International Aerospace Discussion

[Austin]

https://twitter.com/BTelawy/status/787598958394826752

#Egypt is set to receive the last batchs of the S-300VM surface-to-air missile systems by the end of 2016.

[brar_w]

Lockheed Details Hybrid Wing Body Future Tanker

As the U.S. Air Force sets its sights on a more survivable next-generation tanker that will be able to support strike assets operating in increasingly dangerous battlespace, Lockheed Martin believes it has the answer: a fuel-efficient, hybrid wing-body aircraft that will be able to take off and land on short runways for maximum operating flexibility.
Gen. Carlton Everhart II, chief of Air Mobility Command (AMC), recently kicked off an effort to study a next-generation “KC-Z” tanker—one that may look very different than the large-bodied, commercially based KC-10s, KC-135s and KC-46s of today. As adversaries such as Russia and China develop sophisticated surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft weapons designed to foil U.S. forces’ ability to penetrate their air space, the tanker of 2035 and beyond is increasingly vulnerable, Everhart says.

Ahead of an official Air Force study on the future tanker, expected to launch within the next six months, industry is already gearing up to solve this problem.

If you ask Kenneth Martin, Lockheed’s principal engineer for advanced mobility, the new battlefield necessitates a lower-signature—if not fully stealth—refueling aircraft that moves away from the commercial-derivative tankers of years past. The future tanker fleet will need to be able to operate 500-250 mi. from the threat, outside the reach of modern SAMs but well within range of enemy radars and air-launched missiles, Martin calculates. This means the next-generation tanker will need to have a lower radar cross-section than conventional refueling aircraft, but it does not need to be “quite as pointy and as sharp” as an F-35 or an F-22, he said.

Lockheed’s vision builds on the company’s Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) concept for a more fuel-efficient future airlifter, which combines a blended wing and forebody for aerodynamic and structural efficiency with a conventional aft fuselage and “T” tail for air drops. The next-generation tanker may compromise with an “H” tail configuration, which would give the operator robust flight control and stability compared to a pure blended wing-body configuration, like a B-2 stealth bomber, or the V-shaped tails on the F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter, Martin said.“It’s still going to probably look a lot like an airlifter,” Martin said. “It’s not going to be a pure flying-wing, delta-wing sort of airplane because it still needs to be an efficient, everyday AMC asset.”

Where HWB has large over-wing nacelles designed for fuel-efficient, very-high-bypass engines, Lockheed’s next-generation tanker proposal may feature embedded engines for a reduced radar cross-section, Martin said.

“We like the location on our Hybrid Wing Body, the over-the-wing location, for a number of reasons: it keeps the engines away from the ground, [Foreign Object Debris], ground operations; also for a tanker moving the jet wash higher on the airplane is very conducive to a nice benign refueling environment so I think the engines will end up in a similar location,” Martin said. “Now, whether or not it is two big engines or four smaller engines that are mounted in ducts is still something we’re working on.”

Similarly, Martin’s team is still assessing to what extent the next-generation tanker will need stealth coatings, which add cost and maintenance, and advanced defensive or offensive countermeasures—lasers, for example.

“We have not determined at this point how much of those techniques versus how much of inherent aircraft survivability works,” Martin said.

But the tanker’s vulnerability problem is not limited to its airframe—the very act of refueling provides a target for enemy radars. Martin believes automating the refueling process will enable quicker, safer operations.

“If we believe Google and all those companies will all be driving self-driving cars, it seems to us the technology is being matured across the entire [science and technology] community to allow significantly more automation,” Martin said. “We’re committing very hard to, if not eliminate the boom operator, the boom operator becomes a systems monitor and could even be a copilot that’s basically monitoring the process.”

Martin is also looking to tackle the age-old problem of basing. Large, commercially derived tankers take up large ramp spaces and require lots of infrastructure for care and maintenance. But the number of bases worldwide that can accommodate that type of aircraft is limited. That’s why Martin is pushing for a platform that will be able to take off and land in spaces that are about half what a KC-10 or KC-135 requires, which will allow the Air Force to more effectively distribute its tanker fleet across the globe.

“If there’s only 10 or 15 bases in the entire region where you can take off and land it does become a limitation on where that aircraft can operate,” Martin said, adding that the idea is to eventually enable tanker operations from smaller, regional airports. “What this does is open up some options for both distributing our forces, so putting tankers at more locations, which has some inherent reduction in vulnerability to attack. It also allows us to fly the tankers with significantly more options for diverting in case of emergency or unforeseen things.”

To get to a short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) tanker, Lockheed’s proposal will draw on the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Speed Agile concept demonstration project, a decade-long collaborative effort with NASA, Boeing and Lockheed to develop technology for a stealthy, STOL airlifter that would be able to deliver loads directly to the battlefield. Speed Agile, which supported the U.S. Army-Air Force joint future theater lift program, ended in 2012 without transitioning to a development program, following the demise of the Army’s Future Combat Systems. But Martin still counts Speed Agile a success, noting that Lockheed was able to perfect and verify in large-scale wind-tunnel tests many aerodynamic and propulsion integration tools the company is now looking at for next-generation tanker.

For now, Martin is working with NASA to define a path forward for an ultra-efficient, subsonic demonstration program, which he hopes will feed into a fully fledged, next-generation tanker vision.

“We would like to take that technology and fly it, the aerodynamics, the propulsion and the structural integration technologies,” Martin said. “I think that really gives us the basis and the low-risk position, technology-wise, to move forward to something that’s not, quite honestly, another derivative airliner tanker.”

[Kartik]

One of those rare occasions where a former President has confessed about how quid pro-quo works at strategic levels.

Former Polish President says failed helicopter deal supposed to make up for Mistrals

Poland's former president told a local radio station that a deal with Airbus to procure roughly 50 helicopters had been a "gentleman's agreement" in an effort to make up for France being pushed to abandon its deal to sell Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, according to a report from Radio Poland.

Aleksander Kwasniewski, speaking with Radio ZET, described the circumstances surrounding the ongoing negotiations that broke down for Airbus H225M Caracal earlier this month. Airbus is considering taking action against the Polish government owing to the breakdown of negotiations, and Polish officials are proceeding with attempts to finalise a deal with Lockheed Martin's Sikorsky for rotary-wing aircraft.

[Philip]

Intriguing report.

US Air Force’s Space Plane Has Been in Orbit for 500 Days, But Why? © Flickr/ James McCloskey

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 22:28 11.10.2016

The US Air Force’s unmanned X-37B space plane has now spent more than 500 days orbiting the Earth, without statement or explanation. The 29-foot unmanned plane is part of the Air Force's orbital program. Launched May 20, 2015, it is the program's fourth flight (hence its other name, OTV-4 for Orbital Test Vehicle-4). The first OTV took flight in 2010 and spent 224 days in orbit; two others brought the total number of OTV days in orbit before 2015 to 1,367, according to the Air Force. The full purpose or intent of the program? The US Air Force remains mum. The Air Force will only say in its program factsheet that the initiative is to "demonstrate technologies for a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the US Air Force. The primary objectives of the X-37B are twofold: reusable spacecraft technologies for America's future in space and operating experiments which can be returned to, and examined, on Earth." The Secure World Foundation, a Colorado-based private foundation dedicated to the peaceful, sustainable use of space, found in its 2010 fact sheet on the X-37B program that "none of the potential missions posited by the US military appear to justify the program’s existence, especially on a cost basis …" This has led to speculation that the spaceplanes are intended to be used to capture satellites, as was mused in a 2014 Guardian article, or even that the American military is testing space-to-earth weapons. Secure World found suggested that it is most likely that the plane is an on-orbit sensor platform, containing "various sensors used for intelligence collection of the Earth from space, potentially including radar, optical, infrared, and signals/electronic intelligence (SIGINT/ELINT) suites to flight-test and evaluate new sensors and hardware." Brian Weedon, a consultant with Secure World and former Air Force officer who wrote the fact sheet, put it more bluntly in an interview with ABC in 2014. "What I think is more practical [than other theories] is that it's setting up technology for surveillance," he said. Experts speaking with Air and Space Magazine in 2015 generally concurred. Any technology the Air Force is testing on its spaceplane must have military applications, the magazine noted, possibly for communications, navigation, surveillance or anti-satellite and counter-anti-satellite operations. Most likely among these are advanced surveillance sensors, the magazine suggests. “I think that’s probably what they’re not telling you, that there are payloads in there that might be part of the design for future reconnaissance satellites,” said Director and Senior Fellow in the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies James Andrew Lewis in the article.

Making World’s Largest Space Plane and More “The idea of being able to launch an unmanned research platform that can stay up there for months on end provides you with all kinds of capability, both military and civilian,” said Chris Hellman, a policy analyst with the National Priorities Project, an American budget watchdog group, to the Christian Science Monitor in 2010. The idea of American eyes being able to hover at low orbits over any part of the planet has security experts and arms control advocates concerned, the story noted. NASA has revealed that on this particular mission, it is carrying a materials experiment as well as facilitating a solar sail demo by the Planetary Society and giving nine CubeSat nanosatellites a lift, according to the Daily Mail. Space.com reports that Aerojet Rocketdyne claims that it tested a new thruster onboard the plane, and that the Air Force is also testing a new propulsion system. NASA began the X-37B program in 1999, then transferred it to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2004 to test an Approach and Landing Test Vehicle. The Air Force took over after 2006. ... 1257

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610 ... -500-days/

[brar_w]

Here's NIFC-CA for ground applications. Composite picture and launch on remote targeting - "Any sensor, Any Shooter"..

IBCS

[Bheeshma]

Looks like ESA mars lander failed again. Where are they sourcing parts from? China?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37707776

https://www.rt.com/news/363323-exomars- ... g-mission/

[brar_w]

Post their CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement ) with the USAF, the Scorpion team has moved to weapon testing/demonstrations at White Sands

[brar_w]

[brar_w]

Textron Begins Scorpion Production

Textron AirLand has begun production of its self-funded, light-attack Scorpion jet ahead of a planned first flight of the production-representative version later this year, though the company is still searching for a buyer.
Textron is seeing new interest in the Scorpion jet since clinching an agreement with the U.S. Air Force to assess the airworthiness of the aircraft, said Chief Executive Officer Scott Donnelly during an Oct. 20 earnings call. The limited production run will support the Air Force’s accreditation process and improving manufacturing processes while Textron continues discussions with potential buyers, Donnelly said.

Textron pulled the trigger on a small initial production run earlier than planned in order to take advantage of the buzz generated by the Air Force certification program, Donnelly said.

“The level of activity with customers has stepped up considerably and it’s the right time for us to step up and demonstrate this aircraft and its performance capability and get much more aggressive about the marketing and test flights,” Donnelly said. “Waiting a year or spreading it out over longer period of time won’t help us given the opportunities that we see out there in the not too distant future.”
Donnelly declined to name the interested parties, but the Air Force itself has signaled it is open to potentially buying an inexpensive, commercial-off-the-shelf light-attack jet to augment its close-air support fleet as the A-10 Warthog begins to reach the end of its service life.

Marking another milestone for the program, Scorpion also recently completed its first weapons exercise, demonstrating the aircraft’s close air-support capability by successfully firing Hydra-70 unguided 2.75-in. rockets, BAE Systems’ Advanced precision Kill Weapon System and AGM 114F Hellfire missiles. Textron is planning first flight of a production-configured aircraft by the end of the year, Donnelly said.

Textron was the first to enter into a so-called cooperative research and development agreement for the new accreditation program, which the Air Force hopes will make military aircraft without a U.S. military customer more attractive to international buyers. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James also hopes the effort will spur innovation and boost the industrial base at a time when new military aircraft contracts are scarce, she told Aviation Week in a recent interview. The Air Force is working on reaching a similar arrangement with Lockheed Martin for its FA-50.

The effort appears to be working as planned. The Scorpion, designed as a high-performing but inexpensive light-attack and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform, was secretly designed and built at a Cessna Aircraft facility in Wichita, Kansas, and officially rolled out in 2013. Despite the price tag—Textron kept costs low by using common commercial off-the-shelf technology and components developed for Cessna business jets—Scorpion still does not have a customer. The company had planned to offer Scorpion for the Air Force’s T-X trainer replacement competition, but it seems it has now dropped out of the running as it likely can’t meet the requirements.

Textron has had to reach deep into its own pockets to fund the initial production run and weapons tests, but the company believes the investment will be worthwhile.

“Is that a sure thing? No. Do we see that the opportunity is real and that we think that there is a real future for this thing, and someday could be a profitable line of business for the company? I’ll have to say the answer is yet or we wouldn’t have made the decisions to go ahead and take some pressure on earnings and pressure on cash to really take that final step and bring this thing to the market in a very real, credible way,” Donnelly said.

[hnair]

After making us watch History channel's umpteen hagiographies of A-10s, now we are going to be taught all about the sustainable CAS of a Frogfoot?

[JayS]

Interesting configuration...

[brar_w]

Probably just some internal NAVAIR S&T work. The next VFDR motor configuration was locked in by Aerojet many years ago, and successfully completed flight trials against targets (cruise missiles, aircraft and a2g radar targets) back in 2013-2014 timeframe.. If they decide to go down the SFRJ path that configuration is sealed and ready and will simply be plug and play just as Boeing and Raytheon used it to demonstrate their AMRAAM/HARM replacements to the USAF.

[JayS]

I am aware of Aerojet work, from the days when I used to work on ducted rocket related project.

[Philip]

Is this report correct,in that the Taiwanese missile is a hypersonic one? That it is supersonic is well known,but looking at the pic of the missile (in the link) its current config may result in the breakup of the missile at such high speeds. What Taiwan really needs is a covert N-programme and acquisition of N-warheads with which ti strike Chinese cities,mainly located on its coastline,the major ports.A N-capable Taiwan would scare the daylights out of the megalomaniac dragon and prevent once for all the invasion of Taiwan. Even bio and chem weapons could be used byu the Taiwanese if China invades. A few thousands of these missiles could sink a substantial part of the PLAN's amphib/naval forces and derail any Normandy style invasion..

http://defencenews.in/article/At-Mach-1 ... hMos-18873

At Mach-10, Taiwan's Hsiung Feng-III 'Anti-China' Missiles could be faster than the BrahMos
Saturday, October 22, 2016
By: ChinaTopix
Taiwan looks to double the range of its formidable Hsiung Feng III (HF-3) hypersonic anti-ship missile so this missile can destroy invasion forces of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) that might invade Taiwan before 2020.

The exact top speed of the HF-3 is unknown, but some experts believe to be in excess of Mach 10 (12,000 km/h). The HF-3 can carry a nuclear warhead.

A speed this fast would make the HF-3 faster than India's BrahMos (touted as the world's fastest anti-ship cruise missile) with a speed of Mach 3 (3,700 km/h) and China's 3M-80MBE anti-ship missile, also with a speed of Mach 3.

China's acquisition of Russia's SS-N-22 Sunburn naval anti-ship missiles (from which the 3M-80MBE is derived), was the major reason Taiwan developed the HF-3.

The effectiveness of the HF-3, however, is limited by its short range of 150 kilometers, not enough to cover the 180 kilometer-wide Taiwan Strait separating Taiwan from mainland China. An invasion force from the PLA can traverse the strait in a few hours.

Taiwanese media reports the Republic of China Armed Forces is developing an HF-3 extended range (ER) version of the HF-3. Tests of this ER missile, which will likely have a range exceeding 300 km, are to be completed by late 2017.

The new version should enter mass production by 2018. Its longer range means this ER missile can be deployed in the mountains around Taipei to cover the entire Taiwan Strait.

The extended range will also allow the HF-3, which can also be used to destroy land targets, to reach farther inland from the coast of mainland China to attack PLA missile, amphibious and air force units in Fujian threatening Taiwan.

Taiwan published a report in 2015 that said China plans to attack Taiwan before 2020,

The new version might also retain the current HF-3's warhead, a 225 kg Self-Forging Fragment, which is a special kind of shaped charge designed to penetrate armor at standoff distances.

HF-3 is in large scale volume production under project Chase Wind and is deployed on most missile boats of the Republic of China Navy, as well as mobile land platforms.

The HF-3 also arms the ROC Navy's new Tuo Chiang-class corvettes, which are fast, twin-hull and stealthy multi-mission warships. The navy has one operational Tuo Chiang with 11 more on order.

This class is armed with a total of 16 anti-ship missiles: eight subsonic Hsiung Feng II and eight hypersonic Hsiung Feng III nuclear warhead- capable missiles.

[JayS]

Is this report correct,in that the Taiwanese missile is a hypersonic one? That it is supersonic is well known,but looking at the pic of the missile (in the link) its current config may result in the breakup of the missile at such high speeds. What Taiwan really needs is a covert N-programme and acquisition of N-warheads with which ti strike Chinese cities,mainly located on its coastline,the major ports.A N-capable Taiwan would scare the daylights out of the megalomaniac dragon and prevent once for all the invasion of Taiwan. Even bio and chem weapons could be used byu the Taiwanese if China invades. A few thousands of these missiles could sink a substantial part of the PLAN's amphib/naval forces and derail any Normandy style invasion..

From the configuration its difficult to believe M6 capability, let alone M10. You simply cannot use Ramjet beyond M4-5. The losses are so large in reducing speed to subsonic for combustion, its too much to make it viable. Even on brute rocket force I really doubt it can reach those claimed speeds for such low range. And I am not even talking about the aerodynamic heating it will have at sea level, it will simply vapourize unless they have use unobtainium on outer body.

[Kartik]

Japan looking to build a version of the Meteor to arm its F-15 fighters, which can apparently soldier on for decades more, as the original structure suffers no ill effects of fatigue so far. A testament to the original F-15's build quality- this one fighter was considered to be the most time consuming to build according to a Boeing article I had read long ago.

mockup of the F-15 with Meteor being promoted by MBDA.

What to do with 201 powerful fighters that have practically no airframe life limit? For about half of those Japanese F-15 Eagles, the answer is to give them an upgrade that, among other things, equips them with an advanced indigenous air-to-air missile. For the rest, a local version of a long-reaching European weapon may be in the offing, although Tokyo could opt to retire some of the F-15s without further improvement.

Japan and Britain are studying an adaptation of the MBDA Meteor that would feature the Mitsubishi Electric seeker of Japan’s AAM-4B missile. The seeker has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA), which should offer greater detection range than a convention radar seeker. Combined with the Meteor’s long reach, it could greatly improve the ability of Japan’s F-15s to safely engage in air combat, despite the aircraft’s lack of stealth.

Integrating the weapon, the Joint New Air-to-Air Missile (JNAAM), with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, which Japan and Britain have ordered, is also under study.

While stressing that no decision to proceed to full-scale development has been made, one possible result from the studies could be a finding that a larger diameter is needed, say officials of the Japanese defense ministry. MBDA is likely to argue for retaining the current diameter, however, since changing it would entail embarking on the costly development of a new missile.

Japan and Britain are assessing the likely performance of JNAAM in separate but coordinated studies, say Sadaharu Ono and air force Maj. Kazuyuki Sakamoto of the ministry’s Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency. The two countries are also looking at the expense and time that would be needed to develop it. The work is in a second phase of technical feasibility assessment, according to the British Ministry of Defense, which adds that it should be completed by mid-2017.

Though Japanese officials do not name the F-15 as a possible carrier, availability of the JNAAM could clearly become a factor in Tokyo’s decision, due within a few years, on what to do with the Eagles that are not now slated for upgrading. U.S. Air Force assessments show structural aging will impose no practical limit on the service life of Japan’s F-15s, which were built by Boeing predecessor company McDonnell Douglas and, mainly, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

The temptation to keep all the F-15s going must be strong, especially since the U.S. Air Force will operate the type until the 2040s and Boeing is still selling new F-15s, with an order from Qatar imminent. Budget limits could force retirements of some Japanese Eagles, however. An executive of a company that is closely interested in the fate of the aircraft expects that 40 will be retired without upgrading.

The AAM-4B is a key element of the current upgrade program, which has targeted 102 modernizations between 2004 and 2022. JNAAM would presumably succeed the AAM-4B. Alive to that possibility, MBDA displayed a model of a Meteor-carrying F-15 at the Japan International Aerospace Exhibition, held here Oct. 12-16. Boeing also sees potential in upgrading Japan’s F-15s. At the show, it promoted its concept of F-15s carrying 16 AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles.
...

The AAM-4B’s AESA seeker should, among other advantages, offer greater transmission power than a conventional antenna of the same size. That could mean it can pick up a target at greater range, allowing its launching fighter, freed from having to track the target, to turn away early. Greater detection range also allows a missile to search for a target in a larger volume, creating more opportunities for a shot.

The Anglo-Japanese studies on JNAAM are working on the basic concept of fitting the Japanese seeker to the Meteor. From a technical point of view, this can be done, says Sakamoto.

But the AAM-4B has a diameter of 203 mm (8 in.), inherited from the Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow, from which it was derived. The Meteor body has a 178-mm diameter, so the antenna size—and therefore transmitted and received power—would be smaller, reducing detection range. The antenna is fixed, so compared with a mechanically scanning antenna, it loses effective aperture size unless the target is dead ahead.

Even if Japan wants the JNAAM, Britain may not. One factor could be the choice of transmission frequency, a key issue in the design of an active-radar missile that influences its ability to discriminate an intended target from others. Japan’s choice of frequency for the AAM-4B seeker may not be the same as the one chosen for the Meteor.

[brar_w]

There are different grades to structural strength within the F-15 family. The E's are significantly more structurally robust than the C's for example and this gets reflected in their service life estimates as well. The US fleet is receiving new wings soon, and the C's have already flown to about 1.5 times their initially intended service life. With the new wings you could expect the Es to go well past 20,000 hours till perhaps 2040, the C's till the mid 30's as well.

There is also a 254 mm diameter (10 inch) X-Band active seeker equipped ESSM Block 2 that Japan could look to integrate for aerial use by early next decade when it would be available for their ships (they signed the Block2 agreements). By that time the US will probably also decide and be moving towards an air-air type arsenal plan setup from a pure stand-off missile shooter perspective. Think AAAM rather than a meteor but with a larger diameter.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html

[brar_w]

Interesting bits of information comming through the highly redacted GAO ruling on the LRS-B/B-21 protest filed by Boeing. It turns out their own technical experts could'nt find faults with Northrop's submission once presented with their entire proposal to confirm the shortcommings cited by their lawyers..



http://gao.gov/assets/690/680622.pdf

[Cosmo_R]

Very interesting article in NYT today and supports what I had earlier conjectured about smart missiles.

Some excerpts:
"CAMP EDWARDS, Mass. — The small drone, with its six whirring rotors, swept past the replica of a Middle Eastern village and closed in on a mosque-like structure, its camera scanning for targets.

No humans were remotely piloting the drone, which was nothing more than a machine that could be bought on Amazon. But armed with advanced artificial intelligence software, it had been transformed into a robot that could find and identify the half-dozen men carrying replicas of AK-47s around the village and pretending to be insurgents.

As the drone descended slightly, a purple rectangle flickered on a video feed that was being relayed to engineers monitoring the test. The drone had locked onto a man obscured in the shadows, a display of hunting prowess that offered an eerie preview of how the Pentagon plans to transform warfare."

"The Defense Department is designing robotic fighter jets that would fly into combat alongside manned aircraft. It has tested missiles that can decide what to attack, and it has built ships that can hunt for enemy submarines, stalking those it finds over thousands of miles, without any help from humans."

IMHO, many nerds who would have otherwise designed the next snapchat are pivoting from from their World of Warcraft games to design smart missiles and the like and Sequoia Capital will fund them (along with the CIA's venture arm https://www.iqt.org/) and DARPA.

It's going be SOTS—systems off the shelf. That's why 'a/c that can dance' won't be worth anything. It's going to be AI and Electronic warfare both conventional and cyber attacks on enemy air defense systems.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/pe ... -news&_r=0

[Kartik]

There are different grades to structural strength within the F-15 family. The E's are significantly more structurally robust than the C's for example and this gets reflected in their service life estimates as well. The US fleet is receiving new wings soon, and the C's have already flown to about 1.5 times their initially intended service life. With the new wings you could expect the Es to go well past 20,000 hours till perhaps 2040, the C's till the mid 30's as well.

There is also a 254 mm diameter (10 inch) X-Band active seeker equipped ESSM Block 2 that Japan could look to integrate for aerial use by early next decade when it would be available for their ships (they signed the Block2 agreements). By that time the US will probably also decide and be moving towards an air-air type arsenal plan setup from a pure stand-off missile shooter perspective. Think AAAM rather than a meteor but with a larger diameter.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html

Yes, but structurally more robust because one was designed primarily for the strike role, the other as a air superiority fighter.

And yet, the F-15J/DJ Kai fighters of the JASDF, which were built by Mitsubishi and were similar to the early F-15 C/D production models, built from around 1980 onwards, could continue to serve if the JASDF had the funding to upgrade them all. Does tell you, does it not, that this is one heck of a durable design.

The arsenal plane idea has to be very appealing to the US as well..Rand studies of the past have shown them being hopelessly outnumbered by PLAAF swarms and eventually being shot down since they run out of missiles to defend themselves far from their bases. With the F-22 force size being very nominal, the USAF's F-15Cs are the other natural fit for that sort of a role.

[brar_w]

Also keep in mind what the F-15C/D/J's carry vs the heavier strike configurations. They aren't flying heavy, low altitude profiles for obvious reasons hence didn't require all the beefier structures in the first place. The USAF actually thought about getting the strike eagles to replace some of the C's back in the day but went off against it after the ACC agreed that it was an inferior air to air fighter partly because its heavier.

The arsenal plan is just a regular aircraft with stuff hanging off of it and as such it could be anything from an F-15 to a B1/B52. The time and treasure required to make it work has to do with networking and that will take some time. Current networking especially for weapons grade targeting is bandwidth constraint especially if you want to constantly drive Low observable aircraft in and out..the USN's NIFC-CA itself relies on non LPI links in favor of longer ranges and higher bandwidth availability and this is something that would have to wait for the ADL efforts to mature. They are wargaming these things as we speak but the timelines are closer to the mid to late 2020's. Meanwhile the SCO is working on an arsenal plane.

Given they probably want a high speed weapon and not a coaster since targeting in the future presents a different sort of challenge (time compression) they may seek a very large diameter multi stage SRM setup with high speed throughout the profile. If you are targeting aircraft with some degree of low-observable shaping or ECM you not only need the range, but also the high speed since the F-22 or F-35 that is closest to the target may not be able to track it for long period of time..GIven that you can on an aircraft like this carry a larger, heavier missile you may just need to go in for a 10 inch diameter multi stage system that gets you that speed and range.

That may just be an AMRAAM D on a different body or better buying the more advanced SM6 or ESSM Block 2 seeker since both of them have semi-active modes as well.The PAC-3's KA band seeker could also be an option. Both Raytheon and Boeing have a number of seekers from existing in - production or funded development projects that they could choose from and the same applies to the data-links. This is important because if the SCO looks at the arsenal plane from an A2A perspective, it is likely to demand existing technologies be repackaged to meet the need - That's just how they operate within that team. Come to think of it, Raytheon could just upgrade the AMRAAM-ER to D's level and strap a booster to it and it would be a very competitive weapon for such a mission/role.

I'd be surprised if arming an arsenal plane that does not need high performance (stand off) results in a Meteor/T3 like weapon where you are trying to get maximum range over a larger envelope within rigid size limits (dictated by AMRAAM size or weapons bay fit). Extra trade space when it comes to size and weight opens up lots of opportunities to get higher performance and capability. I think this may be a key difference in the way the US and Japan views this concept. In the US it appears to be a truck concept where the 5th generation assets do all the work and the arsenal plane just provides them higher magazine capability form afar. Japan may just want these aircraft to be viable in air-combat and just out-stick the opponent fighters.

[brar_w]

USAF’s Bomber Decision Came Down To Cost - Lara Seligman Aviation Week

The U.S. Air Force’s decision to award the design and development of its next-generation stealth bomber to Northrop Grumman over a competing team led by Boeing and Lockheed Martin came down to the significantly lower price tag of Northrop’s bid, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Northrop’s proposed cost for the new bomber’s engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase was “substantially lower” than Boeing’s due to “Northrop’s corporate investment decisions,” according to the GAO’s heavily redacted ruling on Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s protest of the 2015 contract award. Northrop’s lower EMD costs were driven by the decision to absorb significant company investment, as well as lower labor rates and labor escalation rates compared to Boeing’s, GAO wrote. The exact values of the bids were redacted.

Both competitors significantly underbid government estimates, with the Air Force determining the final cost proposals were “unrealistic” for the design and engineering work required to build a new stealth bomber, according to GAO.

“Both offerors submitted cost proposals that I believe reflect aggressive attempts to achieve the lowest evaluated price in this competition,” according to the source selection decision document (SSDD) quoted by GAO. “Neither offeror substantiated that it could accomplish all necessary EMD efforts at its proposed cost for EMD.”

But it seems the Air Force was willing to accept some risk both on cost and schedule to get a better upfront price. Both initial EMD proposals were originally deemed “unacceptable” in terms of capability; after some negotiation, both proposals in their final forms were accepted, although weaknesses and related risks still remained. The Air Force flagged four weaknesses in Boeing’s final proposal, and ten in Northrop’s, GAO wrote.

The Air Force is clearly aware of the risks of choosing to go with the lower-priced bid, and in fact may even expect that Northrop’s B-21 “Raider” may not be able to stay on schedule, according to GAO.

“There exists some level of Air Force expectation that disruption of schedule may occur,” GAO wrote. “However, the Air Force nonetheless concluded that Northrop could still successfully execute its [redacted] approach with a [redacted] that would not appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.”

Northrop’s bid had a “substantial cost/price advantage,” the Air Force ultimately determined, according to GAO.

GAO also offers a scathing critique of Boeing’s protest, which the agency officially overturned in February. Boeing argued that the Air Force failed to consider risks inherent in Northrop’s approach that should have disqualified them; GAO found this claim was unsubstantiated. Further, Boeing alleged that the Air Force unreasonably rejected the company’s cost-cutting measures and used bad historical data to evaluate their proposal; GAO also found no basis for this.

In fact, despite Boeing’s claim that their proposal was unfairly penalized, the company’s bid was still much lower than most new aircraft programs, GAO notes. Boeing’s offer would represent the second lowest-cost new aircraft development effort in recent history—much lower than the B-1, B-2 or F-22, and higher only than the C-17, GAO wrote.

“Significant structural advantages in Northrop’s proposal—specifically, its labor rate advantage and decision to absorb significant company investment—also strongly impacted the outcome,” GAO concluded. “Northrop’s significantly lower proposed prices for the [Low Rate Initial Production] phase created a near-insurmountable obstacle to Boeing’s proposal achieving best-value, or to Boeing’s protest demonstrating prejudice in the cost realism evaluation.”

The B-21 will be procured using a two-part structure: a cost-plus contract with incentives for the EMD phase; and a firm fixed-price arrangement for initial production of the first five lots of aircraft. The Air Force plans to buy about 100 new bombers, at a capped unit price of $550 million.

“The GAO decision contains a detailed analysis of the source selection evaluation which led to the award of the B-21 contract to Northrop Grumman in October 2015, and confirms that the Air Force followed a deliberate, disciplined, and impartial process to determine the best value for the warfighter and the taxpayer,” Air Force spokesman Capt. Michael Hertzog II said in an email.

Northrop spokesman Randy Belote also stressed that the GAO ruling confirms the Air Force made the right decision.

“The public version of the opinion, from which classified and proprietary information has been removed, makes clear that the GAO performed a rigorous and deliberate review of the U.S. Air Force’s extraordinarily thorough selection process in which it chose the most capable and affordable solution,” he said.

Just a quick addition, Northrop Grumman has contractually agreed to supply 22 B-21's at a cost equal to or lower than $ 550 million per aircraft (adjusted for inflation by production year). The USAF has also, along with the contract to develop the aircraft agreed to buy 22 in the first LRIP order.

[Kartik]

Airbus rolls out first Exocet armed H225M helicopter for Brazilian Navy

The first Airbus Helicopters H225M medium-twin rotorcraft equipped to carry the MBDA AM39 Exocet anti-shipping missile was rolled out by the company's Helibras subsidiary in Brazil on 25 October.

The ceremony, which took place at Helibras's Itajuba facility, saw the unveiling of the first of five such helicopters to be developed for the Brazilian Navy (Marinha do Brasil: MB) under the H-XBR programme.

Speaking to reporters at the event, the head of the H-XBR programme for Airbus Helicopters, Didier Cormary, said that, with 50 H225M helicopters on order for the wider Brazilian armed forces, the Operacio MB configuration for the navy is not only the last major configuration to be developed for the Latin American country, but it is also the most potent. "This configuration has teeth," he said.

As Cormary explained, the Operacio MB configuration consists of two AM39 Block 2 Mod 2 Exocet missiles; a chin-mounted Telephonics APS-143 surface-search radar; missile approach warning sensors (MAWS); a nose-mounted FLIR Systems Star SAFIRE III electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) sensor turret (as featured on other Brazilian variants); and a Tactical Console workstation in the main cabin.

"The [Operacio MB configuration] can launch one or two Exocets, and can fly asymmetrically with one missile on one side and the air-to-air refuelling probe on the other - this is quite a feat [for such a large weapon system as the 655 kg Exocet]," Cormary said.

While both Chile and Saudi Arabia have configured Super Puma helicopters to carry the Exocet, Cormary explained that this was done about 20 years ago and involved less advanced helicopters, systems, and technologies. Also, while the MB itself has previously fitted Exocets to its now-retired Sikorsky Sea King helicopters, these were older Block 1 Mod 1 missiles.

Work to develop the Operacio MB configuration began in 2013, when the purchase order was signed by the Brazilian government.

[Philip]

Costly F-35 Bankrupts US Navy's Hope for a Sixth-Generation Fighter Jet
Monday, August 01, 2016
By: Sputnik

The massive cost overrun on the $337 million per aircraft F-35C fighter jet has so hamstrung the US Navy’s budget that their plans for an F/A-XX sixth generation fighter jet may be nothing but a pipe dream.

The United States Navy’s tactical aircraft plan for the post-2030 threat environment is in disarray as officers remain skeptical about the performance capabilities of the F-35C, but the cost override on the fifth-generation fighter jet may force the military branch to discard plans for the F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter jet program.
After spending over $1.5 trillion in US taxpayer money, the Pentagon budget will only enable the US navy to field a handful of Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighters after the aircraft’s budget bloated due to an unprecedented number of design and software problems that set the fighter jet several years behind schedule.

"They’re looking at it in a very short-sighted way. They’re still skeptical because the expense hasn’t come down to the degree they wanted," a source told The National Interest. "Already the aircraft squadron buy of the new airplane is smaller than the Hornet squadron they’re supposed to replace – 10 aircraft versus 12 – simply because they can’t afford it."

The Navy’s budget is weighted down by a flat top line such that if an aircraft is more expensive than the military branch predicted, they are forced to simply purchase fewer fighter jets even though the majority of the cost is on the design and development side, not the wholescale production.

"In a flat budget environment, there is no additional money coming so you have to take the cut in your overall number of assets," explained Jerry Hendrix to reporters with The National Interest, director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security.

The overwhelming cost of the F-35C, a mind boggling $337 million per aircraft, has pushed the US Navy to the point that if there was a way for them to abandon the Joint Strike Fighter Program, it would do so immediately according to The National Interest’s anonymous US Navy source.

Preferably, the Navy would like to bypass the obscene costs of the F-35C altogether and transition directly towards the development of the F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter jet before cost overruns kill the program entirely.

"They would really like to delay [purchasing the F-35C] until they get to F/A-XX because they think it’ll be designed more according to their liking," the source explained. "But the fact is that the F/AXX is just a dream on a piece of paper right now and it’s a dream they’re getting push back on from DOD [Department of Defense] leadership."

Interestingly, even if the US Navy should get around to developing the F/A-XX, the National Interest source explains that it is just a slightly modified version of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet which he explained is due to a mass of Super Hornet pilots in key positions of the US Navy’s operating structure.

[Viv S]

By: Sputnik

[brar_w]

Hey, he even made the parts he thought had the most impact or were factual bold! That has to count for something

Over the next decade +he USN intends on procuring over 650 F-35's for itself and the Marines. More than 320 of those are the F-35C's. If that is a "handful" I wonder how Sputnik would characterize the number of PAKFA/T-50's the RuAF are expecting to buy.

Moreover, once inducted the USN really likes to milk operational fighters and make full use of them well past their interned original requirements. Their last 3-4 fighters programs have seen actual #'s procured be much higher than original demand. This was true for the F-18E/F, The F-18C and even before that. Expect them to fully commit to buying more F-35C's than the 260 they plan on operating outside of the USMC's F-35C's.

but the cost override on the fifth-generation fighter jet may force the military branch to discard plans for the F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter jet program.

May discard? What does this mean, they won't be producing any fighter for ever because of the F-35C? Leaving Sputnik's Earth-2, however, the USN is at the Analysis of Alternatives stage and will logically embark on a program once that is finalized. The FA-XX has nothing to do with the F-35C's but everything to do with the 600 odd F-18E/F's the US Navy operates (with more coming) that would require replacement in the 2030's and beyond.

The US services have had a long history of embarking on next-generation systems when the current ones are fielded. ATF prototypes took the air around a decade after F-16 induction, and during the F-16 block 50 induction phase. Similarly, the US-Navy committed to the Joint Strike Fighter during the middle of its Super Hornet Program.

NAVAIR's acquisition/development strategy is quite simple: Draw down Super Hornet/Growler Production --> Ramp Up F-35B/C production --> Develop MQ-25A --> Begin MQ-25A Procurement --> Develop the FA-XX ---> End F-35 procurement by 2031 ---> Begin FA-XX procurement. Some overlaps will exist particularly with the F-35 and FA-XX, but those have existed even with the Super Hornet and the F-35 procurement, but the trends will be of a slow down of one acquisition program as the other ramps up.

[JayS]

USAF’s Bomber Decision Came Down To Cost - Lara Seligman Aviation Week

Noob question: How much do you think the factor of "keeping Northrop afloat" weighed in, on this decision of giving B21 to Northrop, in a larger context??

[brar_w]

This is a much discussed but often unsubstantiated aspect of dealing with such questions. Look at this way, the decision came to two factors, Performance and Cost (the basis on which Boeing lost, and to which they filed a protest) and the RFP traded in both categories. Boeing's gripe was that Northrop Grumman had unrealistic estimates on their costs to which the USAF replied that bid-amounts were lower than what they would reasonably conclude for both Boeing and NG and that this pointed to both companies eating up cost in order to win.

The Source selection committee however did not look at bid amounts at all. They did their own cost estimates, and then went outside of the program and got two independent cost estimates performed. They then took the highest amount of each independent cost estimate for each team and used that in their determination. This is actually an established acquisition practice post 2010, and the need to do an ICE is actually a mandate for anything that falls into the Acquisition-1 category (ACAT-1). This was specifically brought into play after cost increases in the last few big ticket systems on account of inadequate pre-program cost analysis and unreasonable initial cost expectations. The USAF has committed to spend the amount of money the ICE thinks it would cost to develop the bomber and not what NG bid so if NG comes through on its bid they'll (USAF) recover the money through should cost savings along the way. The production of the first batch of 22 that was awarded with the EMD contract is actually a fixed price contract so NG has to legally eat any cost overrun.

Nowhere in their protest did Boeing's lawyers bring up IB concerns. The Pentagon looks at industrial base issues separately and actually adjusts profits paid, and R&D pipeline to make sure that these are taken care of to the best possible level outside of large ticket programs where you could get entangled in really long legal disputes if you start using these non-objective means of making a source selection. The bomber development program started in 2004 (what was then a different program) but from 2004 to 2015 when the source selection happened, the Pentagon kept 3 R&D teams fully funded.

Where these things do play out is in the actual OEM's bid and how it deals with the program. Even with the redacted GAO finding, it is clear that Northrop was extremely aggressive with its bid and the program in general. Some redacted portions hint at outside-program prototype work which could be the RQ-180 or it could be something totally different. Northrop negotiated with its union and laid out a highly aggressive labor rate (when you are dealing with tens of millions of labor hours over even the first LRIP these things make a huge difference).

Perhaps their labor unions agreed to a pay cut in order to get a lot of work with this program. Boeing argued that NG was given credit for offering a cheaper labor rate while their new prototype production process code named "black diamond" was not given as much credit for reducing labor-hour requirements because of lack of maturity. It isn't unreasonable to assume that a Boeing, that has vast production expertise and is one of the largest aerospace producers on the planet will have an advantage as far as implementing a production strategy that reduced touch labor. However the USAF differed when it came to how much difference that would make since what Boeing provided as far as its new program was concerned has not been implemented on a system of this scale before. The GAO agreed with the USAF's decision to not allot as much credit to Boeing's prototype manufacturing process as they themselves claimed.

Furthermore, there appears to have been a CEO and board led decision to aggressively eat up development cost on the program, and do so at levels higher than those of Boeing. This points to Northrop simply valuing this contract as extremely important to its future and therefore making strategic business decisions to make sure they out compete their rivals on cost. The cost they looked at for the purpose of this program was the cost to develop the aircraft (EMD phase) and to procure the first Low-Rate batches amounting to 22 aircraft. Both contracts were signed with Northrop Grumman after source selection.

Add to that the only company to design and produce a stealth bomber, and to support it over 2+ decades has been them goes in their favor. From the information we have, and from the Boeing's challenge there is nothing that points to industrial concerns being a factor. In fact with RFP's being forced to be more and more specific and objective the ability to make a call on IB issues is highly diminished.

The redacted report points to both aircraft meeting the USAF's requirements while one (Boeing) being more than 3% higher in its estimated cost (and also higher in terms of what the OEM's bid) that automatically dismissed any cost-capability comparisons. Apparently, the way the contract was set up, you could have been higher in estimated cost but still won as long as you were within 103% of your competitor's cost but had better performance in certain specified areas.Boeing could not bring that into play since their independent cost estimate was at least 3% higher. Whether they and Lockheed had a better performing aircraft would never be known until the full proposals are laid out. Additionally where their protest fell flat was when their own technical consultants couldn't substantiate their own legal team's faults with the NG proposals after getting access to it.

"keeping Northrop afloat"

In areas that are likely to receive high pentagon investment both with current procurement trends and the third offset, Northrop Grumman as a company is actually better positioned than Boeing. Think unmanned, think rapid prototyping, think open mission systems, think large scale hardware-mission system integration, directed energy and cyber etc. Northrop Grumman has the systems largely ready, developed, competitive or prototyped and is looking towards higher orders or more R&D on them. Things like Global Hawk, Triton, E-2, F-35, JSTARS (Northrop has been flying its sensor for a while now), IBCS, and its other unmanned products. Boeing is at a stage where a large number of their big ticket programs are going or gone. Programs like the C-17, Super Hornet, and some weapons programs. They are going to rely on a lot of commercial derivatives like the KC-46 and 737 based AEW aircrafts. I won't be surprised if they make a very aggressive bid for General Atomics in a few years since they are good at providing affordable sollutions through sustained production and don't do so well when it comes to winning competitive R&D programs (ATF, JSF, J-UCAS, and now the LRS-B all lost).

Both Boeing and Northrop turned in bids that were lower than the Independent Cost Estimates on how much it would take to develop the aircraft (EMD Phase). Both planned to take a financial hit during the development of the aircraft and make money on the other side through sustained long term production. While they used ICE to make the decision, once the contract is inked all your incentives are tied to your bid amount so can't really keep on exceeding the budget (even though development is a cost plus incentives contracting mechanism) and not pay a financial penalty for it. Northrop chose to go down the road and this points to them simply being way more aggressive when it came to wanting to win than Boeing.

If they themselves thought that industrial base concerns would work in their favor they wouldnt have had to assume so much financial risk given the delta between the bid amount and cost estimates. A few years ago they found themselves in a similar situation vis-a-vis the re-bidding process on the KC-X and they decided to totally walk away and wash their hands of it. They simply did not make an offer during the second round giving it to Boeing. They clearly didn't do it here and this points to a strategy by Wes Bush and the board to aggressively pursue this program, which would be logical since they have a huge stealth bomber legacy - being the only OEM to design one and support one. Additionally, unlike the KC-X, winning the LRS-B actually has a positive impact on their ability to be competitive in future competitions to replace figther types, or produce other weapons systems with similar attributes (Low Observability, integrated open mission systems, etc etc).

Also one must remember that NG's workshare on the JSF alone is more than a lot of these 4.5 generation programs that are supported by one or two OEM's when it comes to the sheer $ value. Even in LRIP the JSF represents 7% of their revenue across their service lines (including Electronic systems). How many OEM's around the world can claim to generate close to $2 Billion in annual revenue from 5th generation fighters and that too in LRIP? This is expected to touch $ 5 Billion at FRP.

[TSJones]

One Third of U.S. Astronauts Injured During Soyuz Landings

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/10/o ... of-us.html

the comments section is especially interesting.

[Viv S]

The 'Magic' Behind Radar-Absorbing Materials For Stealthy Aircraft

The science, history and future of stealth materials

Oct 28, 2016

Dan Katz | Aviation Week & Space Technology


Cloaking Devices

This is the third article in a series. Stealth is traditionally associated with aircraft shaping, but as more nations field low-observable aircraft and counter-stealth sensors, radar-absorbing materials (RAM) may take on increasing importance.

Typically, shaping accounts for 90% of the radar cross-section (RCS) reduction of a stealth aircraft and RAM the remaining 10%. And where RAM might reduce RCS by an order of magnitude, shaping can shrink it by three or four orders. But RAM reduces radar returns from certain features more than these guidelines imply and, while progress in shaping may be plateauing, in materials it is advancing rapidly.

Electromagnetic Materials

The ability of a substance to absorb electromagnetic (EM) waves depends on two material properties called permittivity and permeability, which are the capacity to store electrical or magnetic energy, respectively. The source of both is the existence of electric or magnetic dipoles at the atomic, molecular or crystal lattice level.

When an EM wave passes through the material, these dipoles orient opposite to the field’s direction. In some materials, the dipoles effortlessly return to neutral after the EM field returns to zero. In other materials, the dipoles are “sticky” and require energy to orient them or return them to neutral. That additional energy is lost and the material’s permittivity or permeability is said to have a loss component.

RAMs are composites made up of a matrix material and a filler. The matrix is a low-loss dielectric material with appreciable permittivity and negligible permeability. They are effectively “transparent” to EM waves and are usually chosen for their physical properties. Typically, they are insulating polymers like plastic, glass, resin, polyurethane and rubber. Ceramics have higher permeabilities and heat tolerance. Foams and honeycombs have especially low permittivity—electrical energy storage—because they contain a lot of air.

One might be tempted to construct an aircraft skin from such “transparent” materials, but radar would then reflect off objects beneath the surface such as sensors, fuel, metallic airframe and engine parts and the pilot. In practice, the bottom layer of a stealth skin is a highly conductive material, such as metal, which strongly reflects radar waves before they reach the complex reflecting environment below.

The RAM filler, meanwhile, is typically particles composed of or coated with a lossy material. Carbon is the material of choice for dielectric absorption because electrical lossiness is proportional to conductivity and carbon’s conductivity is below metals but above insulators. Magnetic absorbers, which have some permittivity but far greater permeability—magnetic energy storage—are typically carbonyl iron (a pure powdered form of the metal) or iron oxides, also called ferrites. These materials can be impregnated into rubber or dissolved into a paint and ferrites are often sintered into tiles.

As its permittivity, permeability and loss components increase, a material can absorb more EM energy because EM wavelengths shrink as these values rise. But when waves reach a boundary between two mediums, energy can be reflected rather than admitted. The amount reflected depends on their impedances—the square root of the ratio between each material’s permeability and permittivity. The greater the impedance change, the more energy is reflected before it can be absorbed. So RAM design must balance absorptivity with surface reflectivity to maximize absorption.


Source: Daniel Katz and Colin Throm/AW&ST

A material’s EM properties also vary with frequency. At higher radar bands, no magnetic materials have permittivity and permeability in a ratio close to that of air, so high surface-reflection is inevitable. But if the material is a quarter-wavelength deep, reflection from the metal backing partially cancels the surface reflection. Because of the high permeability of magnetic RAM, the depth required is small. Absorption performance of 20 dB (99%) is achieved by commercially available “resonant absorbers” with resonant frequencies of 1-18 GHz and thicknesses of 0.04-0.2 in. The technique is inherently narrowband, however, with significant absorption extending perhaps 15% from the resonance frequency.

Given this limited bandwidth, as well as higher weight and cost, dielectric absorbers are preferred for wideband absorption at high frequencies. Since dielectrics have no magnetic properties, their impedances never match air, but by using layers of materials—each with an increasing concentration of carbon particles—permittivity, conductivity and dielectric losses all gradually increase while impedance gradually decreases. Layers can also be adjusted to maximize cancellations. These graded dielectric absorbers can reduce reflection by 20 dB, and their bandwidth easily covers higher frequencies. However, they require significant depth to achieve lower-frequency performance: 1 in. for X-band and 4.5 in. for 500 MHz.

Another approach is to use a physical gradient. These “geometric transition” absorbers use pointed objects of homogeneous material oriented perpendicular to waves. The most common application is the pyramidal absorbers that line anechoic chambers used for RCS testing. At high frequencies, waves bounce among these structures, losing energy with each strike. If the wavelength is large relative to the structure, the waves act as though encountering a gradual change in material properties rather than a geometric shape. Absorbers of this type can reduce reflection by 60 dB, but require structures 15-ft. high for effectiveness at 30 MHz.


Source: Daniel Katz and Colin Throm/AW&ST

Counterintuitively, at lower bands, some magnetic materials become more effective because their energy storage —permeability—increases. At frequencies of 30-1,000 MHz, certain ferrites exhibit extreme wave compression and impedance close to air. Commercial ferrite tiles can achieve over 20 dB reduction in VHF band and 10 dB reduction through UHF, with a thickness of only 0.25 in. and a weight of 7 lb./ft.2.

Thus far, what has been discussed is reducing specular reflections—those that bounce off an object like light off a mirror—but RAM is also particularly effective at reducing surface waves. These are the waves emitted by currents induced in a conductive surface when struck by radar. As they move along the surface they emit traveling waves, usually at angles close to grazing, and when they encounter discontinuities—an airframe edge, a gap or step in the surface or a change in material—they emit edge waves, concentrated closer to the specular reflection. Surface currents travel along a material’s length rather than through its thickness, and the RAM acts as a waveguide, trapping the currents and absorbing them. Magnetic RAM can suppress surface currents well in a thickness of only 0.03 in. There are ways to combine techniques. Layered magnetic materials can reduce RCS by 10 dB from 2-20 GHz with 0.3 in. of depth. Hybrid RAMs can be created with a front layer of graded dielectric and a back layer of magnetic material to attenuate radar reflections from VHF to Ku-band.

Dirty Birds and Pie Panels

RAM has been part of RCS reduction efforts since they began. In 1943, Germany’s Horten brothers designed their HoIX flying wing with wings of plywood sandwiched around a mixture of glue, sawdust and granulated charcoal. RAM would see service in the war aboard German submarines, on which a material called “Sumpf”—rubber infused with carbon granules (some sources say a magnetic filler)—was applied to snorkels and conning towers. By 1945, MIT’s Radiation Laboratory had developed a rubber material infused with disc-like aluminum flakes called MX-410 which exhibited anti-radar properties.

Lockheed’s Skunk Works and MIT radar experts tried many configurations of “Dirty Bird” U-2s, hoping to reduce RCS. The final approach was a paint loaded with carbonyl ferrite, which lowered RCS by an order of magnitude. However, none of these configurations prevented Russia from tracking the overflights.

The U-2’s successor, the CIA’s A-12 and U.S. Air Force SR-71, would use speed and altitude for protection, but the agency still insisted that Skunk Works reduce the aircraft’s RCS. The most important breakthrough came in shaping. The aircraft received a thin, curved extension to the nacelles, leading edges and fuselage. This “chine” created a continuously curving airframe with sharp edges and a largely flat underside that reduced RCS by 90%.


Source: Daniel Katz and Colin Throm/AW&ST

In addition, around 18% of the aircraft’s material was RAM. There was a coating loaded with iron ferrites and laced with asbestos to withstand the high surface temperatures at Mach 3. The vertical tails were composed almost entirely of RAM and canted inward 15 deg. The A-12’s outer edge originally consisted of triangular pieces of titanium called fillets, but in later aircraft triangles of resistive plastic honeycomb with glass-fiber surfaces, called “pie panels,” were inserted into the wing’s titanium sawtooth edges and the fuselage chines. The Blackbird ended up with an RCS equal to that of a Piper Cub, which is about 4 m2.

The Roach Motel

Unless RAM is integrated into a radar-absorbing structure, the material adds weight and volume without aiding structural integrity. Stealth design has therefore dictated using shaping to control the largest contributor to RCS, specular reflections. The first true stealth aircraft, the F-117, employed a fully faceted shape to control these and saved RAM largely to deal with cavities and surface waves.

The F-117’s skin was aluminum coated almost entirely with RAM. Originally, the material came in linoleum-like sheets of a ferrite-loaded polymer. They were bonded to the airframe’s skin in different thicknesses at different locations. Putty or paint RAM was used to cover fasteners, seal gaps and smooth uneven surfaces. Doors and access panels were sealed before every flight with metallic tape and covered in RAM. Initially, use of RAM paint was minimized as it is hard to apply at accurate thickness and requires the use of toxic solvents. Cockpit windows were coated with gold to minimize the impedance transition from the skin and block radar from penetrating the cockpit, where the pilot’s head would have an RCS 100 times larger than the aircraft.

Special attention had to be paid to engines and inlets because from the front these contribute most of a fighter’s RCS. Engineers placed a glass-fiber, absorbent-impregnated grid on the intakes that acted like a “roach motel.” Energy was absorbed on the way in and could not get out. Conveniently, the material was conductive so it could be heated to prevent icing. The filler was likely carbon, its concentration increasing from front to back. Inbound radar waves would see gradually decreasing impedance, be admitted and absorbed on the way through, and when bounced back toward the grid would see a severe impedance change and be reflected back into the ducts, which may also have been lined with RAM.

Several improvements were made to the F-117’s RAM scheme during the program. The primary coating method switched to a robotic system in which a cradle positioned the aircraft while computer-controlled nozzles applied the radar-absorbent paint. There were efforts to reduce “leading-edge RCS” and develop new RAM skins. For a time, the fleet contained multiple RAM configurations before a program launched in the late 1990s standardized them.

Edge Treatments, Silver Paint and S-Curves*

The next stealth aircraft, Northrop Grumman’s B-2, was said to rely more on shape and less on RAM than the F-117. Since the stealth fighter’s fully faceted shape dealt well with specular reflections, this likely referred to surface-wave suppression. With upper and lower surfaces composed entirely of curves, the stealth bomber’s shape has no discontinuities to create strong surface waves except for the edges of the aircraft.


Sources: Lockheed Martin and Daniel Katz and Colin Throm/AW&ST

But engineers now had a fix for this edge issue. Beginning with the B-2, all U.S. stealth aircraft have sported a distinctive “edge treatment,” visible as a different-colored band around the perimeter of the airframe. Theory suggests what lies beneath. Within the triangular wedge is a lightweight material, such as glass-fiber honeycomb, loaded with carbon in a concentration that increases from tip to base. Impedance therefore decreases from air at the tip to zero at the conductive surface behind it. This allows surface currents to transition slowly rather than abruptly, as well as be absorbed. This arrangement suppresses three contributors to RCS: edge waves by slowing surface current transitions; traveling waves by absorbing the currents; and edge diffraction by absorbing incident radar waves. RCS drops significantly from every angle and particularly at off-normal angles.

The B-2 has considerable depth for an effective absorber made of dielectric materials alone but reports also indicate the incorporation of a magnetic material for better VHF-band absorption. To enhance taper and minimize diffraction, the conductive surface beneath may also slowly transition into a narrow wedge.

While edge treatments can absorb surface currents, those currents have to reach the edges and any surface discontinuity can prevent that. The B-2 airframe used as few panels as possible to minimize gaps, but channels around doors and access panels were inevitable. Radar energy can even induce surface currents in the doors and panels themselves and, if those currents encounter discontinuities, they emit strong edge and traveling waves because the features have small dimensions. Therefore, those gaps must be bridged with conductive caulks or tapes. Around 3,000 ft. of tape was originally required for each aircraft. In addition, the B-2’s coating included a silver paint. The effect of a discontinuity depends on its size and the conductivity of its sides. Silver is the most conductive metal, so its application might minimize the effect of gaps while also absorbing currents and blocking radar penetration.

To suppress engine returns, the B-2 used a serpentine duct lined with RAM. Both shape and material are vital to this RCS reduction technique. The RAM is thin, but the inlet’s curve causes waves to bounce so many times the absorption adds up. Compared to a notional straight duct, an untreated serpentine inlet might achieve a reduction of 30 dB at boresight, but the advantage is zero outside 5 deg. off centerline. Add RAM, and RCS drops another 30 dB at boresight and stays 30-40 dB below unlined ducts, straight or curved, past 10 deg.

Changes to the B-2’s RAM scheme since the 1990s have focused on reducing the maintenance burden, as well as RCS. Better tapes were introduced along with stronger caulks with shorter curing times. In 2003-10, B-2s also received the Advanced High- Frequency Material: a magnetic RAM robotically applied to access panels to reduce time required to restore stealth after routine maintenance. Flexible “blade seals” became the conductive bridge for some panels and certain gaps were surrounded with narrow bands of magnetic RAM called “picture frames.”

The F-22 continued use of many RCS reduction techniques from the B-2. Its shape is composed of blended facets to minimize surface waves. Edge treatment is evident around wings, control surfaces and engine inlets. The intakes are S-curved and RAM-coated. Magnetic RAM is also used on certain panels and conductive techniques bridge impedance gaps.

The “Magic” Layer*and the Future of RAM

The low-observable materials developed for the B-2 and F-22 kept RCS small, but their maintenance burdens proved heavy. Their durability disappointed, necessitating frequent replacements that ballooned support costs and time while restricting aircraft availability. RAM fillers tend to be spherical, a few to tens of micrometers in size and densely packed, which is good for absorptive qualities but bad for durability. Bonding them to aircraft surfaces also proved troublesome.

From the beginning of the F-35 program, Lockheed’s goal was achieve acceptable stealth while reducing maintenance needs. Use of several RAM techniques continued, including S-curved, RAM-lined ducts, edge treatments and what appear to be picture frames abutting many gaps. Early reports also indicated the number of parts making up the skin would be minimized and laser-alignment would fit pieces so precisely “that 99% of maintenance requires no restoration of low-observable surfaces,” Lockheed says. The goal was likely to make the intensive gap-bridging procedures unnecessary.

But during development, something happened. First, program officials began hinting the F-35 might be stealthier than the F-22; hard to believe, given its less-disciplined shape. Then officials started referring to a material secret, a “conductive layer . . . where the magic happens.” In May of 2010, Tom Burbage, then executive vice president for the F-35 program, disclosed the incorporation of “fiber mat” technology, describing it as the “biggest technical breakthrough we’ve had on this program.”

The fiber mat would replace many RAM appliques by being cured into the composite skin, making it durable. Burbage further specified the mat featured a “non-directional weave”— which would ensure EM properties do not vary with angle. Baked into the skin, this layer could vary in thickness as necessary. Lockheed declined to provide further details, citing classification. Without further evidence, fiber mat would imply use of fibers, rather than particles, which would make for stronger surfaces and the word “conductive” points to carbon-based RAM.

But only a month before Burbage’s disclosure, Lockheed filed a patent claiming the first method of producing a durable RAM panel. The patent details a method for growing carbon nanotubes (CNT) on any kind of fiber—glass, carbon, ceramic or metal—with unprecedented precision in control of length, density, number of walls, connectivity and even orientation. The CNT-infused fibers can absorb or reflect radar, and connectivity among the CNTs provides pathways for induced currents.

Significantly, the CNTs can be impregnated with iron or ferrite nanoparticles. Fibers can have differing CNT densities along their lengths and homogenous fibers can be layered or mixed. The embodiments described include front layers with impedance matching air, use of quarter-wavelength depths for cancellation, stepped or continuous CNT-density gradients and continuously varying densities at specific depths for broadband absorption. The fibers can be disposed with “random orientation” in materials including “a woven fabric, a non-woven fiber mat and a fiber ply.”

The patent claims composites with CNT-infused fibers are capable of absorbing EM waves from 0.1 MHz to 60 GHz, a bandwidth unheard of in commercial absorbers, with particular effectiveness in L- through K-band. The patent does not quantify the absorptivity, but does say the panels would be “nearly a black body across . . . various radar bands.” Also, interestingly, a layer can be composed so an attached computer can read the induced currents in the fibers, making the layer a radar receiver.

While the patent mentions stealth aircraft, it does not mention the F-35 specifically, and the manufacturing readiness level of the material at the time it was granted is not known. But the proximity in timing and technology of the filing to the “fiber mat” disclosure is hard to ignore. Asked to comment on whether CNT-infused fiber RAM is in use on the F-35 and whether it is the technology to which Burbage had referred, Lockheed Martin spokesman Mike Rein stated only, “We have nothing to add to what was outlined in the patent submittal.”

Even if CNT-infused fibers are not the F-35’s “magic” layer, they may represent the new state-of-the-art in RAM. And while this may be the biggest development in the technology, it is not the only one. New materials are being tested all the time. In particular, metamaterials which use sub-wavelength geometric structures to impart qualities that do not exist in nature have received particular attention for their stealth applications. The future of stealth may be inseparable from the future of RAM.

[brar_w]

FiberMat was something that would have come into play with the iterative refinement on the F-22 had it followed an F-15 like design evolution (A--C--E). They slowed down some work and picked up once they won the JSF. There is a lot in the article that could help rationalize why multiple folks with deep understanding of the aircraft's capability, including no less than the USAF fighter aircraft boss to claim that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. A much smaller supersonic envelope, and supersonic design utilization probably also contributes to it offering a better RCS_availability which helps in the overall assessment.

The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” - Mike Hostage Commander, Air Combat Command (Retired January, 2015)

This could also help explain why Lockheed is suspected to have flown a company designed prototype when they bid as a sub on the NGB and intended to (and did) do the same on the LRS-B.

[TSJones]

Air Force plans to keep A-10 in the sky 'indefinitely'

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/ ... 420629.php

The U.S. Air Force was supposed to start phasing out the A-10 Thunderbolt II in 2017, but it appears those plans have changed.
Air Force Material Command Chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski told Aviation Week that the plane will continue to be built for the foreseeable future.

"They have re-geared up, we've turned on the depot line, we're building it back up in capacity and supply chain," Pawlikowski said in an Aviation Week interview. "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely."
The A-10 was supposed to be retired for more F-35s. Aviation Week reports the A-10 has a "critical role in the campaign against Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria," making it a popular model to continue producing.
READ MORE: Air Force wants more training space at U.S. preserve in Nevada
The Government Accountability Office in August said the Air Force hasn't proved that there's another plane available that's more cost effective than the A-10.
Until the Air Force is ordered to move on, it looks like the A-10 will continue to be used for American fights.
"My approach from a sustainment perspective is to approach this as if we're just going to continue to keep these airplanes operating," Pawlikowski told Aviation Week.
Plans to replace the A-10 have been controversial and aviation experts have argued it makes little sense to stop using the plane.
"Why build a replacement for something that needs no replacement and is already the best in the world at what it does?" FoxTrotAlpha's Tyler Rogoway wrote in April. "The Air Force has already paid for a large portion of the A-10 fleet's re-winging, a process that has added many decades of service life to the Warthog. The relatively simple aircraft is also inexpensive to upgrade, allowing to to adapt to future requirements far easier than its supersonic stablemates."

[Austin]

Soyuz MS-01 lands successfully

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-01.html#landing

[brar_w]

Plans to replace the A-10 have been controversial and aviation experts have argued it makes little sense to stop using the plane.
"Why build a replacement for something that needs no replacement and is already the best in the world at what it does?" FoxTrotAlpha's Tyler Rogoway wrote in April.

There have been no plan to replace the A-10 capability. The media created something when they thought that there were actually plans to replace it in the first place. They created an F-35 and will simply recapitalize outgoing squadrons with it as and when that happens. The USAF has tried in the past to develop an A-10 replacement and it has failed to get out of the drawing board because of cost. F-35 only fills the outgoing squadrons with new aircraft not replace the capability on a like for like basis.

The Congress can ask them to develop an A-10 replacement. Its actually quite easy. Just include the funding in the next budget. As it is, these folks (Sally and McCain but many others as well) can't even overcome their own party's fiscal_conservative wing and get the current (Obama) levels funded w/o a fight. The USAF wanted to push the A-10 retirement ahead, and given the budget control act and its impact on readiness, this was actually a smart thing to do since it meant the USAF had a more 'available' and ready force on the other side as opposed to funding each and every enterprise to a level that was inadequate from a readiness perspective. The last thing the USAF wants is to become a sustained tiered readiness force. Unfortunately, if you keep resisting every damn strategy to move money and priorities around you'll end up with just that.

Up next, expect the next round of BRAC to go a similar path. Everyone agrees that the bases need to be trimmed, and its the biggest chunk of money that can be used elsewhere but no one wants their base gone.

[Austin]

#Exp49

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Exp49?src=hash

[Austin]

Seems like the author is suggesting US Advancement in Hypersonic Program where US is leader will lead to China and Russia arming similar but less advanced program with Nuclear weapons.

USA's hypersonic programme could rile Russia and China

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... hi-429952/

[brar_w]

Hilborne says that both China and Russia are developing their own air-launched hypersonic weapons, but have revealed little about their programmes, in sharp contrast to the USA's transparency over its PGS effort.

The difference b/w the two systems that are funded are the range, payload and the tactical nature. The plans of using conventional ICBMS or similar systems for PGS are not funded at all. The two program that are funded have to do with TBG (bomber launched), and air breathing scramjet (HSSW). There is currently no funding to completion for the type of ranges the article seems to be suggesting.

Vis-a-vis Russian programs, there is no reason to believe that a tactical air launched glider won't be treaty compliant (the 50% flight trajectory) while no such treaty exists with China. One could clearly go down the list of things that the Chinese may themselves already field, that can be construed as an immenent escalatory risk. For starters, their vast superiority in conventional ballistic missiles (SRBM's, MRBM's and IRBM's) that the US cannot match given its treaty obligations.

Payload ambiguity is always a matter of going through the target lists and looking at the escalatory risks. There is really no way to tell definitively whether a particular cruise missile is a TLAM or an ALCM and that applies to all such nations that have dual capability long range cruise missiles. A medium to intermediate range ballistic missile launched towards a strategic assets also comes with plenty of such issues. But those things are sorted out at the doctine level just as they have been for years since most of the great powers already have these systems in service. You'd be quite stupid to escalate a situation by launching say half a dozen TLAM's aimed at Russian or Chinese strategic assets, and you will be equally dumb to retaliate with nuclear strike if you see cruise missiles coming towards your troop concentrations or A2AD assets.

[Austin]

^^ I agree the INF treaty has become a sort of restrictive regime between US & Russia that has probably lost meaning and relevance since late 80's when the treaty was signed , China has MRBM/IRBM program , India has , North Korea and so are no many country in the world.

Same goes with START Treaty which is really between Russia and US while the rest of world has no obligation in restricting the warhead or the type of carriers.

I think it is high time to nullify the INF and START Treaty as this has little relevance in current era when other big powers be it rest of P-5 , China India , Pakistan etc are not in any way restricted by its programs or warhead numbers

[Austin]

brar would you have any updated information on PAC-3 MSE program ,details if available , Thanks.

[brar_w]

Nothing much beyond what is widely written about it. It is a high load / anti raid weapon designed to counter more capable ballistic missiles than either the PAC-2, or the PAC-3. It is a complement to the THAAD with eventual plans to have a shared launcher and coexistence of these systems so that the AN/TPY-2 can pass on cues directly to the interceptor in EOR or Forward pass mode bypassing the current IBCS loop as is the case with the PAC-3/MSE and AN/MPQ-64. The concept was created to defeat massive ballistic missile raids so they went with a system that protected a smaller area from lots of missiles, vs a very large area from a few missiles (like the Standard Missile Family). The fact that these systems are expeditionary and in support of forward deployed troops also helps make the decision a lot easier.

The dual-pulse gives it better divert capability against more challenging target types compared to the baseline PAC-3, which roughly translates to doubling of the range and an intercept altitude increase of around 50%. The out-of plane maneuver allows it to have both higher laodouts through the current launcher (w/o 90 degrees) and 360 degree capability so they get the best of both the worlds. For reference on baseline PAC-3 one can look at the distance between target launch site, and interceptor launch site on a few of the PAC-3 (non MSE) tests to get an idea of what range BM's the system has countered or could counter. My guess is that the MSE shares a small envelope with the THAAD in the lower ranged MRBM category (1100-1200 km at a much lower altitude of course). They have mixed MSE and non MSE load out configurations now, and that gets them to 14 missiles pre launcher (6 MSE's and 8 non MSE's) vs 12 MSE's or 16 non MSE's per the same launcher.

On the Patriot, the full capability won't be realized until the new radar comes out, and this is what Raytheon and Lockheed will be fighting for over the next couple of years. the MEADS MFCR can utilize the full weapon capability even now but obviously a 360 rotating array isn't going to meet the US army's revisit rate requirement when in Ballistic missile defense mission w/o stopping the radar and therefore loosing 360 degree capability. A new sensor is also likely to boost the TVM_limited range of the PAC-2 to closer to, if not beyond 200 km for air-breathing threats compared to the current 160 km.

Originally, when the ERINT plan was developed, there were to be at least 3 capability drops along the way to match the SRBM threat advancement. The PAC-3 was to be the first one, the MSE represents the second one that imrpoves the PAC-3 against more advanced threats and there is yet another one expected that brings in the ability to do higher altitude interecepts at similar ranges to the MSE. The way I look at it is the PAC-2 envelope equivalent of the MSE. This is outside of the THAAD cover. Raytheon has already shown interest in competing for such a weapon (perhaps they'll use the SM6 technology) so its likely that it wouldn't be just an adaptation of the PAC-3 design. Other than that the family includes a plan for a Low Cost Interceptor aimed at simple short ranged (a few hundred km ranged) ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft. At the moment Raytheon offers its SkyCeptor which is the Stunner system that IAI and Raytheon developed.

More long term they would probably want to replace the thousands of PAC-2's they have in the inventory as well even though you pay a massive cost in magazine depth (4:1) if you carry the long range interceptors along. I'm not sure how much the ballistic missile threat will allow them to make that trade so you'll probably see fewer and fewer PAC-2's deployed in the future just given the ripple fire doctrine and the type of raid scenarios they modeled when they embarked on the H2K road.

https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/SA_0711.pdf