International Aerospace Discussion

[Austin]

If looks is the criteria , YF-23 was a better looker than F-22

[member_23694]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lookwise , stealthwise, speed , performance ... YF 23 was better than F 22
Probably F 22 was considered less risky and thus chosen

[Garooda]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lookwise , stealthwise, speed , performance ... YF 23 was better than F 22 Probably F 22 was considered less risky and thus chosen

Contracts are always almost equally divided amongst the big boys. LM, NG, Boeing etc etc. Be it fighter, bombers, cargos, maintenance, sustainment, support services etc. However LM generally gets slightly more contract dollars every year amongst the DOD contractors.

Below list is not complete dollar figures but the rankings are about the same every year.

2012_List

[Austin]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lookwise , stealthwise, speed , performance ... YF 23 was better than F 22
Probably F 22 was considered less risky and thus chosen

F-22 could meet the production number that DOD wanted hence was selected over YF-23 .... from what I read YF-22 was more manouverable while YF-23 was more stealthy.

[NRao]

The 22 was also considered to be less of a risk ................................... because ........................... of technology and better management.

Some projections just do not work, I guess.

IF anyone wants, I think, there is one 23 to be restored in Dayton, OH.

[siddharth]

A decent documentary on the evolution of YF 23

[Singha]

a system that could produce planes like 22/23 in 1990 (23 yrs ago!) is a master of the craft for sure.
the 23 probably was more easily adaptable to the long range strike bomber F-15E replacement/supplement role...which they F22 is too small and short legged for....in 20/20 hindsight the 23 was probably the better choice for a post-cold war role.

per wiki it was 200kmph faster and had crucially a 1500km range advantage.

[NRao]

IIRC the 23 held LESS ordnance in its belly than the 22 - a whole 3 missiles less.

However, 22 was expected to have a better management team (if you can believe that) and had actually test fired a missile before the actual evaluation. One of the reasons why the 22 was considered as a smaller risk.



Hey, but, on the +ve side, my all time fav, the AMCA, has a wing just like the 23!!! So, that is all that counts. : )

[negi]

Well what is noteworthy is they had like 10,000 parts suppliers working for YF-23 program and this country has a luxury of making a choice , one phone call and a fighter which other countries cannot even make today was scrapped because they had another OPTION.

[Austin]

^^^One if the criticism for F-22 cost and delays has been that they subcontracted the work to 46 states with 1000 subcontractors to drum up congress support for the program that it led to inherent inefficiency at cost of keeping every one happy.

[TSJones]

US Navy drones contract has been extended for further testing.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... ller_drone

The navy seems to be well pleased with the "Doritos".

note you may have to link to this article through google. just type flying drones and foreign policy.

[Austin]

3rd Prototype of Mi-38 flies for the first time with TV7-117B engines

[NRao]

Lebanon’s forgotten space programme

[TSJones]

US Navy P-8's declared operational:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-declare-bo ... ector.html

[TSJones]

Lebanon’s forgotten space programme

Thanks, NRao. Real nice article and not widely known either. Good catch.

[member_23694]

Buran, the Soviet space shuttle, flew 25 years ago

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1311/15 ... obzAfkwrMs

Interesting read and pics

[Austin]

Here is video on Buran , 25 years since she flew ( use translator captions )

[NRao]

Soyuz capsule firing split second before landing



Landed

[anmol]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/world ... fears.html

A Russian GPS Using U.S. Soil Stirs Spy Fears
by MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ERIC SCHMITT, nytimes.com
November 16th 2013

WASHINGTON — In the view of America’s spy services, the next potential threat from Russia may not come from a nefarious cyberweapon or secrets gleaned from the files of Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor now in Moscow.

Instead, this menace may come in the form of a seemingly innocuous dome-topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in the United States.

In recent months, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have been quietly waging a campaign to stop the State Department from allowing Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, to build about half a dozen of these structures, known as monitor stations, on United States soil, several American officials said.

They fear that these structures could help Russia spy on the United States and improve the precision of Russian weaponry, the officials said. These monitor stations, the Russians contend, would significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of Moscow’s version of the Global Positioning System, the American satellite network that steers guided missiles to their targets and thirsty smartphone users to the nearest Starbucks.

“They don’t want to be reliant on the American system and believe that their systems, like GPS, will spawn other industries and applications,” said a former senior official in the State Department’s Office of Space and Advanced Technology. “They feel as though they are losing a technological edge to us in an important market. Look at everything GPS has done on things like your phone and the movement of planes and ships.”

The Russian effort is part of a larger global race by several countries — including China and European Union nations — to perfect their own global positioning systems and challenge the dominance of the American GPS.

For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

But the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give the Russians a foothold on American territory that would sharpen the accuracy of Moscow’s satellite-steered weapons. The stations, they believe, could also give the Russians an opening to snoop on the United States within its borders.

The squabble is serious enough that administration officials have delayed a final decision until the Russians provide more information and until the American agencies sort out their differences, State Department and White House officials said.

Russia’s efforts have also stirred concerns on Capitol Hill, where members of the intelligence and armed services committees view Moscow’s global positioning network — known as Glonass, for Global Navigation Satellite System — with deep suspicion and are demanding answers from the administration.

“I would like to understand why the United States would be interested in enabling a GPS competitor, like Russian Glonass, when the world’s reliance on GPS is a clear advantage to the United States on multiple levels,” said Representative Mike D. Rogers, Republican of Alabama, the chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee.

Mr. Rogers last week asked the Pentagon to provide an assessment of the proposal’s impact on national security. The request was made in a letter sent to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr.

The monitor stations have been a high priority of Mr. Putin for several years as a means to improve Glonass not only to benefit the Russian military and civilian sectors but also to compete globally with GPS.

Earlier this year, Russia positioned a station in Brazil, and agreements with Spain, Indonesia and Australia are expected soon, according to Russian news reports. The United States has stations around the world, but none in Russia.

Russian and American negotiators last met on April 25 to weigh “general requirements for possible Glonass monitoring stations in U.S. territory and the scope of planned future discussions,” said a State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, who said no final decision had been made.

Ms. Harf and other administration officials declined to provide additional information. The C.I.A. declined to comment.

The Russian government offered few details about the program. In a statement, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, Yevgeniy Khorishko, said that the stations were deployed “only to ensure calibration and precision of signals for the Glonass system.” Mr. Khorishko referred all questions to Roscosmos, which did not respond to a request for comment last week.

Although the Cold War is long over, the Russians do not want to rely on the American GPS infrastructure because they remain suspicious of the United States’ military capabilities, security analysts say. That is why they have insisted on pressing ahead with their own system despite the high costs.

Accepting the dominance of GPS, Russians fear, would give the United States some serious strategic advantages militarily. In Russians’ worst fears, analysts said, Americans could potentially manipulate signals and send erroneous information to Russian armed forces.

Monitor stations are essential to maintaining the accuracy of a global positioning system, according to Bradford W. Parkinson, a professor emeritus of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University, who was the original chief architect of GPS. As a satellite’s orbit slowly diverges from its earlier prediction, these small deviations are measured by the reference stations on the ground and sent to a central control station for updating, he said. That prediction is sent to the satellite every 12 hours for subsequent broadcast to users. Having monitor stations all around the earth yields improved accuracy over having them only in one hemisphere.

Washington and Moscow have been discussing for nearly a decade how and when to cooperate on civilian satellite-based navigation signals, particularly to ensure that the systems do not interfere with each other. Indeed, many smartphones and other consumer navigation systems sold in the United States today use data from both countries’ satellites.

In May 2012, Moscow requested that the United States allow the ground-monitoring stations on American soil. American technical and diplomatic officials have met several times to discuss the issue and have asked Russian officials for more information, said Ms. Harf, the State Department spokeswoman.

In the meantime, C.I.A. analysts reviewed the proposal and concluded in a classified report this fall that allowing the Russian monitor stations here would raise counterintelligence and other security issues.

The State Department does not think that is a strong argument, said an administration official. “It doesn’t see them as a threat.”
© 2013 The New York Times Company.

The content you have chosen to save (which may include videos, articles, images and other copyrighted materials) is intended for your personal, noncommercial use. Such content is owned or controlled by The New York Times Company or the party credited as the content provider. Please refer to nytimes.com and the Terms of Service available on its website for information and restrictions related to the content.

[TSJones]

^^^^I'm nonplussed about the above article.

Do the Russians really believe they deserve to have the kind of trust that they refuse to give us? Every move they make with their nuclear arsenl is to in some way counter our anti missile defense system. And please note we haven't changed our ICBM's in decades. And they have an anti missle defense system of their own!

Would India or China allow something like this? From the US?

Having said that, we can certainly jam their stations anytime we want to but why have the extra worry?

[member_23694]

Maven launch
Live at
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/i ... opYy8QwrMs

[alexis]

Does US have stations in Russia to correct GPS signals? If not, why? Is GPS technically better than Glonass that it doesnt need ground stations in Russia?

[Austin]

From people who found out , there actually 25 GPS station in Russia and 10 GLONASS station in the US

http://igs.org/network/list.html

[TSJones]

From people who found out , there actually 25 GPS station in Russia and 10 GLONASS station in the US

http://igs.org/network/list.html

I do not believe the above article in any way, shape or form. It is complete Bull S**t. In no way would Russia ever agree to something like this.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_11_1 ... n-US-2840/

Could there be surreptitious US spy stations in Russia? Yes, but highly unlikely. Something like that is too easy to detect.

Are there independent (US) nuclear waste disposal and processing monitoring sites in Russia that could be sending us data?(Just as there are probably Russian monitoring sites in the US) Yes there could be. Could there be GPS sites in Former Soviet Union countries? Yes, there could be.

But US GPS sites in Russia? Nyet! Bull Sh*t!

[member_23694]

ISRO's record of 10 satellite in one launch could potentially be broken today with 29 satellite in one launch today

http://www.space.com/23643-record-setti ... -ors3.html

[member_23694]

ISRO's record of 10 satellite in one launch could potentially be broken today with 29 satellite in one launch today

http://www.space.com/23643-record-setti ... -ors3.html

Take this now
Silo-launched Dnepr rocket delivers 32 satellites to space
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1311/21 ... o4w5sQwos8

What is going on

[TSJones]

ISRO's record of 10 satellite in one launch could potentially be broken today with 29 satellite in one launch today

http://www.space.com/23643-record-setti ... -ors3.html

Take this now
Silo-launched Dnepr rocket delivers 32 satellites to space
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1311/21 ... o4w5sQwos8

What is going on

The trend is to launch small, specialized satellites.

[Austin]

Its 33 Satellite

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/unisat-5.htm

DubaiSat 2, STSAT 3, SkySat 1, WNISAT 1, BRITE-PL, AprizeSat 7, AprizeSat 8, Delfi-n3Xt, Dove 3, Dove 4, Triton 1, Triton 2, CINEMA 2, CINEMA 3, OPTOS, CubeBug 2, GOMX 1, NEE 02 Krysaor, FUNcube 1, HiNCube, ZACUBE 1, ICube 1, HumSat-D, PUCP-SAT 1, First-MOVE, UWE 3, VELOX-P 2, Pocket-PUCP, BeakerSat 1, QubeScout S1, Wren, $50SAT, BPA 3

Video of Launch http://youtu.be/jaa0ExFSw2s

[SaiK]

well the receive only link by raptor then should expose its identity in the airspace.. however i am sure, the transmit technology will be modulated such that signatures are distributed and received in high burst packets.. otherwise, counter intelligence can narrow down on the receiver end point. interesting to see how they have managed intercepts, eccm, etc.

[Philip]

Turkey is succeeding where India has failed,developing a basic trainer.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey ... sCatID=483

Turkey launches new bid for light trainer aircraft
Burak BEKDİL

Turkey’s first indigenous basic trainer aircraft, Hürkuş, is developed by TAI. It has been undergoing tests for runway-holding, steering and braking time limits. DAILY NEWS photo, Selahattin SÖNMEZ

Turkey’s first indigenous basic trainer aircraft, Hürkuş, is developed by TAI. It has been undergoing tests for runway-holding, steering and braking time limits. DAILY NEWS photo, Selahattin SÖNMEZ
Turkey’s defense procurement authorities have pushed the button to launch an international competition for the acquisition of a batch of 52 basic trainer aircrafts, otherwise known as “screeners.”

The Under secretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) has issued a Request for Proposals (RfP) for the contract that foresees the off-the-shelf purchase of a small fleet of screeners. The screeners will replace a fleet of ageing SF 260s used in the Turkish Air Force for preliminary training.

Turkey still operates with nearly 40 SF 260s assembled by TAI in the early 1990s. In addition, for preliminary training purposes the Air Force operates Cessna 172s.

Defense industry sources said the screener contract could go up to approximately $75 million.

Potential bidders are the U.S. Beechcraft and Cirrus, Austria’s Diamond, Germany’s Grobe, Czech Zlin and Italy’s Aermacchi.

Meanwhile, Turkey has silently phased out a fleet of 48 F-5 lead-in trainer aircrafts, which Israel’s Elbit upgraded and delivered in the early 2000s. That was a nearly $150 million contract. TAI is upgrading nearly 60 T-38 basic trainers to replace the F-5s and the older T-38s.

The Defense Industry Executive Committee, the ultimate decision-maker in defense procurement, decided Sept. 26 to make an order for the serial production of the Hürkuş, Turkey’s first indigenous basic trainer aircraft.

Turkey’s first indigenous basic trainer aircraft has been approved for flight testing, with the maiden flight planned “within the next year,” one official said.

The Hürkuş, also developed by TAI, has been undergoing tests for runway-holding, steering and braking time limits.

TAI is manufacturing four prototypes of the Hürkuş for a round of tests. The first prototype successfully went through engine tests in February, the second is being tested for static durability and cabin pressure, the third is being assembled, and the fourth will be tested for metal fatigue.

The two-seat Hürkuş will have a 35-year service life, or 10,500 flight hours. The turboprop aircraft has a 1,600-horsepower engine that can fly at an altitude of 10,577 meters at a maximum speed of 574 kilometers per hour.

The Hürkuş will be equipped for day and night flying, as well as basic pilot training, instrument flying, navigation training, weapons and formation training. Both of the aircraft’s cockpits will have good vantage points, with a 50-degree down-view angle from the rear cockpit, ejection seats, an on-board oxygen generation system, an environmental control system, an anti-G system and high shock absorbing landing gear for training missions.

The Hürkuş will come in four variants:

■ Hürkuş-A: A basic version that has been certified with EASA, according to CS-23 requirements and is intended for the civilian market.

■ Hürkuş-B: An advanced version with integrated avionics, including a mission computer and cockpit avionics layout similar to F-16 and F-35 fighters. The Turkish Army is considering an initial order of 15 aircrafts.

■ Hürkuş-C: An armed version for close-air support, which will have a maximum weapons load of 3,300 pounds. The Turkish Army has expressed interest in the Hürkuş-C to provide support for its attack helicopters.

■The Coast Guard version: TAI plans to offer another version of the Hürkuş to support the Turkish Coast Guard’s maritime patrol activities. The aircraft’s back seat would be occupied by an operator for a forward-looking infrared sensor.

[NRao]

You throw 140 engineers for 6-7 years (or slightly less) and even a grandma will produce a trainer. They have invested at least a million man hours so far.

[Cosmo_R]

You throw 140 engineers for 6-7 years (or slightly less) and even a grandma will produce a trainer. They have invested at least a million man hours so far.

Agreed. So why are we buying Pilatus, Hawks etc.? Lack of investment, incompetence,...grandmother deficit?

Inquiring minds want to know..

[member_22539]

^Because the IAF wants to (with some justification).

[Leo.Davidson]

I don't believe it is lack of trying, it is failing to failure to replicate success. What we are seeing is that Indian engineers are able to create or innovate based on the vast amount of freeware knowledge available. Where they are failing is the ability to build on what they've created, to sustain their effort. You can see it quite clearly in the HAL Marut, Deepak, INSAS, etc; unable to sustain and progress the technology at hand.
Future failures that we can expect are LCA, Dhruv, Arjun and the list can go on.
I honestly believe this is due to incompetence and regional bias.

[SaiK]

yes.. we lack seriously in production engineering.. we can develop, but we can't productionize it.. we only invested in r&d, but what is needed is heavy investments in production process, capability maturity, process documentation and optimization,etc.

if you keep on this screw driver engineering, then we will end up with screw drivers onlee. btw, a cocktail at that.

[NRao]

Agreed. So why are we buying Pilatus, Hawks etc.? Lack of investment, incompetence,...grandmother deficit?

Inquiring minds want to know..

Sorry, you may have to task your mind with something more useful.

As far as I can see logic is not one of the reasons. But, then who knows.

[TSJones]

Russian military to probe deaths at Plesetsk launch site:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1311/13plesetsk/

Maintenance crew died cleaning out fuel tanks.

[Cosmo_R]

Agreed. So why are we buying Pilatus, Hawks etc.? Lack of investment, incompetence,...grandmother deficit?

Inquiring minds want to know..

Sorry, you may have to task your mind with something more useful.

As far as I can see logic is not one of the reasons. But, then who knows.

Twas' rhetorical. Per your suggestion however, I am tasking my mind to try and understand more useful things. There are so many grandmotherly deficits, so little time. Meanwhile idiot politicians talk of that's what the young ones signed up for.

[NRao]

China 'flies first stealth drone' - reports

[TSJones]

Rumor has been going around that NASA is pulling out of the ISS in 2020. My first thought was "are they crazy?". Over 100 billion dollars invested.

Then, I read this, a modest Boeing proposal :

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/ ... per-stage/

Now this is just a proposal but Boeing has an amazing ability to make things come true....for a lot of money. Can the US establish a teans lunar space station? I dunno. I'm not even sure what trans lunar space is. But I'm pretty sure it's beyond earth orbit.