TomcatViP@Rii: a very sensible and well thought series of post.
I do completely agree with you. The worst is that the R&D budgets that could have been allocated here have been already expended in short term adaptation of vintage design and other novelties.
Tomorrow soldier losses while being airlifted will increase to a point that it will restricts operations (More lethal small arm fire due to dissemination and increased time of exposure).
Eu leaders have to understand that they can’t expect that voters will always back-up foreign interventions while losses keep mounting every months. It’s a rather known variable in the equation that other countries have faced before.
Those that are the Slowest and the lowest flying rotary aircraft among the lot are going to bear the brunt of soldier losses. In the future, It’ won’t even be so much about about how light or how heavy your aircraft is armored (see the Hind paradox). With increase operational tempo (we are heading toward permanent OPEX/hybrid conflicts), it will be more dependent of the time of exposure of the troop. Hence the longer time spent inside the kill zone, the heavier the causalities suffered. You’ll need to be swift and fast. Something that can’t be achieved with a conventional drive system.
Nowadays, there is a strong divergence b/w civil and Military airframe design. Structural requirement are now incompatible*. You can’t expect to score a high volume of sales with a single approach in a transparent market**.
*As i wrote somewhere else a long time ago.
**Sadly, this lack of vision will results in an increase nose down toward malpractice in market attribution, what will[are] weaken[ing] Industry strength among allies.
TomcatViPDo you guys realize that we don’t even know if the B2 is slightly supersonic or not?
If you intend to fight your spectrum emissions, at what speed would you like to fly while flying high?
TomcatViPThere is no way to know when the infrastructure would be ramped up and when budget allocation will be visible in the payment. In fact, given that the OSPREY are already operatives in Japan and that it was specified that Japanese airframe would be deployed initially aside those of the USMC, it’s more logical to think that infrastructures budget would be postponed at a latter date.
Regarding the Ridiculed, the actual tendency of a certain press and blogs* to adhere to the most bizarre argument when it comes to the non-Eu products have turned many of the until-now fantastically instructive and widely respectable websites into the new Presse caniveau of the Aeronautic web.
Up to you, a respectable poster IMOHO, to show your sympathy to this. But as you just asked, then you’ve read my personal feelings.
*Frankly, the recent outburst of pejoratives article devoid of any information and related to the F35 or others US products have depicted a really negative image of some of the web-press leader and referential blogger.
TomcatViPit’s more related to stability during boost phase regarding to CG location: High impulse, high speeds reached and forward CG request higher drag at the end of the rocket body. This is basic rocketry sciences and can be understood looking at a dart or an arrow (the feathers are far back to put the center of drag behind the CG and obtain a stable equilibrium). The balance btw larger fins or an altered design might have proved less efficient than this.
While being carried underwing, the deployed fins might contribute to an increase in the damping of the wing-pylons vibration. Again, a potential gain versus a more stiffened wing-pylon design (weight = drag increase).
The large MOAB has the same configuration .
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239210[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPNavair Orders 5 MV-22 Ospreys for Japan.
Another weird editor note:
When approved by the State Dept. in May – just two months ago — the Osprey sale to Japan covered 17 aircraft, complete with a large spare and support package, for $3 billion.
That worked out to about $176 million per aircraft.
The above order — $332 million for five aircraft — works out to only $66 million per aircraft, suggesting the Ospreys are not as well-equipped as originally planned, their support package much smaller, or both.
No explanation is provided for this apparent discrepancy.)
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!
TomcatViPWe have talked about this earlier (2 years ago?) in the PakFa thread.
The goal here is to not be forced to beam on a target while increasing time to the merge*, still maintaining a dynamic potential** and exposing the lowest RCS and aspect ratio to you’re enemy. Wing LE*** mounted sensors also help into that.
This is a completely different approach than Front sector facing aesa enclosed in a small volume with RCS treatment in the frontal aspect. Typhoon and Gripen compensate via swash plate mounted and side mounted antennas****.
The PakFa design bears traces of this attack geometry.
*you don’t want to rush yourself in the detection zone of your adversary
** You don’t have to power down to gain time befor eth emerge. Your offsetted trajectory build time for you. While Supercruising in such conditions, speed is imparted by the extra drag of the drifted trajectory. Once the plane is put in line with its velocity vector, speed increase quickly (no power up) just like after a speed brake retraction or a de-crabing during a landing approach
***Leading Edge
****I can’t see the SH doing such maneuver but this plane having proved to be o much resourceful, I won’t be surprised to ear such
TomcatViPNo.
“The T-X threshold and objective requirements will enable the T-X to close the ever-widening gap between T-38 performance and that of aircraft such as the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 and F-35.”
The provision (structural) for refuel capability is interesting.
Source:
Flightglobal.com
TomcatViPYou could easily justify a single large engine trainer like T-50. Maybe it’s to keep the two-seat F-16 line open. We never know the politics here and the decision makers are always planning golden parachutes.
I don’t think the T50 has much chance. They are gone toward the path of light airframe and high specific excess power. What is perfectly logical in following the path of the T38. This is why I posted a recap of the defunct EADS trainer.
By specifically restricting the T-X competition toward a trainer*, they would ensure the most modern airframe structure with an economical engine (perhaps derived of one used to power the BJ derived platform – we see much news involving Gulfstream). Hence repeated and durable high G performance at low cost.
Full Composite airframe, offboard avionics (simulated avionic via datalink), high bypass ratio turbofan upgraded for high G tolerances thanks to advanced aerodynamics (LM and Northrop are not newcomers in that field) and perhaps some magic, all converge toward the T-X**.
Then latter, perhaps an Homeland security fighter derived from the platform or a new Lightweight Fighter/Trainer for low budget countries could be envisioned, but this is still out of anything written in the KPP.
BUT WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGE by the specialized press is the fact that it was specifically mentioned that the T-X is there to provide training for futur F22 and F35 pilots and not to do dissimilar BFM mocking Flankers and EuroCanards such has some like to advocate for their own comfort!
I am still stunned that this has nowhere made for the headlines.
“The T-X threshold and objective requirements will enable the T-X to close the ever-widening gap between T-38 performance and that of aircraft such as the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 and F-35.”
Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/
*they denied that it would be an Agressor, what would have been more comfortable for those making a living with bashing the F35
**A a side note, I specifically advocated this strategy for a Super Hawk some years ago
TomcatViPOn the video, I don’t like the fact that the driver is seemingly aware that he just has been targeted by a drone (a one flying high as it is perfectly suggested by the geo of engagement).
Chilly feeling or simple coincidences?
TomcatViPSome interesting news regarding the F35 and Japan industry:
Japanese defense [Industry] had hoped working on the F-35 as a subcontractor to rear fuselage maker BAE Systems of Britain (BAES.L) would have given Mitsubishi Heavy exposure to global arms markets.
But it proved impossible for Mitsubishi Heavy to compete on pricing of components given the advantage enjoyed by contractors in the initial nine countries due to their governments’ funding of specialized tooling for the program.
“Japan recognizes that it should join these international groups to help amortize purchases and make their industry more competitive,” said a U.S. executive who works closely with the Japanese government and industry.
“You’re going to see them engaged in more and more bilateral, trilateral and multilateral groups in coming years.”
Source:
reuters.com
TomcatViPAlways better than a 80-% readiness.. to die.
Because this little guy will always matches your readiness:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238985[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPU.S. to continue airlift and air refueling support for French aircraft battling extremists in Mali.
As of July 3, U.S. Air Force tankers assigned to the 351st Expeditionary Aerial Refueling Squadron out of Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England, had flown 638 sorties, providing 2,702 French receiver aircraft with nearly 25 million pounds of fuel since the operations began in 2013, according to U.S. African Command.
Early in the operation, five U.S .C-17s flew French forces and equipment to Mali.
Source:
airforcetimes.com
TomcatViPregarding career promotion, this have been acknowledged recently with some structural modification in career nominations (if I do remind well).
You analysis otherwise is spot-on. But be patient, We still live the age of the 1st++ Gen 😉
TomcatViPIt seems as if rotary wing Aerodynamics is something you spell only in German at Airbus. Great news (and without any soporific introduction speech) .
…But still the reflex flaps are there 😉
TomcatViPLockheed Martin and Textron are selected bidder for Sikorsky buy
Interestingly, the next generation helicopter for the US Army will see the same bidders present in both design : Textron/Bell partnering with LM for the V280 and Textron(Sikorsky) with Boeing or LM(Sikorsky) with Boeing for the Raider.
Sign In
