Canadian Heron UAV’s become operational in Afghanistan
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/18/7787631-sun.html#print
KANDAHAR — Canada’s soldiers in Afghanistan have new eyes in the sky.
The first of several Heron pilotless spy drones were unveiled yesterday shortly after their arrival at Kandahar Air Field, where they will soon be keeping tabs on the Taliban from above.
The drones — also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs — will help coalition forces ferret out Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs or planning ambushes, Canadian Forces officials say.
The commander of Canada’s air wing, Col. Christopher Coates, said the Herons can stay in the air longer than the current crop of unmanned surveillance planes.
“The UAV that we’re using right now deals with a smaller area for a shorter period of time, measured in a few hours at most, whereas this UAV could be in the air for more than a day,” Coates said.
“If the enemy hears the small UAV, which is possible, then maybe he’ll stop what he’s doing. He knows he only has to stop for a short period of time. That’s impossible with this UAV.”
The Air Force will use the unarmed tactical drones for intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Two Taliban fighters were killed earlier this week after drones spotted them planting explosives in a culvert not far from where six Canadian soldiers were killed recently in a pair of separate roadside bomb attacks.
Acquiring the pilotless spy planes was a key condition of the Manley commission report last winter.
The Herons were needed to replace the Sperwer tactical drones, which have been used in Afghanistan since 2003 but are becoming outdated.
The Conservative government has dithered about replacing the Sperwers. Cabinet rejected a proposal last year to buy U.S.-made Predator drones because the contract would have been awarded to a single firm.
I’m inclined to agree with that, though would like to add that the yard we’re talking about are – at least to my understanding – not the most commercially oriented. So, these problems to an extent fit with their history. And while they may indeed experience problems or even be in a dismal state, I think it nonetheless a mistake to underestimate Russian capabilities (once they put their mind and money to it)
Thanks Wanshan for the comments.
I am not underestimating a country that put man in space for the first time of anything once they get their act together. Russia produces some of the best pure science in the world and will capable of much innovation and production in the years ahead.
But this time I think this specific yard bit off more than it could chew. For the sake of both the Russians and the Indians I hope this ship gets into service and works.
And on a related topic what kind of weapons fit will she have upon re-entering service? I assume comprehensive CIWS and no long range SSM.
You are not even wrong.. Flaming a thread about something Russian is counter-productive as, being spoiled by your presence, it cannot be flamed more than it already is..
I am amused by your desperate attempts to pi$$ me off somehow, trust me, old beer, you are not even close to it.. Try harder…
I don’t want to inject myself between you guys in your flame war here but I think the intent originally of speaking about Russia in this thread had to do with the fact that there are people out there, myself included, who strongly feel that the overall poor state of the Russian shipbuilding industry has led to many of the problems with this ship being rebuilt over budget and over time.
Can we please get back on topic?
TP400 flies for the first time…
Airbus has today carried out the first flight of the EuroProp International TP400 powerplant for the belated A400M military transport, a test lasting 1hr 15min. A single example of the engine has been fitted to the left inboard position on a Lockheed C-130K test-bed aircraft.
It departed at 10:44 from Cambridge in the UK and landed at 11:59. Airbus’ military division says the test involved assessing the TP400 at a thrust equivalent to the maximum level of the C-130’s other three Rolls-Royce Allison T56s – although the new engine is capable of delivering twice the power. The TP400’s response was tested in several aircraft configurations at speeds up to 165kt and to a height of 8,000ft.
“This was a first step in the aircraft envelope opening,” says Airbus Military. “It will allow progress towards the completion of the approximately 50 flight-test hours planned to reach sufficient maturity for the engine itself.”
Airbus says that the engine will be able to fly on the A400M once the powerplant reaches a “satisfactory” state. “This and subsequent flights will comfort us in the performance of the new engine itself, as well as its reliability, in a real flying environment,” says A400M programme chief Rafael Tentor.
He says that completion of the first flight is a “significant step” for the project, which has been plagued by delays centred on development of the powerplant. EuroProp International has so far clocked up over 2,100hr in ground tests of the eight-bladed TP400. Airborne testing using the C-130 is being conducted by Marshall Aerospace.
Well, its obvious you are a Gripen Fanboy…………Yet, instead of countering any of my points you would rather just call names!:eek: So, what facts do you have to support your claim that the Gripen could possibly be better than the Lighting? As I have seen nothing………….Faster? More Agile? Better Climb Rate? More Capable Avionics and Radar? Please, enlighten us……..As a matter of fact I haven’t seen any “facts” that a Gripen NG is superior to a late model F-16 (blk 50/60), Let alone the 5th Generation F-35 Lightning……
Sounds like you are the true “fanboy”. As you are hurt because you favorite fighter is so totally outclassed……………Please, talk about calling the kettle black.
I actually don’t care about Gripen or any other specific aircraft over another for that matter. In fact I pretty much love all of these things, including JSF, which I think is exciting and interesting technology. I look forward to seeing it in squadron service here in Canada and elsewhere. I come to these boards to try and learn from others who have the same interests and passions as I do about modern military aviation. I am frankly getting sick of having to wade through the fanboy crap to try and get to the interesting debates and tidbits of information that we all can draw something from.
All you sir are doing is creating noise, which keeps those of us interested in this and other topics further and further away from what we all want.
My mistake……………My point was simple. First, the F-35 is a vastly superior product vs the Gripen NG. Second, they are so many varibles and unknown information regarding the true price of both types. That to be honest nobody here could come to any reasonable conclusion. So, what were we debating…????
Well, I can rest now knowing that there is no debate any further about the F-35. It is the greatest airplane in existense. Scooter says so. You continue to persist in the worst of fanboy rhetoric by stating opinion as fact. Let me repeat myself for emphasis…JSF is a paper airplane until it enters squadron service. You need to tone the fanboy stuff down. I am not even going to speak about Gripen in this context because it is not relevant. You consistently compare JSF to everything else out there in definitive terms when it is impossible to do so.
Talk to us in this context in 5-6 years when you can talk about a plane that is in squdron service. Until then go create a fanboy thread and post there.
…..Distillier keeping the lifts on one side eases aircraft movement as all carriers since JFK have proven[i’m counting only deck edge carrier].
Yes, but would it not lead to significant vulnerability as well? Having at least one lift on both port and starboard sides decreases vulnerability that enemy action of some sort could knock out the ship’s ability to conduct air ops.
You could argue the price all day yet nobody is going to get enough accurate data to come up with any worth while conclusions. As for performance its not even a contest………….as the F-35 is markedly superior! So, again what are we debating??? :confused: :confused: :confused:
With all due respect can you please dial the fanboy rhetoric back a little? When you can speak about this aircraft in regular squadron service only then can you have a discussion as which plane is “markedly superior”. You talk in the first sentence of your post about not enough accurate data to come up with any worthy conclusions yet you immediately proceed to do exactly that in the next sentence of your post.
Test articles and LM press releases cannot take the place of actual hard verifiable data. Do you not see the problem here?
The only reason to go ahead with LCA is to build up Indian industry to the point where it can be self sufficient in arms if it so desires or needs to be so. The plane itself has promise and even export potential, but it does not deliver any capability that cannot be obtained from overseas purchases or license production in India of a foreign design.
LCA in and of itself will not allow India to get out from under the Russians, French and Americans. There are large quantities of foreign sourced components in the LCA and it will take generations of design to get the local industry to the point where it can 100% design and build it’s own aircraft without outside assistance in any form.
The question now is essentially is the LCA program, which has taken 30 years to get to this point, worth continuing or do you start with a clean sheet of paper?
Kiev class had a crew complement of 1,200-1,600 according to wikipedia. You could man three of these ships for the same amount of crew it would take to run Kitty Hawk.
I for one don;t see this taking place. Too big and too old.
Jet-Incursion Flap Highlights India-Pakistan Tensions

A purported midnight incursion of Indian air force jets into Pakistani airspace Saturday brought tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors to an even higher pitch in the wake of the attacks on India’s financial capital of Mumbai that killed 171 last month. Within minutes, the Indian jets were chased back by the Pakistani air force, say Pakistani officials, and retired air force commanders interviewed on Pakistani TV swore to defend their nation. The Pakistani air force claimed that Indian planes intruded as much as 2 miles (4 km) into the country, but the government says it accepted Indian assurances that the incursions were inadvertent; the Indian government, for its part, denied publicly that an incursion took place at all. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari dismissed the incident at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Sunday, calling it a “technical incursion — two planes flying 50,000 miles up in the air; when they turned, they slightly entered Pakistan soil.” Brown was in Islamabad after visiting India and Afghanistan to discuss security in the wake of the Mumbai attacks.
Still, the planes allegedly entered Pakistan near the two cities of Lahore and Muzaffarabad, where the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba — which has been accused by Indian and British investigators of planning the Mumbai attacks — had been allowed to operate under the aegis of its charitable wing Jamaat-ud-Daawa until its leader was put under house arrest on Thursday. Pakistani analysts suggest that the “inadvertent” incursion may have been a warning that if strong action was not taken against the accused terror group by the Pakistani government, the Indian government would take matters into its own hands. Zardari stressed that the government was doing all it could to help in the investigation, and complained that doubts about its efforts were unhelpful. “We are investigating, and the Indians say they are investigating, but to say that we could come up with proof before they can would be asking too much from us,” he said.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1866307,00.html
CVF’s pushed back 1-2 years
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3860143&c=EUR&s=LAN
LONDON – The British government has announced the MoD is to delay delivery of two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy by between one and two years pushing back the in-service dates of the first vessel to no earlier than 2015 and 2017.
The British have been reviewing their equipment program commitments in the face of a yawning gap in the defense budget particularly in the early years of the spending plans for the next 10 years.
Defense Secretary John Hutton, who has only been in his job since early October, also revealed that he had ordered a review of the progress in implementing the MoD’s 2006 acquisition change program in order to seek recommendations to “secure better value for money in delivery of major acquisition programs.
As for the aircraft carriers, industry executives have been saying for months that the agreed in-service dates of 2014 and 2016 were hopelessly optimistic anyway.
Hutton said the delays were being implemented to better bring into line the introduction of the aircraft carriers with the yet-to-be-purchased Joint Strike Fighters that are scheduled to deploy on them. He said it would have minimal impact on industry and jobs in the warship-building sector.
BVT Surface Fleet, the lead company in the alliance created to build the two 65,000-ton warships, said the delay would not affect jobs at the company’s yards in Glasgow and Portsmouth.
Rather than stop work on the 3.9 billion pound ($5.8 billion) program, it seems the alliance will spin out construction to meet the new dates. It’s also likely that plans to recruit large numbers of shipyard workers to meet carrier-building requirements will be put to one side.
In a second change in naval procurement plans, Hutton announced that the MARS program to build a fleet of new tankers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary have been deferred while the MoD looks at alternatives.
BAE, along with design partners BMT Defence Services and the South Korean yard Daewoo Shipbuilding, had been competing with overseas yards to build a new fleet of tankers…
Such a claim is limited to the capability of a Superpower against a third world country and the UN will stay aside. At the moment the USA is incapable to deal with a second world country like …Iran. 😉
With due respect, it all depends on what “…deal with…” means. If you mean a full on 500,000 man invasion with ground troops and the whole sprectrum of American military power going toe to toe with Iran then you would most likely be right.
If “…deal with…” means limited strikes with limited intent then there is almost no strike that American air power as currently constituted, cannot achieve.
You may have no problem to explain, what the size of the nose has to do with capability of an ASEA? 😀
A larger nose means more send/receive modules for an AESA radar. The more send/receive modules it has the more effective and multi-purpose the entire system can be.
I don’t know about Ukraine, but Russia’s commercial shipbuilding seems to suck pretty bad.
Great find. This is an excellent real world example of the difficulties Russia’s shipbuilding industry is having. This is why this ship is late and very over budget.