International Aerospace Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65674
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Nov 2014 14:41

I find it incredulous that a ship based system with MW of power available can be jammed by a lone fighter with a basket slung below :rotfl:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2014 19:03

Singha wrote:I find it incredulous that a ship based system with MW of power available can be jammed by a lone fighter with a basket slung below :rotfl:


Why let facts get in the way. Not only was the system jammed, but the pilots magically were able to isolated precisely what led to the system paralysis onboard, and why stop at that, the magician "crystal balling" blogger even had hardcore information on the sailor count which clearly the jammers were also able to pick up, because apparently, Sailors resigning aboard a ship has never been tested against russian telepathic powers :)..

there is absolutely no way we can claim to know the specifics.


Yet anyone can prop up in the underground media and write something in print without any direct reference and we would have to take a word for it.

The BMD ship/s do very much exist and their capability is not a matter of fiction. It is their deployment that has to some degree changed in a big way the plans to install ABM related systems on continental Europe. With regards to the incident as described, who knows.


Yeah the ship exists, and as was reported by credible media sources it was overflown by aircraft. Big deal. Why woud the USN not expect the Russians to shadow its Ballistic Missile Defense ship in its backyard at a time of high tension? The problem is with the other BS that the original blogger had written without any evidence what so ever.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Surya » 15 Nov 2014 19:52

cmon

dont you know when I have moral dropping day at office I immediately send my resignation. hey and 20 others too. :rotfl:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Nov 2014 03:08

Apparently the USN entered the Phase "Technical Interchange Meetings" of the Future FA-XX fighter in September of this year.

In a continuation of Navy/Industry exchanges, AIR-4.10 is announcing a series of Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) for the purposes of trade space refinement as a precursor to an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for candidate strike fighter aircraft replacements for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G. The AoA is intended to start in CY15.

The TIMs are anticipated to have the following focus areas:
• Affordability
o Input is sought on how to mitigate costs related to Design, Manufacturing, Test & Evaluation, Operations and Sustainment
• Modification of Current Platforms(F/A-18 and F-35C)
o Provide description of modifications, design data, and performance analysis
• New Start Aircraft
o Provide description of aircraft, design data, and performance analysis
• Family of Systems (FoS) Trades
o What systems are included, system boundaries, benefits, technologies available or needed to facilitate FoS
o Top-Level Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities (DOTmLPF) Recommendations
• Industry's Recommendations for AoA Mission Systems & Avionics Case Matrix
o Size, Weight, Power, Cooling (SWAP-C)
o Recommended Mission System & Avionics Future Technologies
• Industry's Recommendations for AoA Payload (Weapons) Case Matrix
o Legacy vs. New Start Weapon Discussion
• Technology
o Technology Readiness Level (TRL), Current Applications, and any Maturation Plans






A formal Analysis of Alternative is still scheduled for Q1 of 2015.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JTull » 20 Nov 2014 16:08



Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1016
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 21 Nov 2014 06:11

Watch Emirates overhaul an A380 and put it back in shape within 2 days.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2014 07:53

You're flying with NASA and you don't even know it

You know those little "winglets" that point up from the tips of airliner wings?

Those were developed by NASA.

And, you know those little grooves in runways that channel away standing water?

NASA again.

America's space agency isn't just about space.

It also develops ways to make our airliners safer and more efficient.

Guess what? You may have been flying with NASA technology for years, and didn't even know it.

Shape-shifting wings? They're coming

Now, an ongoing project could radically change the way airliners look and, more importantly, save hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fuel costs.

NASA calls it the Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge project, or ACTE.

It's best described in three words: Shape. Shifting. Wings.

Those words sound like science fiction, but NASA and a company called Flexsys are developing wings that change shape in response to flight conditions and weather.

Superflexible very strong composite materials make it possible.

What does that mean to air travelers?

You've probably looked out the window of an airliner to see the hinged metal flaps on the rear edge of a wing.

New flexible materials allow the wing to change shapes without hinges.

NASA shows off new flight technology

This week, NASA invited dozens of aerospace bloggers and social media mavens to see new aviation technology at its Armstrong Flight Research Center in California's High Desert, about 100 miles north of Los Angeles.

They got an exclusive look at NASA's flexible wing project and other ongoing research aimed at aviation. They also got a chance to hang out with engineers and pilots.

Then, they tweeted about it.

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 316
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Jaeger » 21 Nov 2014 12:02

^^But... but... this is Big Government-funded research that will then be made available to US manufacturers...
isn't this SOCIALISM? [/sarc] [/OT]

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2014 18:44

Japan Prepares Designs For Its Next Fighter

Flying far is more important than flying fast, Japanese fighter technologists have found in studies aimed at defining their country’s next combat aircraft. Looking for ways for their air force to fight outnumbered, researchers are also emphasizing that Japan’s next fighter should share targeting data, carry a big internal load of large, high-performance missiles and be able to guide them while retreating.

The results of this work may be committed to full-scale development within four years. Japan is holding open the possibility of a joint international program, which the finance ministry would surely prefer, but the defense ministry looks wary of being trapped in a late-running cooperative effort over which it has little control. Specifically national requirements such as the preference for range over speed may also nudge Japan toward going it alone.

Engineers from the defense ministry’s Technical Research & Development Institute (TRDI) and IHI Corp. are well into preliminary development of a surprisingly powerful turbofan for the twin-engine fighter, which would enter service around 2030 as the F-3. TRDI is also handling the studies into the airframe, probably with strong engineering support from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which would build the airframe, and Mitsubishi Electric, the country’s dominant military electronic systems supplier.

The work is intended to give Japan the option of developing a fighter to replace the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-2, says the ministry. The country is not committed to doing so, but by the fiscal year beginning April 2018, “the final decision for development will be made and necessary measures will be taken,” the ministry says in answer to Aviation Week’s questions.

The most likely, perhaps only, candidates for joint development are the still undefined U.S. Air Force and Navy ambitions for fighter programs to succeed the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. But the ministry says that, in contemplating a joint effort, “it needs to be considered whether the development would be concluded by the time F-2 retires.” It is obviously thinking of the huge delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

About ¥120 billion ($1 billion) has been spent since fiscal 2010 on preliminary work for the F-3, with ¥41.2 billion requested for fiscal 2015. In this effort, which has been called i3, TRDI and industry are preparing key technologies for a future fighter, extending the progress made in developing the ATD-X stealth demonstrator, which is due to fly this fiscal year (AW&ST July 21, p. 32).

A further ¥14.2 billion yen is requested for fiscal 2015 to fund development of the F-3’s engine, which is moving ahead well in advance of the airframe. In 2012, its thrust was known to be a lavish 33,000 lb., a figure that has probably not changed, at least for the preliminary development stage (AW&ST Feb. 14, 2011, p. 33). Prototypes of the engine’s combustor, high-pressure compressor and high-pressure turbine are in testing. Evaluation of the turbine, at least, is supposed to be completed next financial year. Prototypes of the low-pressure compressor and low-pressure turbine will be tested until fiscal 2017. A full prototype engine should be demonstrated in fiscal 2018.

Key aims of the engine project are to achieve the extremely high temperature of 1,800C (3,272F) and to keep the powerplant slim in order to reduce airframe frontal area. The latter point is one of several features that suggest an intention to build a supercruising fighter, which now looks doubtful amid the emphasis on range over speed.

Whether Japan will build the aircraft at all is another question. On the one hand, the country feels its security is increasingly imperiled by rising and bellicose China. On the other hand, developing a heavy stealth fighter would have to cost tens of billions of dollars.

“The expense necessary for development of the fighter aircraft hasn’t been determined at all at this moment,” says the ministry, adding that although the air force has 90 F-2s, the number of successor aircraft is also not settled. And no specification for the next fighter has been set.

Still, TRDI’s work, most recently presented at an official seminar this month, gives a pretty good indication of the direction in which Japan wants to go.

TRDI produced annual concepts in 2011, 2012 and 2013, successively designated 23DMU, 24DMU and 25DMU. (The number in each designation is the corresponding regnal year of Emperor Akihito; “DMU” stands for “digital mock-up.”) Judging from the modest 40-deg. leading-edge sweep of their mainplanes, none of these designs is intended to supercruise—to fly supersonically without afterburning.

The designers have moved back and forth in balancing stealth and other characteristics, but appear to have consistently rejected the challenging measure of eliminating vertical tail surfaces, a move that would help defeat radars operating at lower frequencies. Size seems to have varied, lately moving up, and is probably not at all modest, considering the thrust of the engine. Two engines of 33,000 lb. each imply an aircraft approaching the class of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Conceivably, the engine might be scaled down, however.

The 2014 airframe concept has not been revealed, but by last year TRDI’s work had evolved a design, 25DMU, that emphasized large internal missile stowage and especially range, with an unusually big wing of high aspect ratio (span relative to average chord). The results of studies presented at the seminar endorsed the 25DMU’s emphasis on range, so this year’s undisclosed 26DMU concept may not be much different. Design 25DMU is at least still relevant, since it will be used as a benchmark next year for assessing 26DMU. Altogether, it sounds as if the Japanese are zeroing in on a final configuration.

The 2011 design, 23DMU, looked somewhat like a scaled up ATD-X. As is common in stealth aircraft, snaking inlet ducts shielded the engine faces from radar energy, which they would otherwise reflect strongly. The tail of 23DMU had the usual four surfaces, with the fins angled outward.

Internal, side-by-side weapons stowage would have accommodated four “medium-range missiles”—which TRDI’s drawings show to be very large, implying more than medium range. Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London notes that the missiles in all TRDI’s drawings have inlets for ramjet propulsion, suggesting a greater kill probability than offered by weapons with only rocket engines. All TRDI’s published designs also include two short-range missiles in the sides of the fuselage, large passive radio receiver arrays on the sides of the fuselage, supplementing the nose radar, and infrared sensors below and forward of the cockpit.

The result of the 23DMU design effort was quite a deep fuselage and a lot of radar-reflecting side area, which the designers sought to reduce in 24DMU by flattening the aircraft. They moved the engines outboard and fed them with straighter ducts, relying on blockers—radial baffles mounted ahead of the engines—to help obstruct radar energy. The four medium-range missiles were carried in tandem pairs. Just two stabilizers were mounted as a V-tail much like that of the Northrop YF-23, the aircraft that the U.S. Air Force rejected when it chose the F-22.

Having produced 24DMU, TRDI assessed the impact of these changes in a simulated engagement. It found that a pilot flying a 24DMU instead of a 23DMU would be able to fire about 13% more missiles and the enemy about a third fewer. (These figures are judged from a bar chart, without numerical values, which TRDI presented at the seminar.) The time available for taking a shot was shorter for both, but the enemy’s firing interval suffered more. A modified 23DMU with a different sweep angle produced intermediate combat results. TRDI comments: “Different sweep angles have little effect on peak radar cross section.”In the next step, devising 25DMU last year, the developers restored the fully snaking ducts but kept the side area lower than in 23DMU. They moved the engines inboard and left a broad space for side-by-side stowage of six medium-range missiles under the ducts, which twisted upward and inward. The additional missiles, even at the expense of greater size and cost, make good sense for a country that must contemplate fighting against far more numerous enemy forces, Barrie says.

In another change, the four tail surfaces reappeared in 25DMU, but the fins remained highly canted and were kept shorter than those of 23DMU, while the tailplanes were angled down, perhaps to provide a sufficient vertical component for the tail.

Wingspan and aspect ratio increased markedly—the latter to 3.8-3.9 from 3.2-3.3 in 24DMU, judging from the imprecise drawings that are available. The aspect ratio of the F-35A is 2.4; the Boeing F-15’s is 3.0. If TRDI’s drawings are to scale, as they appear to be, span increased almost 20% in 25DMU. Clearly, the point of these wing changes was to increase range with an improved ratio of lift to drag and a greater volume for fuel. The fuselage looks larger, too, offering more space for fuel. Consistent with that, TRDI confirms that range has increased, although it gives no figures. Speed and acceleration must have suffered, especially if 25DMU is at least 10% larger than its predecessors, as it appears to be. These changes reflect the results of studies that show extreme flight performance will have less effect on winning battles than range and, implicitly, endurance on station, at least under Japan’s strategic conditions.


The more capability they demand from it, the more likely that they would have to look out given the timelines are rather fixed (so low margins for delays). Now, last time Lockheed was able to share a lot of F-16 design data for the F-2, I doubt that what they got from them this time around would be of much help. On the flip side, it is quite likely that the USN would also prefer RANGE over high super cruise speed (SC takes a penalty on range and COST ) while the USAF is likely to look to push the technology for a more ambitious project that pushes the boundaries of stealth and propulsion (AETP). I see a joint development kicking off post 2018, there is no real financial case for Japan doing this alone and if the timelines are important they would have to spread the risk around. The only real reason to do this alone for them would be to advance their aerospace industry, but then they have to loosen up the timelines and be ready for long delays. The Networking stuff (being able to target long range and on the retreat) is already with the F-35, with the MADL, handoffs, EODAS and the Passive barracuda.

Interestingly in September, the USN formally invited the Aerospace industry for a formal sit down to discuss deliverables as far as the FA-XX timeline is concerned. The analysis of alternatives begins in the first quarter of next year. These timelines are near identical.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2014 19:06

Jaeger wrote:^^But... but... this is Big Government-funded research that will then be made available to US manufacturers...
isn't this SOCIALISM? [/sarc] [/OT]


Nope.

If you had read the blurbs in the article

NASA and Flexsys are developing shape-shifting wings for airplanes
Flexible wings would save millions in fuel and smooth the ride for passengers
NASA showed off its wing technology to bloggers and social media mavens this week
NASA has contributed heavily to innovations used in commercial aviation


And the motto of Flxsys, a company from Ann Arbor, MI:

engineered to flex


Ann Arbor, MI hosts a ton of startups and they need the help of bigger players, so promising companies like Flexsys partner with agencies like NASA.

A LOT of ideas in the US have roots in a garage.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2014 19:09

^^^^^

A great college town it is, but I am glad that UM now does not make a very large chunk of aerospace engineers working at the big companies. The percentage used to be ridiculously large at one point.
Last edited by brar_w on 22 Nov 2014 03:39, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2014 19:10

J-31 stealth jet still needs engine to compete with rivals

Without a proper engine, the J-31, China’s second fifth-generation fighter designed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, is unable to compete against Lockheed Martin’s F-35, according to the Guancha Syndicate based in Shanghai.

The J-31 is currently equipped with two RD-93 engines imported from Russia. However, the Russian engine was designed for fourth-generation fighters such as the MiG-29. The thrust of two RD-93 combined cannot match a single F-135 engine on an F-35 fighter, according to the report. When compared with the two F-119 engines of F-22 Raptors, the gap is even wider. In addition, the Russian-built engines also shortened the range of the J-31.

Pointing out that the J-31 was unable to fly directly from Shenyang in northeastern China to Guangdong province in the south for the Zhuhai Airshow, the Guancha Syndicate said that the range of the aircraft is estimated at no more than 2,000km. This is only half the range of the J-11 fourth-generation fighter, designed based on the Russian Su-27. It then indicated that this is why several modifications had been revealed for the J-31, also designated the FC-31, at the Zhuhai Airshow.

During the last Zhuhai Airshow in 2012, the development of a new engine called Tianshan was announced by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China. The thrust of this new engine is estimated to be a 9,500 kilogram-force, which is much more powerful than the RD-93 which only has an 8,300 kgF. With a new design of vertical tails and aerodynamic shape, the J-31 will look more like a smaller F-22 then an F-35.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2014 19:14

Where will the J-31 compete against the F-35? For international customers? Which country? Only market that is not yet tapped is that of the Middle East and that is fairly well known given no one will officially come aboard until the IDF receives its first jet. What the article seems to be missing its hat the J-31 need not match the F-35 to be a productive aircraft or a program for the china. They will most likely focus on low hanging technologies, and a much narrower mission definition.

A smaller F-22 or F-35 is most likely what they want. The J-20 appears to be the larger cousin with more penetrative and longer ranged missions. It would be tasked with dealing with the Carrier groups before they field a dedicated stealth bomber probably around the 2030's.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2014 19:23

China has a long way to go. They will put up numbers 200 J-31, 300 J-20, etc. But the next gen planes are not the same as the 4/4.5 gen planes. They *need* plenty of other supporting components. China is not even close to that (neither are most other nations, so this is not a knock on china).




Jordan looks into buying a Chinese fighter jet

First, this comment:

the paratrooper said that he was impressed by the performance of the Chinese female pilots from the August First aerobatic team of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force.


Second and more seriously:

Image

That towering radar in the background is the JY-27 radar, supposedly designed to pick up "fast-maneuvering targets that are stealthy to other radars" (from Nov 17, 2014 AWST, page 38).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2014 19:49

AWST reporting that the Y-20 Y-30, a C-130 class transport, to be inducted in 2020 by china:

Image
Last edited by NRao on 21 Nov 2014 23:35, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2014 20:47

Japanese media announced that they have agreed to purchase the E-2D, Global Hawk and the V-22.

MohanJ
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby MohanJ » 21 Nov 2014 21:22

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20141120000007&cid=1101

China's newly unveiled J-31 stealth fighter has received bad reviews at home and abroad after making its first public demonstration flight during the biennial Zhuhai Airshow in the southern province of Guangdong.

The criticism of J-31, China's second fifth-generation fighter jet, mainly stems from the dark exhaust emitting from the jet's engine, which indicates the engine's poor efficiency in burning fuel.

There are two types of engines used on the J-31 jets — the RD-93 used by Russia's MiG-29 fighters will be fitted to those intended for foreign clients, while the ones deployed by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) will have the WS-13 engine developed from the RD-93.

It is unclear which type of engine the J-31 on display in Zhuhai used.

Meanwhile, PLA Navy Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong said in a speech in Xiamen on Nov. 17 that China's reverse engineering still has its limitations, and that it will take the country another few years to achieve a breakthrough in developing its own engines.

Zhang said the development of a jet engine involves mechanics and digital control, and the former is far more easy to master than the latter. "This part is too difficult and not something that can be achieved successly in a short time," he said.

Zhang also believes that the J-31 jet is too heavy.

Meanwhile, Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia said prospects for the J-31 jet's export market are not as positive as many have described.

Aboulafia said countries buying Chinese military hardware are mainly poor, with Pakistan the largest customer, and China may have to find new clients for the higher-end fifth-generation fighters. These new clients are most likely China's neighbors, but these countries will have their about Beijing given the tensions existing between them, Aboulafia added.

Moreover, the fifth-generation jets may have already come too late, since the US Air Force and Navy have both begun plans to develop their next-generation fighters to replace the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, respectively.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Liu » 21 Nov 2014 21:34

NRao wrote:AWST reporting that the Y-20, a C-130 class transport, to be inducted in 2020 by china:

Image

y20 is a c17 class inter-continent trasport

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2014 23:34

Thanks. You are right.

The Y-20 I mention should be the Y-30.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 22 Nov 2014 01:03

Image


Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

Wait before signing.

Hidden away in the secret depths of the Skunk Works, a Lockheed Martin research team has been working quietly on a nuclear energy concept they believe has the potential to meet, if not eventually decrease, the world’s insatiable demand for power.

Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors


Long article, so will not post in entirety.


Image
Last edited by NRao on 22 Nov 2014 01:17, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Nov 2014 01:13

^^^^^


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 22 Nov 2014 02:07

Flying far is more important than flying fast, Japanese fighter technologists have found in studies aimed at defining their country’s next combat aircraft. Looking for ways for their air force to fight outnumbered, researchers are also emphasizing that Japan’s next fighter should share targeting data, carry a big internal load of large, high-performance missiles and be able to guide them while retreating.


5 years to develop and possibility for joint program with other/s.

Components of a 33K engine being tested.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Nov 2014 03:37

There is plan is to finish up the testing of the scaled test bed and decide by 2018. Not much different from when the USN decides.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 22 Nov 2014 03:53

This article talked about "iteration", that this is one of X iterations. Seems to come out one per year.

But what I found interesting is that it did not have the normal talk about a 5th Gen plane. Like the bolded part. Their priorities are rather different. And, I think as we look at the various efforts out there, each has its own unique set of features and own priorities. Even the IAF's needs for the FGFA is substantially diff than the PAK-FA. Each has its own character.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23284
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Nov 2014 11:00

Brazil requires 'at least' 108 Gripen fighters

The Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira: FAB) expects to field "at least" 108 Saab Gripen E/F combat aircraft by the time deliveries are complete, a senior service official disclosed on 18 November.

Speaking under the Chatham House Rule at the IQPC Fighter Conference in London, the officer said that the aircraft will be delivered in three batches running from 2019 through to 2032, adding that the USD5.4 billion contract announced in October for 36 aircraft represents just the first batch (these will be delivered by 2024).

"In 2007 we did a feasibility study to imagine future scenarios, [and] this number [of 108 aircraft] was based on our future requirements," he said.

Under its F-X2 programme, the FAB is to acquire the Gripen E/F as a near-term replacement for its now-retired Dassault Mirage 2000C fighters, and as long-term replacements for its modernised Northrop F-5M and AMX A-1M platforms that are to be withdrawn in 2035.

As part of the deal, Saab and the Brazilian Aeronautics Command (COMAER) have signed a 10-year agreement for industrial co-operation projects, including technology transfer to Brazilian industry. Brazilian companies will bid for 80% of the aero structure, with 15 of the 36 aircraft to be assembled in-country (the remainder being built in Sweden by workers from both countries). It is likely that the two further batches will be wholly assembled in Brazil, as will the aircraft for any future regional customers.

At the time of the contract signing, Saab announced that the Gripen procurement and the associated industrial co-operation contracts will come into effect once the necessary export control-related authorisations are in place. This is expected to happen in the first half of 2015.

With the first batch of 36 aircraft being made up of 28 single-seat Gripen E and 8 twin-seat Gripen F aircraft, the official was unable to say what the force-mix might be for the remaining two batches. "We are currently in discussions with the US Navy to see what their experience has been of the mix between [the single-seat F/A-18E and twin-seat F/A-18F] Super Hornets, and we will decide our mix [of Gripen Es and Fs] when the time comes," he said.

According to the official, the Denel Dynamics A-Darter short-range air-to-air missile will begin its final qualifications the week after the IQPC conference, and is expected to be fielded on the FAB's Gripens from 2019. He added that work to develop the 'fifth-generation' Mectron MAA-1 Piranha air-to-air missile and the indigenous MAR-1 anti-radar missile for the aircraft is ongoing.

While the FAB official made no mention of the proposed Sea Gripen (Gripen M) development proposed by Saab for the Brazilian Navy, the requirement for 'at least' 108 aircraft for the air force would provide the economies of scale needed to develop such a maritime variant for the Sao Paulo aircraft carrier.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Nov 2014 02:54

For those interested in the ATF program, and the Northrop Grumman YF23, this is a very informative documentary be it quite old.

Web of Secrecy Black Widow II Declassified (Just under an hour)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ln6n ... mentary_tv

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Nov 2014 20:50

A NATO Fighter?



WASHINGTON — Just imagine it: Airbus teams up with Lockheed Martin or Boeing on a program to build a NATO fighter.

Detached from reality?

Not, apparently, to Domingo Ureña Raso, Airbus Defence and Space executive vice president for military aircraft.

Speaking on a panel at the 2014 NATO Industry Forum in Split, Croatia, on Nov. 13, Raso was discussing the need to collaborate more with industry from various countries on issues such as cybersecurity when he was asked if that meant he would be open to teaming up with Boeing or Lockheed on a new fighter. His response?

“Why not? Why not?”

It may seem surprising, given the historic competition between the European giant and its American cousins. But Raso pointed to the history of cooperation between industry in different nations.

“Industry knows how to cooperate internationally,” he said. “It’s not a threat for us. We can work trans-Atlantic, we can work national … there is not a program that is made only by one company as far as I remember, not one single program made from one company.”

And the truth is that Airbus could benefit greatly from teaming up with an American company on a new fighter.

Europe hosts six active fighter production lines. One in Sweden produces Saab’s Gripen, while another in France produces the Dassault Rafale. The other four are tied to the Eurofighter Typhoon, on which Airbus is a major partner. Both the Rafale and Typhoon, twin-engine heavy fighters that share a market space with Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, are on pace to end production before 2020.

To Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, that means Europe has to start thinking about how — or if — it will stay in the fighter production game.

“The development cycle for a next-gen combat aircraft is about 20 years, give or take,” Barrie said. “If you’re remotely interested in staying in that business, then you’ve got to be thinking in the next few years about how to move ahead. And I’m sure to some extent that’s what spurred that Airbus comment. It must be something senior management on that side are looking at.”

So assuming Airbus is interested in developing another fighter, why would it turn to the US?

One advantage is the nascent efforts by the US Navy and Air Force to develop a “sixth generation” fighter. Both services are laying the groundwork on those programs, with the Air Force aiming to open up Milestone A acquisition activities in early fiscal 2018.

Tying into a US program would make sense for Airbus, since it would provide guaranteed customers and a major stream of funding. The next question is what Airbus brings to the table — and who would make sense as a partner?

Lockheed seems unlikely, if for no other reason than because its F-35 joint strike fighter is still coming online and looks poised to dominate the market for the next 20 years, including in Europe, where the UK, Italy, Norway and the Netherlands have already committed to procuring the jet.

Analyst Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners doubts Lockheed would do anything that undercuts F-35 sales in the near term.

“I just think it’s way too soon for them to start shifting into something that will replace the F-35,” he said. “I think there are issues on both sides that would argue against it happening.”

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, said Boeing and Airbus share many qualities that could make them compatible partners, including the fact that both the Typhoon and the F/A-18 Super Hornet are ending production.

Airbus, he said, could kick in research and development funds from the various nations involved, but more important, bring a built-in marketplace in Europe, potentially including France, Germany and Spain, all nations that have yet to make moves toward the F-35. That would also fit Boeing’s recent trend of finding partnerships that open local markets for its products.

“On one side, you have very weak prospects for European funding and extreme unlikeliness of an industrial alliance between two longtime mortal enemies,” Aboulafia said. “On the other side of the equation, they have an awful lot in common, in that they have a pressing need to do something, and the idea just makes a great deal of sense if they could somehow pull it off.”

Of course, if Boeing and Airbus were to work together, the companies would have to work around a long history of competition on both the commercial and military sides of the market. Airbus, in particular, is still smarting from Boeing’s legal victory in the Air Force’s KC-X tanker replacement competition.

The commercial competition could also prove a sticking point, Callan warned.

“It’s Hatfields and McCoys,” he said. “The commercial people on both side would argue ‘Why are you teaming with our arch-enemy to do things that might strengthen them and make them a tougher competitor?’ ”

Aside from a relatively small European market boost, Callan and Barrie are skeptical that Airbus really brings anything to the table the US giants would not already have.

Barrie compared the situation to the F-35, where BAE Systems is a major industrial partner. But BAE had significant experience with the vertical take-off and landing technology at the heart of the F-35B model, and the UK was a crucial political ally in keeping the program from being canceled. Neither of those factors are likely to be available from an Airbus collaboration, Barrie said.

“I can see lots of reasons not to do it from an American standpoint,” he said. “It’s difficult to see there is any technology Airbus has that Lockheed or Boeing would be pounding at the door to gain access to.”

What about from a strategic standpoint? During the conference, Raso argued that developing a single trans-Atlantic NATO fighter would make sense.

“What has happened with certain capabilities is they have been developed by only one country or two, and we are competing against each other, against others who are not part of NATO,” Raso said. “We need to change our mind and we need to mutualize, maybe, the energy and the funding, and we need to clarify much better what we want for two properties, maybe for internal and then to be capable to support other countries beyond the boundaries of the NATO.”

A joint NATO fighter is “a great idea,” Aboulafia said. But there is a reason it never happened — getting all the NATO partners on board with funding, requirements and production is a herculean task.

“It was a great idea in 1995, in 2005, in 2015 and it might just be a great idea in 2025,” he said. “Harmonizing requirements and harmonizing numbers will always be a big challenge.”

Callan argues that instead of looking at a NATO fighter, Airbus should be thinking globally.

“Why wouldn’t you get a group of Northrop Grumman, BAE, Saab and Airbus? Why not Airbus, Northrop and Turkish aerospace?” he asked rhetorically. “Think about it from the global scale and standpoint. To just think of this on the trans-Atlantic standpoint is really missing the way the market is going.”

While the dream of a joint Airbus-US fighter might be far away, Raso is focusing on building smaller bridges. That includes on cybersecurity, where he hopes to see greater collaboration on protecting intellectual property.

“I think in this case we have a common enemy,” he said. “It’s a common enemy today when you talk about the cyber attacks, none of those companies are willing not to cooperate to avoid these kind of things, because they attack to the pillars, to the basements of those companies.” ■

Email: amehta@defensenews.com.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Nov 2014 20:57


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2014 05:01

NRao wrote:A NATO Fighter?



Aaron sometimes has a habit of getting carried away. A NATO fighter? seriously, its called the F-35 ;). Europe tried to do a common fighter. They wound up with 3. Do you seriously expect them to expand into the US, Canada and eastern Europe and convince everyone to settle down on ONE fighter? The F-35 will be operated by a lot of NATO users over the next 3 decades. The problem is that the european biggies don't seem to settle down and compromise, while the Pentagon has too large a force and too large of a budget and no need to compromise based on minuscule requirements of the french, germans etc especially when it has a dual threat while these nations have only a singular threat.

The US has no need for another 5th generation fighter. They require NG fighter and the volume they need them in, is more than enough to justify concentrating 100% of their investment in their own requirements centered around the Pacific (something that would be a waste for Germany or France). Boeing is teamed with lockheed on the LRS-B, their teams would be working full time on this especially given the stakes and what a potential win could mean (A 2-3 decade monopoly on advanced stealth Research just as Northrop gained from the B-2)..Its more likely that Boeing team up with Lockheed (as they did for the F-22) then with airbus, given that Europe can barely afford to field 4.5 generation fighters. If what is being disclosed on the LRS_B is true, it is a LONG RANG STRIKE mission that they are looking to replace, so the focus would most likely be on platform, network (not just limited to the platform but to other platforms, weapons and sats) and enablers (weapons themselves such as newer ways to do PNT and perhaps even long term hypersonics). I fully expect F-X to be a MISSION that they would look to replace, and this can be done in umpteen different ways. Whatever they choose, it s likely to be built around the entire USAF, and not limited to just the common low denominator that is NATO wide. The F-35 is nearly fully funded (development), what incentive would anyone have to develop an out of pocket, program that would compete with something that is being churned out at 100's per year? Boeing has the T-X and the LRS-B, in addition to future vertical lift, KC-X,KC-Y and the future transport which is likely going to be extremely expensive to develop given the fleet wide fuel savings they are requiring. A fighter is the absolute worst investment to make given the uncertainties that is why no OEM goes out and does it themselves. The US isn't going to fund another program for NATO (they have the F-35 and future F-35's for that), the Brits, French and Germans cannot agree upon one common platform (historically) and Eastern Europe (new NATO) is not in a position to negotiate on design and production work. If you look at Europe and NATO, ITALY and TURKEY are going to have work on the F-35 that is above and beyond industry. BAE is a strong partner and a big beneficiary over the next 3 decades or so of production. Italy has a FACO and will likely look to compete for work over the production run. Turkey although not there yet, would probably like to be at the level of Italy for more work. That leaves France and Germany.
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Nov 2014 09:22, edited 2 times in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Nov 2014 05:14

@Nikhil T ^^^ Watch Air India overhaul its passengers for two days :)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4192
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 25 Nov 2014 15:15

Japan prepares designs for its next fighter

very interesting to see the evolution of the next fighter design in Japan, based on their own set of requirements, which seem to emphasise range over speed and agility.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2014 18:52

Kartik wrote:Japan prepares designs for its next fighter

very interesting to see the evolution of the next fighter design in Japan, based on their own set of requirements, which seem to emphasise range over speed and agility.


Posted on the last page..

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36286
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby SaiK » 25 Nov 2014 21:04

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/f ... -work.html

exoskeletons! now we can have fizzically weak to take it on.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2014 21:21

Unmanned And Manned Aircraft Will Have To Learn To Rely On Each Other

Unmanned aircraft are most often viewed as augmenting manned aircraft, perhaps eventually replacing some of them, but a more likely future lies in their becoming intimately essential to each other. Two new U.S. research notices give hints of such an outcome.

One envisions manned bombers and transports becoming flying aircraft carriers, launching and recovering small UAVs to extend their reach. The other imagines fleets of throw-away aircraft overwhelming and punching through anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) defenses to enable stealthy but scarce assets to engage the enemy.These are requests for information (RFI)—market surveys, not programs yet—that appear to have been switched at birth. The “affordable, attritable aircraft” is the far-out vision of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), not the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa). The concept of an airborne UAV carrier, meanwhile, seems somewhat prosaic for an agency that prides itself on tackling only “Darpa-hard” problems.

AFRL’s RFI seeks ideas for unmanned aircraft that could be produced and configured on demand at a cost low enough that the Air Force could afford to lose many of them in combat. The unit cost target is $3 million, compared with $100 million for a stealth fighter, with the goal that such cost be independent of order quantity and production rate.

That cost goal makes the concept closer to Raytheon’s under-$400,000 Miniature Air-Launched Decoy Jammer (pictured) or $1.4 million Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile—both unmanned and expendable—than to a light attack/reconnaissance aircraft such as Textron AirLand’s two-seat, twin-engine Scorpion, which costs $20 million but is not stealthy.

AFRL sees two key challenges. One is designing an aircraft that can actually perform an A2/AD mission while remaining modestly sized and affordably priced. The other is designing for commoditization, with manufacturing processes that enable rate- and quantity-independent production costs so the price is essentially the same for tens or thousands.

Low-cost, high-volume combat aircraft have been proposed before, but foundered on the fact that pilots are expensive and not attritable. And while production of a relatively simple design can be ramped up rapidly, combat pilots cannot be trained quickly. To overcome this, the attritable aircraft would be unmanned and air-launched from manned platforms, recovering to a base for reuse—if it survives.

AFRL makes some key assumptions: that there is no service-life requirement; airworthiness rules are relaxed; mission reliability is orders of magnitude less than for manned aircraft; there is no depot maintenance, and support is limited to component replacement and quick repairs in the field. Each vehicle has a single role, a unique configuration for each mission, and a family of systems aggregating into a combat capability. Crucially, mission types and performance are still undefined, AFRL says.

Nonetheless, the lab wants ideas on existing aircraft that could be easily and affordably modified for an A2/AD mission and flown in 12-18 months, and clean-sheet designs that could be demonstrated in 18-24 months. And it wants industry input on whether either could be produced for $3 million or less.

Darpa, meanwhile, believes bombers or transports launching and recovering fleets of small UAVs could enable new missions involving distributed operations by collaborating platforms. Small unmanned aircraft could reduce the risks faced by expensive manned aircraft, but lack the speed, range and endurance required. A blended approach, in which large aircraft deploy multiple cooperating small UAVs, could extend range, increase safety and cost-effectively enable new capabilities, Darpa says.

The agency is seeking concepts and technologies for airborne launch and recovery of low-cost reusable UAVs involving minimal modification of existing large aircraft types, such as B-52 and B-1 bombers and C-130 and C-17 airlifters.

In the mid-2000s, the Air Force studied a concept called Just-in-Time Strike Augmentation that involved launching large numbers of a networked long-endurance weapon, the Area Dominator, from C-17s to break the back of enemy operations. A C-17 was to carry 600 weapons on pallets, 60 of which would act as network gateways for the strike vehicles. Boeing built and flew Dominator demonstrators.

The agency also is seeking proposals for full-system flight tests within four years, “to assist in planning for a potential future Darpa program,” and to demonstrate functionality to potential service partners that could transition the system to operation. That may prove the Darpa-hard part.


More information on the underlined portion:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/jenkins.pdf

Boeing's Dominator around 2000

Image

Image

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 25 Nov 2014 21:29

@w_brar ^^^ Area Dominator. Great concept. These are the things we should concentrate on and play to our strengths (cheap innovation)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7285
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2014 21:40

But that concept itself is dated. It was something proposed for a 2000 program, its 2014 and by the time the RFP is issued for a service (if at all) it would be 2018, so you are looking for IAD performance for a 2030+ time-frame as a design benchmark. Thats why this is hard. How do you approach it, do you take the vehicle pictures above and add stuff to it, or do you build a stealthy larger JASSM like vehicle that has a configurable payload. This is definitely going to be secretly investigated as part of the LONG RANGE STRIKE program underway, but I do not expect them to focus on huge volumes of swarms from a transporter. The MALD and MALD deals with that perfectly and there is no reason as to why those cannot evolve to carry other things as well (Data link nodes, ISR etc). How complicated do you want the platform to be, and do you separate mission payloads from the cost of the vehicle? How much of rapid prototyping and robotic manufacturing do you want to incorporate as those have been pointed out as ways to bring costs down. A non lethal JASMM-ER can give you a 1000 pound payload to play around with, is stealthy and can be further improved. But it is not recoverable and not an aircraft, so investments have to be made in networking, autonomy etc. I think this is interesting as a discussion but I do not think AFRL is going to do much. This is a project for the LRS-B mission, and I am sure it is being addressed in that program. That would be the logical program to address these things anyway.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 26 Nov 2014 11:18


Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1374
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Nov 2014 19:05

Cosmo_R wrote:@w_brar ^^^ Area Dominator. Great concept. These are the things we should concentrate on and play to our strengths (cheap innovation)


Indian MLPGM family of weapons, some of which are currently under testing employ a somewhat similar concept. One larger missile unleashing several smaller PGMs ( which are also deployable from UAVs individually).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16089
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Nov 2014 05:18

Hope it is kosher to post this in this thread.

MMRCA, ToT. Here is the latest. So what is that ToT going to offer? Not just in this field.



Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests