they’re running on the aircraft. So, those are the capabilities that we’re interested in looking at from the experimentation level to see what type of assurance you need in the system so you can mix high and low criticality.”

“We’re looking at a range of vehicle performance parameters – mission analysis will help us determine what the final outcome is and the responses from the CRFI will help us understand what the performance is of currently available systems and whether those will meet the needs or not. Everything from keeping up with combat platforms to slower platforms for sensing. There will be a range of possibilities there,” said Patrick Berry, from AFRL’s Sensors Directorate, who is supporting the Skyborg program by conducting modeling, simulation and analysis.

Although Skyborg is not scheduled for any particular type of aircraft platform at this time, Tran said the CRFI emphasizes the importance of an open systems architecture, having modularity in the system, not only from a sensing capabilities standpoint, but overall mission systems, as well as the autonomy associated with the mission capability for the platform.

“We’ve partnered with the 412th Test Wing at Edwards Air Force Base, California, and specifically an organization called the Emerging Technologies Combined Test Force and we’re working with them beginning with small, fast-moving UAVs to test the current state of the art in AI and autonomy in those airplanes and the ability for them to autonomously team and collaborate in flight,” Tran said.

Machine learning has progressed greatly over the last few years and we’re very inspired by those results and excited by things that are going on in the gaming industry for instance,” said Maj. Ryan Carr, from AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate.

“We expect that technology will continue to mature fairly rapidly. What we really need to understand is, ‘How do you take that and do something like bring it to the real world and fly with it for example?’ The thing we’re trying to get at early on is how to do that safely. We’re talking about run-time assurance, working hand-in-hand with the flight test community who have a very long record of safe flight testing. That’s really what we want to focus our attention on in this early period,” Carr said.

“We want to do this in a way that builds trust in the system as you go along so that when you get to that EOC, you will have established a baseline of trust so that operational youth will believe what the system will do or believe it’s safe. It’s not just that end-state capability, it’s the trust as you go along,” he added.

Before operational AI innovation can occur, the Air Force must field an autonomous system that meets an immediate operational need and can serve as an iterative platform to facilitate complex AI development, prototyping, experimentation and fielding, and that system is Skyborg, the CRFI says.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby gaurav.p » 28 Mar 2019 19:18

Japan discloses further details of next-generation fighter aircraft
https://defence-blog.com/news/japan-dis ... craft.html
<...>
Also showcased for the first time footage of test prototype of a low-bypass turbofan (in some sources called the XF9-1) equipped with afterburners, developed by IHI Corporation as part of a power plant program for an advanced F-3 fighter. The new engine is about 4.8 meters in length, about 1 meter in diameter and more than 15 tons of thrust with afterburner, and more than 11 tons of intermediate thrust without.

The developers said that the new fighter’s engine has basically met the performance requirements of the design. With the adoption of Japan’s material technology, the engine prototype core ensures a reliable operation at a 1800 degree temperature in front of the turbine, which has reached the level of the fourth generation of large aero turbofan engines.
<...>


dimension wise it is comparable to the solah engines. Link has a video talks about the potential collaboration with LM and BAE.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Mar 2019 20:07

15 Tons thrust is similar to 117 Thrust that powers the PAK-FA , Japan seem to be building heavy aircraft

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 28 Mar 2019 20:09

Roscosmos showed in its Twitter video about the RD-171MV rocket engine, which the video authors call the most powerful in the world.



Roscosmos showed in its Twitter video about the RD-171MV rocket engine, which the video authors call the most powerful in the world.

The engine is used at the first stage of the medium-class carrier Soyuz-5 (Irtysh) developed by NPO Energomash.

Its capacity is 246 thousand horsepower, and the thrust with a mass of 10 tons exceeds 800 tons
.

It is noted that the first RD-171MV will be delivered to the customer in 2021.

Earlier, the head of the state corporation Dmitry Rogozin reported that the first copy of the RD-171MB was assembled and is being prepared for fire tests.

The Soyuz-5 medium-class rocket is being developed by the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation, Roskosmos has previously approved its draft design. Soyuz-5 will be able to be used for launching the manned spacecraft Federation into low Earth orbit. Soyuz-5 is planned to be created by 2021, flight tests of the new rocket are planned for 2022 from the Baikonur cosmodrome.


https://www.aex.ru/video/v/990/
Last edited by Austin on 29 Mar 2019 11:40, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66124
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 28 Mar 2019 20:48

in other news, UK has abandoned the OTAN AWACS and is looking to buy a half dozen wedgetails instead which will be E-7 standard.

with the wedgetail proving a structurally sound solution worldwide I wonder if we should go that balance beam XL route than a bespoke a330 based design that nobody else including airbus partners will use ?

the opex of the 737 will also be much less than a330.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17663
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2019 20:55

Singha wrote:in other news, UK has abandoned the OTAN AWACS and is looking to buy a half dozen wedgetails instead which will be E-7 standard.

with the wedgetail proving a structurally sound solution worldwide I wonder if we should go that balance beam XL route than a bespoke a330 based design that nobody else including airbus partners will use ?

the opex of the 737 will also be much less than a330.


We should just go for that design which provides us the maximum range and power o/p possible to deal with LO/VLO threats into the future. As a well respected Shri Gurudronacharya once spoke on BRF, time to shed the Gandhian "we will make do with.." attitude has to go.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2019 21:38

Singha wrote:in other news, UK has abandoned the OTAN AWACS and is looking to buy a half dozen wedgetails instead which will be E-7 standard.

with the wedgetail proving a structurally sound solution worldwide I wonder if we should go that balance beam XL route than a bespoke a330 based design that nobody else including airbus partners will use ?

the opex of the 737 will also be much less than a330.


You are not talking about commercial fleets here that fly an insane number of annual hours and still require high dispatch reliability irrespective of size/footprint. Military demand in contrast is much less and its very rarely the case that you are going to be platform limited when using a commercially derived frame (like 737 or A330). You will be mission systems limited. So fuel burn cost difference while significant in percentage terms wouldn't be that big in absolute terms given a $2K difference in fuel burn per hour may only translate to about a $1 Million a year per frame. Boeing chose the 737 NG for the E-7 offer because A) It could fit the sensors that were proposed by Northrop Grumman and the EW partners and still offer a roadmap to grow capability over time and B ) Because at the time of its initial launch it was competing with aircraft that had much lower acquisition costs compared to a narrow or wide body civil airliner. The L-Band MESA that Northrop had been working on at the time was a 60% scaled solution test set that it was proposing for the USAF AWACS upgrade at the time..It just so happened that this radar was perfect for Australian requirements and it was also something the 737 variant could accommodate with plenty of margin for growth.

The RAF hasn't abandoned the NATO AWACS because that program is going nowhere right now. France wants a new AWACS, and so does NATO but the USAF does not want to replace its AWACS fleet as it does not think the centralized command and control and early warning solution fits into its future battlefield plans (not survivable like it once was back in the 90s and into the 2000s). It is quite possible that as USAF AWACS retire they may not even be replaced at all, or if replaced not on a 1:1 basis. In the meantime, there is an investment paralysis in the rest of NATO as no one seems to be interested in pouring funds to get a program going thus allowing Boeing and SAAB to likely eat a bit of the demand with NATO users who do not want to maintain the more expensive E-3's anymore but still want to support the NATO AEW role.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Mar 2019 22:04, edited 1 time in total.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1630
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Zynda » 28 Mar 2019 22:01

^^Unkil is usually the thought leader and what solutions does US has in mind for future AWACS kind of capability if AWACS plane is not being favored?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2019 22:14

Zynda the E-3's have plenty of life left in them and are being modernized and overhauled so change will be gradual. JSTARS will be the first to retire and not replaced (the USAF cancelled the replacement program last year after the two radars were matured). As part of the third offset strategy investments, they are investing quite a bit of money into R&D for a distributed multi-domain command and control system of systems so the mission will be accomplished in a dis-aggregated fashion (eliminating single points of failure). The effort focused of fielding this capability is currently aimed at the JSTARS mission set under the Advanced Battle Management System program. Once this capability is fielded the focus will then shift to doing the same for the AWACS mission.

ABMS - https://www.defensenews.com/2019/02/06/ ... architect/

The E-3 capability has been operational since the late 1970's, and the JSTARS has been in combat off and on since the early 90's so it was not an easy cultural shift to do but buying more airliners and fitting more large sensors on them would just have been inviting more missiles and attack, and the way the US is expected to fight (highly expeditionary) this was not a sustainable strategy as you don't want a large chunk of your offensive power acting in a defensive capacity trying to protect a force multiplier that is supposed to aid in the offensive mission.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 29 Mar 2019 22:28

From AW&ST
Saab will intensify the flight test effort for its Gripen E/F fighter program. 1 additional prototype to join the flight testing and the earlier Gripen NG twin seater demo airplane will be modified and brought into the test program as well. 24 a/c to be produced per year, similar to what is aimed for the Tejas Mk1A and MWF.

LONDON—Saab says it will intensify the flight test effort for it Gripen E/F combat aircraft with additional prototypes and production aircraft joining the program in 2019.

Saab already has two of the Gripen E prototypes flying, 39-8 and 39-9, the latter making its first flight in November.

As well as opening the flight envelope, Saab has carried out the first firing of an IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missile, jettisoned drop tanks and carried the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile with the two aircraft.

The next steps will see testing more of the aircraft’s sensors and tactical systems, including the Leonardo-developed ES-05 Raven radar, infrared search and track, and its electronic warfare systems.

Supporting these activities will be the third prototype, 39-10, which will join the flight test campaign before the summer, said Jonas Hjelm, head of Saab’s aeronautics business. He detailed the company’s progress during its annual Gripen seminar in Stockholm on March 27.

Saab also is bringing its Gripen NG technology demonstrator, 39-7, a converted two-seat D-model Gripen, “to improve the pace of the test program,” said Eddy de la Motte, head of the Gripen E program.

The back seat of the aircraft will feature the Gripen E’s software, allowing it to be used as a “flying simulator and flying test rig,” de la Motte added.

Four Gripen Es are now in serial production, with first deliveries to both the Swedish and Brazilian air forces planned before year’s end.

These aircraft will go on to support the flight test program and be used for joint validation and verification.

The progression to serial production “shows we have progressed in the program,” Hjelm said, and “that our models are working well.”

The company also has begun building production infrastructure that will be capable of producing up to 24 aircraft a year.

Saab also has confirmed that the Swedish Air Force has opted for AEL Sistemas’ wide-area display cockpit layout, which originally was developed for the Brazilian aircraft. The cockpit will be installed on several of the test aircraft and retrofitted to those already flying later, de la Motte says.

AEL announced the decision by the Swedish Air Force in November.

Brazilian pilots and engineers soon will arrive in Sweden to begin working on the flight test program, while a joint team of 150 Swedish and Brazilian engineers are working on the design for the two-seat Gripen F, first deliveries of which are planned in 2023.

The F-model, of which Brazil is buying eight as part of its initial order, uses the same rear fuselage as on the E-model, but with a redesigned forward fuselage, de la Motte says.

In 2018, the company delivered proposals to both Finland and Switzerland. The company is preparing to send an aircraft to Switzerland to take part in evaluations at Payerne airbase in late spring. Evaluations to support Finland’s fighter tender will take place in 2020.

Saab was frustrated in 2018 when Bulgaria and Slovakia selected the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70/72 to meet their future fighter requirements. Saab had been widely expected to secure both tenders.

Hjelm said he was comforted that Gripen had met “all the requirements in Bulgaria,” he said. “Patience is the key word here. You don’t sell quickly in this market.”

The company said it was now paying close attention to opportunities in Croatia, where plans to buy former Israeli F-16s recently were terminated. A potential fighter tender in Botswana also is on hold while elections take place.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 09:09

Japan stands-up first operational F-35 squadron

Image

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) stood up its first operational Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) unit on 26 March.

The milestone took place at the home of the 3rd Air Wing at Misawa Air Base in the northern part of Honshū island, and saw 302nd Squadron swap its McDonnell Douglas-Mitsubishi F-4EJ-Kai Phantom IIs for the F-35A. As well as transitioning over to the new type, the unit has relocated from Hyakuri Air Base to replace the Provisional F-35 Squadron located at Misawa Air Base.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2019 14:10

Steve Trimble


@TheDEWLine
Following Following @TheDEWLine
More
Gen. Dunford said on Tuesday that the F-15EX would be 50% cheaper to operate than the F-35A, so I asked the Joint Staff for the supporting data. They just sent me an email saying their analysis shows a $29,000 cost per flight hour for F-15EX and $44,000 for F-35A. That’s 51.7%.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 19:34

Austin wrote:Steve Trimble


@TheDEWLine
Following Following @TheDEWLine
More
Gen. Dunford said on Tuesday that the F-15EX would be 50% cheaper to operate than the F-35A, so I asked the Joint Staff for the supporting data. They just sent me an email saying their analysis shows a $29,000 cost per flight hour for F-15EX and $44,000 for F-35A. That’s 51.7%.


This is highly misleading and news organizations like Bloomberg Government/defense are already going via the freedom of information act request route to show this. The USAF is about 6 years behind schedule in standing up its organic depot capacity (required to sustain the current and planned fleet), because those accounts have been consistently underfunded or raided to pay for procurement, and as a result when something breaks the lead time for an LRU or other component is so long that the AF has had to resort to simply maintaining contractor inventory and swapping out parts to get on with its training or other needs. This is not how the F-15 or F-16 are maintained where adequate (though understaffed) depot capacity exists, and by moving the F-15C to the guard more of it exists than is probably required (very difficult to scale down base footprint and get politico approval for the same).

The pentagon sanctions an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) of operating costs for all of its MDAP (Major Defense Acquisition programs) and does not rely on either the program office, or the individual services for calculating that estimate. Currently, as things stand the current model for that estimate shows that the F-35A is about 13% more expensive to operate than its nearest (like for like) F-16C configuration once one factors in costs that are rolled into the F-35A's O&S cost but not the F-16C cost. Things like re-programming labs, mission planning, and PHM costs are unique to the F-35A but are shared by the F-16C with other service elements so the ICE carves that out and does a like for like comparison. Similarly, the F-35 cost includes all lifetime O&S cost for many systems that are tag-along or podded on the F-16C like a targeting pod, a jammer pod, or a JHMCS which is a seperate program in the USAF. The Independent Cost Estimate brings all those costs into the F-16C fold for the purpose of informing the US DOD and decision makers on O&S cost changes over time.

Currently the estimate puts this all in cost per hour at roughly $29,000 for the F-35A, and an equivilant cost at $26,000 for a similarly kitted F-16C. Note that this is mostly manpower cost with consumables (what is generally associated with operating cost) pegged at $16,000 and $12,000 per hour respectively for the F-35A and F-16C. The F-35 has a larger engine, and is heavier and larger so it is natural that there will be a 30% or so variance when it comes to consumables.

The problem what Gen. Dunford is not highlighting is that the USAF needs to fund its depot to capacity (something that is only now beginning to happen after Mattis put his fut down last year) in order to get to that *should cost* for O&S because once things break down, it must be able to quickly fix them and put them back into the aircraft..not keep them in repair pipeline for months while resorting to ordering a large inventory of parts to simply keep the jets flying is not going to cut it and therefore the highly inflated current costs, on account of conscious service and political decisions taken to prioritize modernization over readiness during Obama years, are not indicative of what the USAF ought to be paying had it been sustaining the fleet to legacy standards. The Pentagon gets outside (the program and USAF) experts to look at and determine what it ought to be paying and that data is updated every other year as more flight test data informs more accurate projections. They are required to do this by law for a ACAT-1 MDAP.

The data can be seen on the Selected Acquisition Report delivered to Congress and I've provided it before over the years. The exact Independent Cost Estimate on O&S cost can be seen on page 95 onward.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=27020


With the Active Air Force depot capacity years late to arrive in the required quantity (to support the addition of 2-4 squadrons of F-35A's a year) there is absolutely no way that USAF Air National Guard can afford to transition to the F-35A, nor do the need a penetrating low observable 5th generation aircraft as 90% of their missions are going to be based out of CONUS and involve QRA and/or cruise missile defense things the older generation F-15X is more than capable of handling for decades to come.

Pentagon: We’re Buying Boeing F-15s to Keep 2 Fighter Makers in Business

The decision to buy new Boeing F-15s reflects the Pentagon’s desire to keep two American companies making fighter jets into the next decade — and not the acting defense secretary’s ties to the company, a senior defense official said Friday.

The 2020 budget request contains $1.1 billion to buy eight F-15X jets, a new variant of an aircraft the Air Force last bought nearly a decade ago. The twin-tailed plane was chosen over Lockheed’s cheaper single-engine F-16 in part to keep a second U.S. manufacturer in the tactical-jet business as the Pentagon begins exploring new technologies for a new generation of warplanes, the official said.

“One of the considerations was the diversity of the industrial base,” the official said. “If we look at something as important as the tactical aircraft industrial base and we look forward into sixth-generation [fighter] production and competition and that kind of stuff,…gaining diversity in that industrial base is going to be critical.”

The senior defense official emphasized that Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who formerly worked as a Boeing executive, was not involved in the decision to buy the F-15X...

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby MeshaVishwas » 01 Apr 2019 12:19

Donald Trump’s sale of fighter jets designed in 1970s to Taiwan is spooking China
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/donald-trumps-sale-of-fighter-jets-designed-in-1970s-to-taiwan-is-spooking-china-5651413/lite/-Bloomberg
‘Oh, the US doesn’t care how we feel.’
:rotfl:

TushS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Feb 2019 22:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby TushS » 02 Apr 2019 05:55

US suspends delivery of F-35 jet equipment to Turkey.

ttps://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/01/pol ... gle.com%2F


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 03 Apr 2019 00:28

With its significantly better discrimination abilities the THAAD would be a perfect complement to Arrow once the main threat capabilities begin to improve...

US THAAD deployment to Israel

Yesterday (Sunday), the European Command of the United States Army (EUCOM) completed its first ever rapid deployment of the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense system in Israel, after the system arrived in early March. The deployment was a part of the close cooperation between the IAF and the United States Military, exemplified in exercises and routine joint operational activity, whether through overseas communication or actual training.

The American battery - reminiscent in its capabilities of the "Arrow 2" weapon system - is an anti-ballistic missile defense system designed for high-altitude interception. "The first deployment of a THAAD battery in Israel is a historic moment. The deployment is great for both countries, and it signifies the United States' commitment to Israel", emphasized Col. David E. Shank, one of the deployment commanders.

"The deployment makes us more prepared for real-time situations when US forces deploy in Israel during combat", elaborated Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav, Commander of the IAF Air Defense Array. "In today's reality, wartime will move at a rapid pace. This is why we're practicing transporting the weapon systems to the operational sites in the shortest timespan possible", added Col. Tamir Zimber, Commander of the Air Defense Array's Preparation Branch.

Unlike previous joint exercises held in cooperation with the US, this deployment saw the operational system arriving at Israel. "This deployment put our operational capabilities to the test. As a result, we stuck to the operations order", said Col. Zimber. "Part of the idea behind deploying the forces was doing it without notice in order to focus on rapidity".

The American deployment provides Israel with additional options for defending its skies. "The contribution goes both ways. We earn the United States' capabilities, and the US earns a foothold in the Middle East", added Col. Zimber. An additional advantage the deployment provides is the ability to test the American system and the way it participates in emergency training.

The American weapon system will operate in synchronization with the Israeli systems deployed across Israel, joining the IAF's air defense capabilities in operating against long-range ballistic missiles. "We have a mutual operation network. Everybody works according to one Israeli-American protocol and we all share an aerial overview", explained Brig. Gen. Kochav. Col. Zimber added: "This exercise allows us to see if the synchronized systems operate properly".

However, it is important to note that the Israeli forces are in control of the interceptions. "Our state is sovereign and so we are responsible for protecting its skies – the Americans provide us with a helping hand", emphasized Brig. Gen. Kochav. "The THAAD battery provides us with additional capabilities in interception. The decision regarding which weapon system should be utilized is made according to the threat at hand – an additional weapon system expands our scope".

"We develop multi-layer defense systems for defense of Israel's skies, including 'Arrow 2', 'Arrow 3', 'David's Sling' and 'Iron Dome'. The American system being added to our toolbox allows for a more flexible response to potential threats", explained Col. Zimber. Col. Shank added: "The THAAD provides the ability to intercept ballistic missiles at medium range".

The "Juniper Falcon" 2019 joint directorate exercise was held recently as well. As part of the exercise, combatants from the Air Defense Array met with EUCOM forces and drilled the arrival of United States combatants to Israel at times of operational need.

The short span of time between the two exercises allowed for an ideal streak – during "Juniper Falcon", the forces drilled the arrival of the American directorate to Israel as well as every stage preceding the arrival of the operating forces; the THAAD deployment then simulated the forces' actual arrival. "We have a long history of joint exercises", said Col. Shank. "The discussion regarding the THAAD exercise in Israel has been going on for a while. Seeing it go from planning to praxis indicates how strong the two countries' partnership is".

"There's no partner stronger in the Middle East than our Israeli partners", concluded Col. Shank. "I think it's a good opportunity for our soldiers to work shoulder to shoulder with the IDF and the IAF's Air Defense Array. It's a unique opportunity – not just professionally, but personally as well".


Image

THAAD and Arrow-2 launchers

Image

The CEU -

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 03 Apr 2019 06:55

Lockheed clinches $2.4 billion deal for sale of THAAD missiles


Lockheed Martin Corp was awarded a $2.4 billion Pentagon contract on Monday for THAAD interceptor missiles, some of which are slated to be delivered to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Reuters had reported Lockheed was nearing the deal earlier on Monday.

In November, Saudi and U.S. officials signed letters of offer and acceptance formalizing terms for Saudi Arabia’s purchase of 44 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense launchers, missiles and related equipment.The Pentagon said the Saudi government would pay $1.5 billion of the $2.4 billion...


That is consistent with what was revealed a couple of years ago. They will field 7 batteries just about 2-3 short of what the US Army will eventually have. They will also be the first export THAAD customer to get the upgraded AN/TPY-2 radars with the GaN T/R module and the new processor equipped radars.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 04 Apr 2019 02:40

From AW&ST

Boeing’s two-seat F-15EX aircraft will be flown with an empty back seat by squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs, the U.S. Air Force confirms to Aerospace DAILY.

Although derived from an international version of the two-seat F-15E, the Air Force plans to acquire at least 144 F-15EX aircraft, including 80 over the next five years, to replace an aging fleet of mainly single-seat F-15Cs.

Boeing designed the F-15EX to operate in both the air superiority role of the single-seat F-15C and the fighter-bomber role of the F-15E. The latter includes a back-seat station for a weapon systems officer to manage the munitions and sensors for land attack while the pilot in the front seat concentrates on flying and air-to-air engagements.

The F-15EX comes with two functional cockpits, but the pilot can manage air-to-air and air-to-ground missions alone in the front seat, the Air Force says. F-15EX aircraft delivered to squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs will not be staffed with an expanded cadre of weapon system officers, which would leave the back seat of the two-seater empty.

“Fighter squadrons that receive the F-15EX are projected to retain their current mission and crew composition,” an Air Force spokeswoman says in response to questions by Aerospace DAILY.

Although the role of former F-15C pilots flying F-15EXs would expand under the current plan, the Air Force does not expect an increase in training costs during or after the transition.

“There should be no need to expand aircrew training requirements,” the spokeswoman says.

Boeing offered the Air Force a single-seat version of the F-15X for the F-15C replacement, which was designated as the F-15CX concept. The Air Force decided to buy only the two-seat F-15EX, which minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs.

The F-15EX is a straightforward derivative of the F-15QA ordered by the Qatari air force. It features a lightened wing, but still carries the same load of weapons and sensors as the F-15E. The F-15EX also includes other upgrades added since the Air Force last ordered the F-15E in 2001, including fly-by-wire flight controls, the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System, the Advanced Display Core Processor II mission computer and a new cockpit with a large format display.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7338
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2019 20:06

Seems like Northrop Grumman is continuing testing and validation of its Vanguard dual aperture (X and Ka band) GaN AESA radar which was originally selected as the sensor for the now cancelled JSTARS replacement program. The radar could probably end up on the Global Hawk, Reaper family and even manned strike aircraft..

Ben Z.

@PlaneSpotter3
Follow Follow @PlaneSpotter3
More
Spotted this weird mock up fuselage with wings and a new JSTARS on top outside the Northrop Grumman hangar at KMLB, looks similar to the one on their G550 testbed. Anyone got any ideas on what it’s used for?


From last year's Aviation Week article -

Compared to the S-band SPY-6, Northrop offers the first version of Vanguard with dual-band capability, Pearson says. The Vanguard can track distant targets through weather in X-band, or switch to Ku-band to acquire a higher-resolution image at shorter ranges.
In April 2017, Northrop completed Vanguard’s first flight test. Following the experiment, the company released a statement but did not divulge the sensor’s name.

Northrop launched development of the Vanguard to support multiple applications, but offered it first for the U.S. Air Force’s canceled plan to recapitalize the Northrop E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (J-Stars). Air Force officials initially planned to replace the Boeing 707-based E-8C fleet with a business jet-derived platform, featuring a new battle management command and control (BMC2) suite in the cabin and a wide area surveillance (WAS) radar with SAR and GMTI modes in a belly radome.

Ultimately, the Air Force determined that a business jet platform would be too vulnerable to perform the J-Stars mission as battlefield threats emerged after 2020. Some in Congress opposed the service’s decision, but later dropped legislation that would have prevented a fleet-wide retirement of the E-8C by 2025.

Instead, the Air Force plans to develop a new airborne battle management system to replace the E-8C’s BMC2 function and distribute the WAS component across multiple airborne platforms.

The Air Force selected Northrop’s Vanguard radar as the sensor for the canceled J-Stars recapitalization program, but awarded a technology risk-reduction and maturation contract for the sensor separately from the platform. The U.S. Government Accountability Office dismissed a series of protests filed by Raytheon over the Vanguard selection last year. Raytheon had offered the Air Force a new radar called Archimedes, which is derived from the Advanced Active Sensor (AAS) developed for the U.S. Navy’s Boeing P-8A fleet.

As the Air Force’s strategy for the future of the SAR/GMTI mission unfolds, Northrop’s Vanguard gives the company wide flexibility in approaching the market. The Vanguard can be offered as a single radar assembly that can be carried by a platform as small as a medium-sized unmanned air vehicle. It also can combine more than a dozen radar assemblies into a radar with the length of the E-8C’s APY-7 radar, except such a Vanguard system could perform several functions—including SAR/GMTI, ESM and communications—simultaneously.

“We’re looking at a number of different opportunities for the [Vanguard, including] surface based, land based, sea based,” Pearson says. “By having a standardized implementation of these things it reduces the amount of cost and time.”


https://aviationweek.com/awindefense/no ... ance-radar

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 04 Apr 2019 22:31

I think that our S-400 deal will also safely rule out any possible F-35 sales to us in the future.

From AW&ST

The Pentagon has decided to halt Lockheed Martin F-35 equipment delivery to Turkey after a bipartisan Senate bill called for the transfer delay until it is certain the nation will not purchase Russia’s S-400 Triumph defense system.

The Defense Department has initiated steps necessary to ensure resiliency of the F-35 supply chain and secondary sources of supply for Turkish-produced parts that are now in development, Pentagon spokesman Charles Summers said in an April 1 statement.

“We very much regret the current situation facing our F-35 partnership with Turkey, and the DOD is taking prudent steps to protect the shared investments made in our critical technology,” Summers said. “Our important dialogue on this matter will continue. However, until they forgo delivery of the S-400, the United States has suspended deliveries and activities associated with the stand-up of Turkey’s F-35 operational capability. Should Turkey procure the S-400, their continued participation in the F-35 program is at risk.”

Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the head of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, told Congress on March 5 that the U.S. should withhold F-35s from Turkey if the NATO member accepts delivery of the S-400.

“My best military advice would be that we don’t then follow through with the F-35, flying it or working with an ally that is working with Russian air defense systems with ... what I would say is one of our most advanced technological capabilities,” Scaparrotti said.

In November the Pentagon submitted a congressionally mandated report saying that the White House will reassess Turkey’s continued F-35 participation should the nation continue with its purchase of the S-400. Aerospace DAILY obtained a copy of the report.

“The Turkish government has repeatedly and publicly stated that it has concluded an agreement to procure the S-400,” an unclassified executive summary of the Turkey report says. “The initial delivery date will reportedly occur as early as July 2019.”

Purchasing the S-400 would impact Turkey’s relations with the U.S. and the nation’s role in NATO. The risk in not participating in the F-35 program includes both aircraft acquisition and industrial workshare.

Turkey has invested more than $1.25 billion toward the F-35 program and intends to purchase 100 F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing aircraft. The country has established an F135 engine final assembly and checkout provider and is hosting a regional F135 maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade facility.

Orlando Carvalho, who at the time was executive vice president for aeronautics at Lockheed Martin, told Aerospace DAILY at the Farnborough Air Show last summer that if the U.S. blocks Turkey from receiving the F-35 there is a contingency plan for all the material the company sourced in Turkey. This is not unique to the F-35 program, but something the company has in place across its supply base, he said.

Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) requires the president to impose sanctions on any individuals or entities that engage in a significant transaction with the Russian intelligence or defense sector.

“Any sanctions would likely further complicate U.S.-Turkey bilateral relations, including U.S.-Turkey cooperative defense programs, and the supply to the United States and its partners of Turkish-made defense parts and components,” the document says. “Turkish acquisition programs that could be affected include but are not limited to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift helicopter, UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter, and the F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft.”

The Trump administration has also developed an alternative package to provide Turkey with a NATO-interoperable air and missile defense system that meets the nation’s requirements, the document says. Parts of the package require congressional notification, and it is important that members support foreign military sales and direct commercial sales to Turkey so that the proposal is a real alternative, the document says.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, Google [Bot], Kakarat, Karan M, MeshaVishwas, VikramA and 34 guests