Sintra“Boeing Prepares T-X For First Flight As Competition Intensifies”
We are going to see a joint Boeing/SAAB advanced trainer in less than a year…
And a Northrop one…
Yeaaahhh :applause:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-prepares-t-x-first-flight-competition-intensifies
SintraF-35B Declares IOC
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/u.s.-marine-corps-declares-the-f-35b-operational
Beat me to it 🙂
Congratulations to the JSF team.
Sintratalk about bogus
the X-45A succesfully executed an autonomous training mission in 2005
BAe suggested it made great progress with the Mantis and Taranis programs
NG, Boeing, LMT and GA all say they can have UCAVs ready before 2020
the technology is there. there’s no reason it would take another 15 years to get FCAS ready, other than to keep it from competing with the F-35
– FCAS will be available (if and) when the joint partners, Great Britain and France, actually agree to contract a production version of the two full scale demonstrators (one French and one British) that are tentatively scheduled to fly circa 2023, the date for that final production version (if it ever happens) is precisely “2030´s”, mind you those two dates are entirely official and PUBLIC (if past history of European joint developments are any indication, those dates are bloody optimistic)
– The US Navy UCLASS has been sent to the “right”, the internal battle around the specifications of the system (“more recon or more strike and vice versa”) has not been solved, the RFP to the industry that a few years ago was going to be issued in 2014 was deferred to “one day”. When the RFP is actually issued and having an idea of what actually the US Navy wants then a time line can be discussed. If an evolved stealth long range strike drone (option “more strike”) is chosen, then it will have a time line not too different of the European project mentioned above.
– USAF MQX, went dead around 2012, including the rejection of General Atomics Avenger C by the USAF
– An optionaly manned LRBS its entirely out of this discussion by obvious reasons
– NG RQ180 wont be available for obvious reasons
Are you aware of any other Western Stealth UCAV program? I am not.
I am aware of quite a number of prototypes, all related to the programs that i´ve listed above, but the dam thing is that no one in the industry (be that Boeing, Northrop, LM, GA, BAE, Dassault, Piaggio, Selex, IAI, whoever) is going to develop a highly advanced combat system without some MOD footing the bill, and the Finnish MOD doesn’t have the kind of budget to pay that bill, so it must acquire systems developed (and payed) by some other chaps, and those chaps are either the USAF, the US Navy, or a Pan European group, not one of them has a requirement for an evolved stealth UCAV that would remotely fit your personal bill and the Finish AF time frame.
The end.
SintraHow do you say “anti-F-35” blog in Finnish?
Very similar to “the F-35A is cheaper to acquire and operate than a Gripen” in Norwegian?
I´ll get me hat… :angel:
SintraGripen + nEuron offspring would fulfill all those needs
made right across the border, easy to maintain, cheap, and stealth
plus long range, also a big plus for Finland’s borders
Being very optimistic a “Neuron offspring” (its called “FCAS”) will be available for evaluations circa +2030. Its entirely irrealistic to expect the Finnish air force to seriously look at hardware that will only be available in the mid thirties. This is a straight toss between the F-35A and the Gripen, any unmanned component looked at will be a recon/ISTAR platform with (maybe) a bit of (very) light attack added, think Predator or a Israeli solution (on a stretch the Italians might offer something) in very small numbers to add to a manned combat jet fleet.
SintraSo where are Aerospatiale and Westland now?
Oh, right — mergers. This despite dominating the civilian market and enjoying the fruits of Cold War R&D.
In the eighties there were four European helicopter producers, now there are two, now do the exact same math for the American helicopter industry… See a pattern?
The ugly truth for the American Helicopter Industry is that they are following the exact same path has the shipbuilding industry, that is almost totaly dependent of the Pentagon.
So with civilian market penetration static (in a best case scenario) and the fruits of the Cold War now having been exhausted, coupled with anemic long-term economic growth prospects across Europe coupled with political ideology/priorities that de-emphasises both military spending and state investment of all kinds, the question is when Airbus and AgustaWestland will merge.
The main markets of Airbus and AgustaWestland are not in Europe, they are not dependent on military/government orders unlike everyone else and in case you havent noticed the ones who are merging are the chaps called Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin.
Sintra. Up to now Klimov import those blades, but not from Ukraine, but from Novorussia, because production of turbine blades for Motor Sich is in SMZ in Snezhoe town in DNR, Novorussia. I don’t think Ukrainian Motor Sich produce any engine as I doubt Novorussia sell those turbine blades to Ukraine.
Dear Christ…
Sintrathey will act as reflectors
More than what they already did?
Tmor pointed correctly that the strakes were already there, Eurofighter simply redesign them and I really doubt that anyone can judge the RCS diferences between DA7 with the AMK versus a “normal” airframe by simply looking at them.
Sintrathe extra strakes will increase rcs, shock horror
Why?
SintraSure, that’ll work for the next decade or so. After that the Americans with their FVL-derived next-gen platforms will eat the high-end and the Chinese will eat the low end.
The American government is doing that (for military applications) and eventually the benefits will percolate into the civilian market.
Been earing that for roughly three and a half decades Rii. By around 1980 Bell was going to wipe out Aerospatiale, Westland, etc, based on its work on the XV-15, a decade later it was going to be Sikorsky piggy backing on Pentagon money through LHX, etc, etc…
SintraAnother weird editor note:
How can someone passing as a professional in aviation journalism steps on his own foot in a matter of two short lines?
Are Defense-Aerospace.com staffs summed to work 24/7 non-stop carving their article directly on the rotative’s drums for such inattention?
Quick, quick, collect and send your spare Jambon Beurre in Paris!
Yep
Loved this bit:
suggesting the Ospreys are not as well-equipped as originally planned, their support package much smaller, or both
“Not as well equiped” in this case means “without engines and a few other bits and bobs”.
SintraIf that was an attempt at humour, don’t quit your day job…
As for reading comprehension, the conclusion that you “ridiculed” makes perfect sense. The original package content was known to include a large support component whereas the content of the new package is unknown but comes cheaper per airframe. Hence the reason for the discrepancy is likely less support or less options or both, geddit?
The Pentagon contracted Boeing for the exact amount that it takes to build an MV-22 for the Marine Corps minus the Government funded items, and thats a pair of engines by aircraft, and quite a bit of electronics, only after those items are included we get anything near the cost to actually build a MV-22, thats a 2015 Fly Away Unit Cost of around ~72 million US$.
The actual unit cost for Japan (vastly superior to whats on that contract) will look something like this = ($332 million + Governent funded items + hardware/software specified by Japan + 3,5% of the total acquisition cost FMS fee + manuals + whatever suport Japan specified + whatever training Japan specified)/5
I am willing to bet that the unit cost will look very similar to the one of the FMS letter.
SintraDoes anyone have any clue what they are thinking of operating off the carriers?
This from the Defence Minister:
“There is a system that will be going through a concept demonstration next year. The uses of that will be for the Royal Navy to decide if they decide to procure a system in due course.”
Either that glorified Sokol (AKA RWUAS) or something around Agusta Westland “Project Zero”.
This last one would be sweet.
SintraOn the contrary, if both parties were using their own radars in a 1-v-1 scenario, that’s a situation where the Eurocanards would have fair-to-good chance against the F-35. Disregarding the LPI element, and (generously) assuming parity in ESM systems, there are three ways that could play out in a head-on BVR setup –
1. EF/Rafale/Gripen E radiates all the way. F-35 locks onto and closes in to missile range undetected. Launches first. Remains undetected.
2. F-35 radiates all the way. Follows erratic course to get around FoV limitations. EF/Rafale locks on at long range. F-35 locks on at medium range. Both close in to effective missile range and launch together. EF/Rafale retains energy advantage. F-35 retains VLO edge (reduced range for hostile seeker).
3. Both fly silent. Close into short range relying on passive systems (EOTS/Talios). Luckier pilot wins.
_______________________________
In all other standard setups/situations, where off-board targeting is available to both aircraft (from an AWACS or friendly fighter), the F-35 closes in to missile range undetected and shoots first. Every time.
You have access to the RCS/ESM/IR sensitivity/etc specifications of all those platforms?!
SintraSeveral articles have postulated about the ability of a high agility AESA radar with EA features being able to physically damage seekers (they were specifically talking about the APG-81).
Think of putting the seeker into a multi kilo-megawatt microwave oven for a few seconds and watch the sparks literally fly.
OH yes, i´ve read them, highly amusing. Bulls***
The kind of energy needed to generate enough High Power Microwaves capable of actually inflicting physical damages on anything is not available on a PHEMP based AESA radar of that size/power output.The AN/APG-81 has what? A peak power around 16-20 KW? The “old” Ranets E had what? 400/500 MW?
Until someone actually anounces that particular capability has been tested (and i believe that we are not going to ear nothing for a very long time) on a system with such such low power output its entirely useless to even think of it and much less to write about it. The AN/APG-81 wont be frying electronic sensors for, well, decades, if ever.
Sign In
