[ATTACH=CONFIG]251699[/ATTACH]
Schiebel taps Leonardo for radar system for unmanned helicopter
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251696[/ATTACH]
“This is the second time Leonardo’s PicoSAR radar has been chosen by Schiebel, the first being in support of a surveillance service contract,” Leonardo said in a press release. “The two companies have also demonstrated a multi-sensor suite that included the PicoSAR and Leonardo’s SAGE electronic warfare system on the UAS to the Royal Australian Navy and UK MOD, amongst others.”
Source:
UPI.com
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251695[/ATTACH]
This does not seem to be crashworthy even for a ride on the motorway (see seat attachment). I can’t see how this won’t be a need in a military helo. The question could also be valid with the landing gear (front). I hope that Leonardo and Boeing will come around a solution quickly given the experience of the latter with the Chinook and the short time for a submission.
US Aircraft Strikes Al Qaeda in Yemen
US aircraft early Thursday conducted more than 20 airstrikes throughout Yemen, targeting Al Qaeda militants, equipment, and infrastructure, the Pentagon announced. The airstrikes, which took place in the Al Bayda and Shabwah governorates, were conducted in partnership with the Yemeni government.
Source:
AirForce Magazine.com
great read. Thanks.
VTOL, speed, altitude and … Lasers…
While we are at it, might has well throw in stealth and have a development program for a decade and a half and 20 billions of development budget. And i want sixteen MK41 VLS on the wings, that new 130 mm gun from Rheinmetal and Choban armour!
Capability creep at Key Publishing?
I´ll get me coat… 😀
What we said here is not really relevant with what will end to be the program but just to be clear we can see a divergence in the program that could be addressed by splitting it into different system phased in time (instead of a raw order of 300 identical planes).
or perhaps that the PakDa will end up being something like a flying wing missile, optionally piloted, with 7000km range carried aboard a modernized Tu-160!
20000ft orbit at 130kt ISR is dead
Light attack is more something budget centered here*. How to perform the mission at low cost ? I think that this is the very aim of such program. It is clear that some aspects the mission are seemingly in opposition and a mix of airframe might then be seen as the right choice. Facts are that, budget wise, you can’t stick 300 planes in this and be budgetary efficient.
What happens if a technology surface and change the name of the game (MANPAD able to engage at higher alt – swarming bots that put advanced basing at constant risk…)? You are left with 300 planes sitting on AMARG far away from the grunts on the ground…
The choices made by Textron fits most of the aspects today. The new increased swept wing even better the plane characteristic in dive and the high G high Alpha mission** has been taken in consideration, perhaps motivated by potential synergies with the T-X program.
It is true that the Scorpion is not in appearance capable to assume the austere basing mission and that some of the SOCOM needs won’t be fulfilled this way. But this is here an aspect of the mission that is counter-intuitive with the low budget aspect of such program. SOF mission does not come cheap and are backed by a fairly descent budget. Per def, even with the present over-utilization of SOF, the economy of scale does not exist. IMOHO, there is room with the austere basing/sof requirement for a more capable airframe such as a derivative from the Army Vertical lift program. You’ll have speed, VTOL, payload, troop insertion etc.. available from such that will fulfill all the 21st needs of a Bronco descendant, itself an helicopter with wings… 😉
In most situation, it is in my opinion that austere basing won’t be relevant and speed, range, altitude and loiter time are now more valuable in a COIN scenario.
@Hopsalot and Spudman: Laser will do great… And leave the plane at a safer alt
*As it has been before
**aquiring a new target
USMC touts F-35B as ‘killing machine’
the Marines have practiced fast reloading operations. In this scenario, C-130 tactical transports deliver fuel and munitions to a remote airstrip. F-35Bs have landed, refuelled, re-armed, and taken off in just 12 minutes.
Davis adds that F-35s will replace squadrons operating Boeing F/A-18 Hornet aircraft before they replace those operating AV-8B STOVL fighters.
“The F-18s are getting older faster. We have more life in the AV-8Bs.”
[…]
“In one scenario where I would normally send in twelve to thirteen fighters and maybe lose half, I can instead use four F-35s. The[y] can get in, crush the target, and get out.”
Source:
FlightGlobal.com
Textron sees Asia-Pacific opportunities for Scorpion
Textron believes that Canberra could be on the verge of issuing a request for proposals for an electronic warfare training jet, says Tom Webster, who heads sales for the US company in the Asia-Pacific.
The requirement would be small, for about three aircraft, and would likely see Textron team with a local partner. Textron also believes that Canberra would not obtain the aircraft itself, but rather outsource the work to industry partners, possibly on a “pay by the hour” basis.
Source:
FlightGlobal.com
From the same source:
As for the nose wheel oscillations experienced by F-35C pilots during catapult launches during flight tests, Bogdan said that this phenomenon only happens with “light” jets, i.e. not those with operational loads. Tests have taken place to see if this can be remediated by changing the settings of the catapult mechanism.
Sadly it happens also during ground rolling at airbase. You can see this on video. Nothing that a change of catapult settings will do. Even if it will stand there as a minor problem, root analysis should dictate a modification.
ARES is designed to fly low. A concept that is not even envisioned here 😉
Pilot view of a Super Etendard landing on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier (Rapid Power changes are here to control the sink rate):
Nice subject for a thread. Good introduction.
I have no data at hand reach but, yes, a Super Tomcat in 2017 would mean half the carrier force down (cost, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance… and obsolescence). The Tomcat was a complex airframe with systems performances reached only by pushing technologies of the time to their limits ( have a look at the flight manual). Just like the USAF had to let down their F111, the USN had wisely done by grounding the Tomcat. The end of the cold war was certainly a good incentive to jump on that.
Perhaps that a more modest user with a much smaller fleet would have had the capabilities to then maintain them in flight with a tolerable availability rate. But history was already written when retirement came.
First flight of production representative aircraft (old):