VnomadAbout 2 per Yankee carrier is being generous as the current gen of ABM and missile defense interceptors should not be capable of engaging a cruise missile with a mach 10 maneuvering terminal phase pretty much at all.
Any missile attempting hard maneuvers at Mach 10 inside the troposphere is liable to get its wings ripped off. The mechanical limitations that apply to steering a hypersonic missile remain the same as those that apply to a warhead.
The nuclear powered cruise missile is going to make for probably the ultimate EW platform as much as it is a doomsday weapon.
If Russia has managed to miniaturize a nuclear reactor to the size of a barrel (which would be an engineering achievement of incredible proportions), using it to power a missile (instead of revolutionizing the aircraft industry) is the least imaginative application for it.
VnomadThanks.
VnomadWhat’s happening at 1:08? What’s “Thor”? Paint?
VnomadIf the guys in charge in France have the balls they should do the same with the F-35, they have so much more to lose than us
Err.. no. Its quite the other way round. According to this article, in 2016, France’s defence exports to the US ranged around $1-2 bn while US defence exports to France were worth $350 mil.
with a program which will already be seen in the next coming years as one of the most laughable in aviation history…
I imagine that’s a cathartic thought, as its order book and customer base continue to grow, now possibly extending to India & UAE.
VnomadRafale M would allow Belgium to operate from either CdG or Nimitz class carriers in case of crises.
Why are they evaluating the Eurofighter & F-35A instead of the Super Hornet and F-35C then?
On one hand is the argument that Belgium doesn’t need stealth aircraft because first-day-of-war missions can be carried out by other NATO states. On the other hand, is this idea that a naval fighter contribution from Belgium would be viable, despite the fact that the MN already has 45 Rafales for one 40 kt carrier.
In fact, if Belgium wanted a maritime role for the BAC, the F-35Bs suggested by mrmalaya would make much more sense. At least we know the RN has two 60 kt carriers with only 48 units in immediate planning and could use a Belgium reinforcement. Not that any such thing is really likely.
VnomadNo. For one thing, the F-22 isn’t export-cleared – its systems haven’t been secured against leakage (unlike the F-35’s; notwithstanding the cyber-espionage embarrassment). For another, once the floodgates open, denying the same to Japan, Australia, Israel would have been perceived as a snub. Unless it was made available to them as well after which you have South Korea, Turkey and potentially others standing in line. Would have also hurt the F-35 program.
VnomadF15 and Tornado
Seconded. Best option assuming budget no bar.
Covers all bases. Air superiority/interception + strike/recce/SEAD.
VnomadThis site claims the Rafale costs $115 Million each without initial spares, weapons, ect…
Ajai Shukla’s just repeating what was widely reported at the time of the Rafale deal. The “bare-bones” cost to India i.e. the flyaway cost was –
Rafale C: €91.7 mil ($114 mil)
Rafale B: €94 mil ($117 mil)
____________________________________
Deal’s breakdown
Aircraft: €3,420 mil
Weapons: €710 mil
Customization; ~€1,700 mil
Support & Spares: ~€1,800 mil
PBL: €353 mil
Total: €7,870 mil
VnomadThis has been reported in various places however AFAIK they all point back to the orginial report from Aja Shukla.
Uhh.. no. This was first reported by Saurabh Joshi last month.
IAF mulls F-35 order
The Indian Air Force (IAF) is considering the possibility of an order for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, according to sources in the Ministry of Defence. With deliberations at an early stage, it is understood the IAF will be writing to ask for more information on the fifth generation fighter.
Then Vivek Lall, VP, Lockheed Martin (point person for LM’s India campaign) inadvertently let a little something slip while doing a boilerplate interview about their F-16 pitch –
The F-16 Block 70 has been termed as old technology that LM is pushing hard for the IAF — what do you plan to do to take the discussions forward, especially as the IAF, to mitigate the shortfall of fighters, is acquiring the indigenous ‘Tejas’ Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)?
The F-16 Block 70 being offered specifically to India is uniquely the best state-of-the-art fighter. No other advanced fourth-generation platform even comes close to matching the record of real-world combat experience and proven operational effectiveness. The India-specific state-of-the-art fighter on offer and its programme’s size, scope and success enables Indian industry to take advantage of unprecedented manufacturing, upgrade and sustainment opportunities well into the future. As you are aware, the IAF is keen on the F-35 and is also not keen on single-engine aircraft… Many of the systems used on the India-specific platform are derived from key lessons learned and technologies from Lockheed Martin’s F-22 and the F-35, the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighters. It is important to note that all three variants of the F-35 are single-engine aircraft.
And then Ajai Shukla’s article was published yesterday –
Capability jump: IAF looks to buy fifth-generation F-35 fighter
In what would be a huge capability jump, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is increasingly interested in procuring the American F-35 Lightning II for its depleting fighter fleet.
Business Standard learns the IAF top brass is formally requesting for a classified briefing by the F-35’s prime builder, Lockheed Martin, on the capabilities of the sophisticated, fifth-generation fighter developed under the US Joint Strike Fighter programme.
For Lockheed Martin, an Indian request for the F-35 would create a dilemma. The US company would rather have the IAF buy the F-16 Block 70, which it has offered to build in India in partnership with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL).
For Lockheed Martin, that would keep alive the F-16 assembly line, which has long functioned from Fort Worth, Texas, and has now moved temporarily to Greenville, South Carolina, where it is building a $2.8 billion order from Bahrain for 19 F-16V fighters.
VnomadDon’t talk to journalists, Canadian government warns companies interested in fighter jet contract
Companies interested in the Liberal government’s planned purchase of new fighter jets have been told not to talk to journalists despite claims by federal officials the process will be open and transparent.
Those company representatives taking part in the Jan. 22 industry day in Ottawa, which outlined initial details about the proposed $19 billion acquisition, were required to sign a form agreeing not to share information with the media, according to documents obtained by Postmedia.
“Your registration to this event acknowledges your agreement to not share information or materials obtained at the event with the media, and certifies that you are not a member of the media,” the form noted.
The Liberal government’s quest to buy new fighter jets has been controversial, with mixed signals and bungled deals.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said earlier his government would not buy the F-35 stealth fighter, claiming it didn’t work. His government later reversed course, adding that F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin was welcome to offer their plane to Canada in any competition.
In 2016, the Liberals launched a plan to buy new Super Hornet jets from Boeing as an interim measure, only to scuttle that deal a year later because of a trade war involving the U.S. firm.
Instead, the government says it will now buy used F-18 jets from Australia.
The gag order on the industry day event was forwarded to Postmedia by company representatives concerned about the excessive government secrecy on a program that will cost taxpayers $19 billion.
Public Services and Procurement Canada did not comment on the issue.
But it is not the first attempt by the Liberals to crack down on what information might make its way to the public or news media about the multi-billion program.
In November 2016 it was revealed the Liberal government brought in an unprecedented gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program.
The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions undertaken by the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit as well as clandestine operations by the country’s spies, military sources say.
The permanent non-disclosure agreements were uncovered by Conservative defence critic James Bezan after he requested information through the House of Commons “inquiry of ministry” process.
The information provided to Bezan noted that 121 individuals at the Department of National Defence were required to sign the non-disclosure agreement, 39 at Public Services and Procurement Canada; and 18 at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The rest of the 235 were employed by the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, Department of Justice and Privy Council Office.
Five other individuals working on the fighter jet replacement project who are under contract to DND were also required to sign the non-disclosure agreement or NDA.
“The NDA is a life-time agreement,” the response to Bezan noted. Persons signing the NDA are considered “persons permanently bound to secrecy” on the future fighter jet capability project, it added.
Defence industry executives and retired public servants say they have never seen such secrecy surrounding an equipment program.
The DND claimed that such agreements have been used with procurement staff before on occasion.
But Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister for materiel at the DND, has said that he had never heard of such agreements. Over the years Williams oversaw hundreds of equipment projects at both DND and Public Works, worth billions of dollars.
The fighter jet industry day involved some 200 participants from 108 companies. Some of those who attended questioned why government officials at the meeting could only provide basic details about the fighter jet program. Industry representatives noted that the purchase, which would see a contract awarded in 2021 or 2022, seems drawn out, considering federal procurement officials have been involved in trying to buy a new jet since 2010.
Vnomadwhat kind of additional modifications will the Izumo need for the F-35s?
Heat protection for the the flight deck. Navigational aids. Repair & maintenance facilities in the aircraft hangar. Storage for spares, munitions & consumables. And so on.
would they need to modify the deck to make it more angled? or perhaps a ski jump?
No. Neither are present on the Wasp & America classes.
VnomadWell if one desire to maximize number of modules with given antenna aperture, higher frequency would be preferred. and i went on 10 GHz just for the sake of assumption and it’s quite reasonable for early estimate.
My point is that if you want to operate your radar across a band of frequencies, the number of T/R modules you’d populate the array with would correspond to the lowest frequency required. Right? For example, wouldn’t an antenna with module density ideal for 10 GHz and above suffer distortion at say.. 9 GHz?
I would think at least, for a fighter FCR AESA, spanning most of the X-band would be par for the course, even at the cost of a lower net wattage.
VnomadI found 55 cm to be reasonable for the RBE-2 Antenna size prob i would use 60 cm. If we assume 3 cm wavelength (10 GHz) and 95% “fill efficiency” The number of TRM will be 1003. Going higher frequency say 12 GHz would allow 1445 modules to be packed.
Well the dia. you take is the operative factor. At 60 cm, the max no. of TRMs would be 1000 but at 55 cm that falls to 840 (all else remaining the same).
Also, X-band is 8 GHz to 12 Ghz, so wouldn’t one normally take the lower end of the spectrum as the limiting case?
VnomadIt does when it comes to AESA/PESA antennas. In order to be able to steer the beam, then the signal from one T&R needs to “interfere” with the T&R next to it. This requires precise spacing.
That impacts the density of the T/R modules. It does not impact the size of the antenna, which will remain a constant until the aircraft undergoes rhinoplasty.
VnomadIt is officially classified, sorry.
You can ‘classify’ the diameter of the tyres as well, its not going to prevent people from being able to measure them.
ut let’s imagine you have a 10 GHZ frequency , apply lambda/2 “rule” and you will find something very close to 1000 (that should tell you about the exat size)
What are you on about? Frequency has nothing to do with the physical size of the antenna (edit: assuming we’re talking about an X-band radar).
Sign In
