GlendoraAn article of last june: Researchers use spoofing to ‘hack’ into a flying drone
The spoofed drone used an unencrypted GPS signal, which is normally used by civilian planes, says Noel Sharkey, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.
“It’s easy to spoof an unencrypted drone. Anybody technically skilled could do this – it would cost them some £700 for the equipment and that’s it,”
But it’s hard to believe that the americans are using unencrypted signals to control their drones over Iran.
GlendoraOK
thank you for the input, but can you confirm that the deal includes 673 billion won (around $53 milions) for 134 AESA radars to be chosen between RACR and SABR or Aviation Week misunderstood the terms of the contract and the cost for the radars will be added to the current $1.6 billion ( 1.80 trillion won) deal after a future contract?
GlendoraQuestion about Korean F-16 Upgrade Contract
I have a question about the Korean F-16 Upgrade Contract.
From: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_06_2012_p38-482308.xml&p=2
South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Agency (DAPA) chose BAE to upgrade the 134 fighters because its quoted price—$750 million—was lower than that of rival Lockheed Martin, which asked for more than $1 billion…
Adding equipment and engineering to be supplied by equipment makers, plus local installation work, the Korean upgrade program will reportedly cost 1.80 trillion won ($1.60 billion), of which 673 billion won appears to be allocated to the radar.
The most important element of the Korean upgrade is an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. This is to be selected separately by DAPA, between the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar (Racr) and Northrop Grumman’s Scalable Agile Beam Radar (Sabr).
So from AW it seems that the costs are well defined, with the total cost of the program for updating 134 F-16 being $1.60 billion, of which around one third (673 billion won) allocated to the radars to be chosen between RACR and SABR.
Well, I know that the new generation of AESA radars is less expensive then the previous one.
Nevertheless this figure sound to me a bit optimistic / too low. Is it possible that Aviation Week misunderstood in some way that terms of the contract and the contract does not yet include the radars, or the article is correct and each radar will cost just below $4 milion circa (that would be quite intersting)?
Thank you for any input on the matter
Glendora1. Yes, foreign F-35 pilots must train in the US.
2. All new F-35 pilots must fly in the F-16Ds before getting into an F-35, US and foreign pilots alike. Experienced pilots transitioning from F-16, F/A-18, Typhoon, F-15 need not fly in the F-16D.Not all airforces train to same standard.
But you said merely meeting the KPP requires airframe modifications, which changes the whole equation because of increased expense and performance changes resulting from the weight increase.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-020111-F-35-T38-F16D-web/
The F-16D cannot be the permanent training solution and the T-X trainer must take over the role. Now, which trainer can replace the F-16D?
– T-50 F414
– Boeing new-build trainer
– Gripen trainer
SlowMan your disinformation is becoming shameless and shameless.
The Israelian Air Force, which is going to operate the F-35, did not select your beloved T-50 as advanced trainer, they chose the M-346 and you can be sure that they train their pilots to the highest standards.
They don’t give a zhil about supersonic speed or A/B in training, and still they have a vital need for the most efficient pilots and for optimizing the costs for training.
UK will never buy T-50, Gripens or Boeing trainers, same for Italy. And they both will operate the F-35, can you understand this?
Both Countries are more then happy with their LIFTs and you can be sure that even if BAE or Alenia will not win the T-X context the UK and Italian pilots will never train for the F-35 on a T-50 or a Gripen.
Still, this not implies a lower level of training, as the IAF selection showed. On the other hand I cannot see any Country which will operate the F-35 opting right now for the T-50.
An advanced trainer must be an agile and smooth machine, capable to sustain a high number of G at certain conditions (the better if the costs of operation and procurement are lower). It has not to be Korean and supersonic to be effective.
The KPP for the T-X don’t take into account supersonic speed or afterburners, are you still able to read them at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=517f912be4db8a348e0e88a4803b5c4f ?
And don’t try again to claim that the T-50 is the only a/c able to meet the KPP for the T-X, as you did in http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=114285&page=5 Sintra already showed that your claims were void, your everlasting “The T-50 is the only aircraft fit for the task” mantra is just complete BS.
Time for you to give up making shameless disinformation.
GlendoraThis is a very silly reply to a criticism of an article for implying that it is not in production. The first delivery to the first customer (the AMI) was a year ago, November 2011.
Ehm I already pointed out to our friend the difference between “production” and “service” a few messages above.
Anyway for sake of correct information, I have to say that currently the 2 M-346 delivered to the AMI are currently undergoing testing at the AMI’s testing squadron (RSV), so technically they are not in service yet for their ultimate training purpose.
Nevertheless I have already indicated that the a/c delivered to Singapore entered service, since it was delivered to the 150 Squadron of the Republic of Singapore Air Force, based at Cazaux, France, which is a training squadron, not a testing squadron.
GlendoraThe M-346 isn’t in service yet.
Which still is different from having an aircraft not yet in production as was stated in the text you quoted, isn’t it?
Anyway I have some news for you:
Basically, the first lines say:
18/11/2012
The first Alenia Aermacchi M-346 for Singapore has arrived in France
The first advanced trainer Alenia Aermacchi M-346 of the Republic of Singapore Air Force arrived Friday on the French base of Cazaux, home of the Franco-Belgian flight school at which the Asian country carries out part of its training procedure.
So the first a/c for Singapore officially entered service on Friday the 16th of November 2012 and another of your claims resulted as false.
GlendoraWhat are you trying to prove SlowMan?
He’s trying to prove that the T-50 is such an advanced aircraft that the pilots will start to train on it just after that they are fully qualified with both the F-35 and the F-22 :diablo:.
GlendoraYou don’t have to refer to that DI to tell that the T-50 is the higher performance jet of two. Both the T-50 and the M-346 have flown displays in same airshows several times and the T-50 simply dominates performance wise.
It has been since page 5 of this thread that you keept writing that the T-50 dominates the air and it’s the best aircraft ever produced, even if the IAF did not selected it (I imagine you consider that the IAF choice was wrong, since they did not attend your supposed airshows :D)
Nevertheless, you did not back up your claims with reliable data. Often you just make mere disinformation as in the above quote and in your training models of 3 posts above which are just laughable.
I am afraid that your fanboy attitude is trying to turn this discussion in a nonsense like the everlasting F-35 thread.
GlendoraHowever, the Defense Industry daily observed recently that the performance profile and ordnance-carrying capability of the M-346, similar to the Russian Yak-130, “in a pinch is probably the closest to the Skyhawk’s.”
Oh they are refferring to the Defense Industry Daily. The same source I linked in my previous post. So I assume you consider the Defense Industry Daily a reliable source.
Let’s see again what they wrote: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Israels-Skyhawk-Scandal-05105/
Militarily, the chosen M346’s performance profile, and theoretical ordnance-carrying capability in a pinch, are probably the closest to the Skyhawk’s. It was also designed with Italy’s F-35A/B purchase in mind, which reportedly gave it an advantage in Israel.
So this sounds a bit different form your simple equation “T-50 = F-16, while M-346 = A-4”, isn’t it?
And again, since you deem the Defense Industry Daily a reliable source for reporting IAF’s thoughts on the matter, I assume you agree with them when thtey state:
Italy’s M-346 eventually beat KAI’s supersonic T-50, thanks to a combination of air force evaluations, geo-political considerations, and countervailing industrial offers.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Italy-Israel-A-Billion-Dollar-Offer-They-Didnt-Refuse-07476/
and
The Air Force found that the M-346 cost less, and a defense official said that it better meets the Air Force’s needs.
….
I flew the Korean plane…. The Italian plane is a combination. It integrates the F-16, the F-15 and the Eurofighter. The Italian plane…. already looks on to the F-35 and can be compatible with training for it. It prepares us better for the future….
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/…Scandal-05105/
So it seems that you deem reliable the Defense Industry Daily, from which I quoted many of my previous assumptions in the last 2 posts; basically you are confirming what I wrote.
Anyway too much ping-pong posting for me here. I’ll be silent on the matter for a while, I don’t want to monopolize the discussion here with you 🙂
GlendoraThe actual IAF analogy is that the T-50 = F-16, while M-346 = A-4.
Sorry but your equation “M-346 = A-4” is complete disinformation and I cannot find any reference of the IAF making such statement. You should try to backup such an assertion with some proof. Where and when the IAF made an analogy between the Master and the Skyhawk while implying at the same that time that the T-50 is an aircraft of next generation?
For sure I cannot read of this equation in http://iaf.co.il/4379-38563-en/IAF.aspx .
Please supply proof that IAF made such an analogy, else you are just making disinformation.
You still think that the fly-by-wire quadruple-redundant control system, the advanced HMD and the integration of the simulated radar by Elbit in the M-346 are just details that did not impact Israel’s choice, so you imply that the IAF bought an aircraft with the same capabilities of the very aging Skyhawks. I am afraid you don’t give enough consideration to the “brain” of an aircraft.
The Israeli decision was strictly a political and an economical decision(M-346 cheaper to operate than the more thirsty T-50), not a technical decision.
Isn’t the operating cost of an aircraft a technical parameter anymore?
I am again afraid that you are unable to see the actual points of strength of the M-346 and you just blame the Israel’s politicians for not choosing your favorite bird.
The IAF choice was made after technical, political and economical evaluations.
About the IAF decision, see: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Italy-Israel-A-Billion-Dollar-Offer-They-Didnt-Refuse-07476/
Italy’s M-346 eventually beat KAI’s supersonic T-50, thanks to a combination of air force evaluations, geo-political considerations, and countervailing industrial offers.
and http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Israels-Skyhawk-Scandal-05105/
The Air Force found that the M-346 cost less, and a defense official said that it better meets the Air Force’s needs.
GlendoraWhile I conceed that the T-50 could give an in flight experience similiar to the F-16, and that at the moment the T-38 is far from giving the necessary training for an advanced 5th gen fighter, you seem to imply that the T-50 is the only jet suitable for the task.
Well, I don agree with the latter. Let me quote an officer of the Israeli Air Force who evaluated both the T-50 and the M-346: http://iaf.co.il/4379-38563-en/IAF.aspx
“I flew the Korean plane and it’s a lot like the F-16. In that aspect it has many advantages, seeing as it is easy to get used to the plane and continue from it directly to the F-16. Of course, it is a little smaller and less powerful, but it is similar to the F-16 in its operation.
The Italian plane is a combination. It integrates the F-16, the F-15 and the Eurofighter. It’s a dual-engine aircraft while the Korean plane has one engine, which is an important security aspect, but has less experience than the Korean aircraft which is already serving as an instructional plane.We weighed each pro and con: in suitability, capabilities, security, instruction and readiness and arrived at the conclusion that in spite of the lack of experience, the Italian plane is preferable. It already looks on to the F-35 and can be compatible with training for it. It prepares us better for the future, and that was also a consideration”.
The avionics, the HMD and the systems of the M-346 are enough sophisticated to provide the advanced training needed for a 5th gen. fighter.
GlendoraI think Northrop Grumman should brake out the F-5F plans and a pencil lets face it F5F has much the same performance as these new jets its 7000lb weapons load is more than Yak-130- M346
Gentlemen, may I kindly ask from now on to refer to the Yak-130 and to the M-346 as to two different aircrafts?
We have enough clues to state that these birds do not share much at present time.
I am not saying that “A is better then B”, just can we acknowledge the current differences?
GlendoraAfter interest expressed by Vietnam and Malaysia also Bangladesh wants to buy Russia’s Yak-130 aircraft
Bangladesh’s air forces are interested in buying Russia’s jet trainer/light attack aircraft Yak-130, Sergey Kornev, a representative of the Rosoboronexport (Russia’s state intermediary agency for exports/imports of defense-related products) said Thursday.
He was speaking at the China Airshow 2012 which is underway in the Chinese city of Zhuhai.
Kornev added that Russia will grant a loan to Bangladesh to buy 12 Yak-130 planes and Su-27 jet fighters. He did not mention the sum of the loan.
“As far as I know the loan has been approved. Within its amount Bangladesh can choose the number of planes it will buy and their modifications”, he said.
GlendoraSorry, I cannot see from the pictures that you posted any evidence of the M-346 unable to use an UARRSI.
Instead I have to point you to this link: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-industry-prepare-for-t-38-replacement-343393/
The M-346 also may be adapted with a universal aerial slipway installation, which would allow the aircraft to be refuelled in-flight by a boom-equipped tanker.
Alenia has been already qualifying the M-346 for probe and basket refueling: http://www.difesanews.it/archives/rifornimento-in-volo-per-lm-346-di-alenia-aermacchi
Frankly I cannot see from the pictures you kindly posted any evidence to controvert the Alenia’s statement about the capability of the M-346 to use also the boom method, implementing an UARRSI.
Regards
GlendoraAbout the AW-101 VVIP Indian deal, it seems that the delivery of the AW101s to India is proceeding, and that the Indian MoD considered the contract regular and without discrepancies.
From http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/11/us-finmeccanica-ceo-idUSBRE8AA08O20121111 of the 11 of November:
An Indian defense ministry official confirmed on Thursday that Finmeccanica would deliver the first of the helicopters in the so-called VVIP Indian order by December.
From the same link emerges that Finmeccanica is open to splitting CEO and chairman roles also in light of the recent corruption probes.
Sign In
