TomcatViPSLEP: LM says “”The probability of success of such a program is very low,”
Des experts américains de l’US Air Force et de l’avionneur Lockheed Martin ont révélé mercredi soir combien il serait difficile et coûteux de prolonger la durée de vie des chasseurs F-16 belges vieillissants au-delà des 8.000 heures de vol garanties par le constructeur.
“Il n’est pas possible d’étendre la durée de vie certifiée d’un (F-16 belge de type) Block 15 sur la base des données disponibles”, a affirmé le colonel Jeff Gates, qui est responsable du programme F-16 au sein de l’US Air Force, lors d’une audition devant la commission de la Défense de la Chambre.
“Je ne peux rien promettre” au delà de ce seuil
Il a rappelé que l’US Air Force avait retiré depuis plusieurs années ses F-16 les plus anciens – dans la version Block 15 -, ne conservant que des appareils dans des versions plus récentes, dont certains devraient, moyennant des modernisations, voler jusque vers 2040 et atteindre le seuil des 12.000 heures.
Un ingénieur de Lockheed Martin, Thomas Jones, a pour sa part souligné que dans l’état actuel des données dont dispose le constructeur, la certification se limitait à 8.000 heures. “Je ne peux rien promettre” au delà de ce seuil, a-t-il dit, soulignant que Lockheed essayait de déterminer comment arriver à ces 8.000 heures de vol pour les appareils de cette génération par le biais d’une procédure appelée “Service Life Extension Program” (SLEP).
Pour réaliser une telle SLEP, il faudrait prendre un avion et lui faire subir, jusqu’à la rupture, des tests d’une durée double à celle de la vie espérée pour les appareils à prolonger.
“La probabilité de succès d’un tel programme est très faible”, a renchéri M. Jones.
———US Air Force experts and aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin revealed late on Wednesday that it would be difficult and costly to extend the lifespan of aging Belgian F-16 fighters beyond the 8,000 flight hours guaranteed by the manufacturer.
“It is not possible to extend the certified life of a (Belgian F-16 type) Block 15 on the basis of available data,” said Colonel Jeff Gates, who is responsible for the F-16 program in the US Air Force at a hearing before the Defense Committee of the Chamber.
“I can not promise anything” beyond this threshold
He recalled that the US Air Force had for several years removed its oldest F-16s – in the Block 15 version – retaining only aircraft in more recent versions, some of which, with modernization, would have to fly as far as possible. around 2040 and reach the threshold of 12,000 hours.
An engineer from Lockheed Martin, Thomas Jones, for his part, pointed out that in the current state of data available to the manufacturer, the certification was limited to 8,000 hours. “I can not promise anything” beyond that threshold, he said, pointing out that Lockheed was trying to figure out how to get those 8,000 flying hours for devices of this generation through a procedure called “Service.” Life Extension Program “(SLEP).
To realize such a SLEP, it would be necessary to take a plane and make him undergo, until the rupture, tests of a duration double to that of the life expected for the devices to prolong.
“The probability of success of such a program is very low,” said Jones.
Source:
La libre.be
TomcatViP?!?
Speaking of beauty (click on the image – FB video):
TomcatViPthere was a weapon failure: one of the Scalp had to be dropped. Equally concerning, 3 out of 6 planed sea launched cruise missiles didn’t fire due to a weapon system mal-function. A reboot was needed and once everything was ready again no more missile could be fired as the launch window was closed.
Air launched Scalp failure:
« Sur les dix missiles Scalp-EG prévus, seuls neuf sont partis », reconnaît l’armée de l’air, jointe par nos soins mercredi soir, confirmant officiellement des doutes partagés dès samedi par quelques observateurs. « Est-ce dû au missile ou à l’avion ? Nous ne le savons pas, et des analyses techniques sont en cours pour déterminer l’origine de l’incident de tir », précise l’armée. Chaque Rafale emportait deux missiles, et l’un d’eux n’a donc réussi à en tirer qu’un. Toutefois, « l’ensemble des cibles déterminées a été traité » avec les autres missiles, assurent les militaires.
————
“Out Of the ten Scalp-EG missiles planned, only nine were fired,” admits the Air Force, joined by us Wednesday night, officially confirming doubts shared by a few observers Saturday. “Is it due to the missile or the plane? We do not know, and technical analysis is underway to determine the origin of the shooting incident, “said the army. Each Rafale carried two missiles, and one of them managed to fire only one. However, “all targets have been dealt with” with other missiles, say the military.
Sea launched failure:
la Marine nationale a elle aussi reconnu avoir eu des problèmes pour tirer ses missiles de croisière navals (MdCN) depuis ses frégates multimissions FREMM (dont il aurait fallu redémarrer le système informatique, une opération qui aurait fait dépasser le temps imparti pour respecter le créneau de tir). Seuls trois des six MdCN prévus avaient pu être tirés. C’était le baptême du feu pour ces missiles de nouvelle génération, qui font entrer la France dans le club fermé des pays disposant de missiles de croisière embarqués sur des bâtiments de guerre
———-
the French Navy has also admitted to having had problems getting its naval cruise missiles (MdCN) from its FREMM multi-mission frigates (it would have been necessary to restart the computer system, an operation which would make the passage of time allotted to respect the niche of shoot). Only three of the six MdCNs were drawn for firing. It was the baptism of fire for these new generation missiles, which bring France into the closed club of cruise missile countries embarked on the warships
Source:
Le point.fr
TomcatViPIt’s from Reuters and was also seen in the Jerusalem post.
This is hardly a click bait when the IAF cancel participation at a major exercice abroad to keep its fighter at home (stated).
I do reckon that F-14 Vs F-15 over Syria is a remote occurrence. But bear in mind that in case of any operation by Iranian forces over Israel, there is only a few doubt that the IAF would not mount a significant operation over Iranian territory.
So, it is relevant.
Best,
Tom
TomcatViPIsrael hints it could hit Iran’s ‘air force’ in Syria
“Israel is headed for escalation,” Yaacov Amidror, former national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Tel Aviv radio station 103 FM. “There could be a very big belligerent incident with Iran and Hezbollah.”
Anyone has this in mind: F-15 Vs F-14?
Let’s hope that nothing like this happens for real.
Source:
Reuters.com
TomcatViPThe pilot’s voice was calm yet focused as her plane descended with 149 people on board.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
“Southwest 1380, we’re single engine,” Tammie Jo Shults, a former fighter pilot with the U.S. Navy, said. “We have part of the aircraft missing so we’re going to need to slow down a bit.” She asked for medical personnel to meet her aircraft on the runway. “We’ve got injured passengers.”
“Injured passengers, okay, and is your airplane physically on fire?” asked a male voice on the other end, according to an air traffic recording.
“No, it’s not on fire, but part of it’s missing,” Shults said, pausing for a moment. “They said there’s a hole, and uh, someone went out.”
Was that something like Tammie taming Moore [law]?
Edit:
Also in the Navy Times
Source:
The Washington Post via msn.com
TomcatViPSt John: there is a video of the takeoff:
TomcatViPThe P-3 belongs to an earlier generation of airliner that had to be able de-facto to fly at low level and be able to manœuvre. At the time, it didn’t make much difference to convert a bomber or such airframe since all had similar flight restrictions. You should be aware of that. It’s not like you are a new comer in aviation forums.
The 737 has been modified to sustain military graded flight profiles and a large part of its development was to ensure that she could sustain all mission profiles with dissimilar philosophy (the USN has high altitude operation in mind when the Indian Navy use the MAD that requires low altitude flight).
I found particularly delectable that you keep pounding hard talk on a 5 min sketched scenario at your intention that you are not even able to deny with hard numbers, despite the quoted extract of the flight manual and relevant value that you seems to be so well familiarized with. If the fiction was put grossly in words, it remains that the scenario is so far undeniable or hasn’t been proven to be innacurate to this date.
If I had time I would re-write this for different airframes to sketch the differences.
Regarding the ECM suite, bear in mind that the hypothetical A320 MPA here is beaming toward an unsuspected launcher. Yes, IRL not everything turns to be scripted like in la la land .
TomcatViPNo. First at high speed the bank angle is 45 max
Second past VMO the FBW system will pitch up the airplane up to 1.75g
The combination of point 1 and 2 makes that the airplane won’t bank at the desired roll angle and will even limits the available max bank due to the limit in G (do the Maths).
It has nothing to do with pulling G. The A320 was conceived with benign flight in mind. It is not a suitable airframe for this mission without heavy rewriting of its ctrl laws and this should be easily understandable by many here.
I have already mentioned yaw sensitivity and the minimized tailplane.
I am stunned that I have to go that long in the conversation when I took the time to quote the necessary elements from the Flight manual.
TomcatViPAnd nobody seems to have noticed that with 5 Rafle carrying each two Scalp and only 9 launched toward Syria, one may have been defectuous.
TomcatViPHave you ever seen a P-3 banking hard?
Before writing non-senses and unaveiling your loss of temper here, please do.
I didn’t write this to craft some kind if bizarroid idea that could unnerve you my dear. I quickly sketched a scenario to give the reader some perspectives regarding your own assertion. It doesn’t suite your picture? I am not even sorry you would know.
TomcatViPOk, those quote I made are from the Manual. You can insult me about being childish but there are none specific data on your side. So please, one more/last time, you guys be specific.
@Corsair: yes the bank angle. I didn’t edit that part of the post for a complete honesty toward the reader. But did quote right below the right values… myself and added specific info regarding load and bank angle 😉
TomcatViPyour wholly inaccurate statements you are making about the A320 FBW system
specify. thank you.
TomcatViP[Airbus FTCM, pg. 2.60.8] Beyond the maximum design speed of the aircraft, VD/MD (which is greater than VMO/MMO), there are potential aircraft control problems due to high air loads. Therefore the margin between VD/MD and VMO/MMO must be such that any possible overshoot of the normal flight envelope does not cause controllability problems.
In order to protect the aircraft from dangerous phenomena at high speed, a positive nose up “g” demand up to 1.75g is added to the pilot demand on the sidestick when exceeding VMO/MMO. Additionally, if the side stick remains forward, the sidestick nose down pitch authority is smoothly reduced to zero at approximately VMO + 16/MMO + 0.04. With reference to the diagram below, if a dive is achieved with stick free, the aircraft will slightly overshoot VMO/MMO and fly back into the flight envelope. If a dive is achieved with the sidestick fully forward, the aircraft will significantly overshoot VMO/MMO but without reaching design speed limits, VD/MD
When high speed protection is triggered, the autopilot disconnects, the pitch trim is frozen, the spiral static stability is reduced from 33° to 0° of bank and the limit bank angle is reduced from 67° to 45°. If high speed protection is active with the aircraft established in a turn, when the sidestick is released the aircraft will roll wings level. This increased spiral stability reduces the risk of a spiral dive.
That’s obviously a perfectly designed combat capable airplane, isn’t it? Don’t take me wrong, this is not my goal to criticize here the A320. But in order to make out of it a credible MPA, you would need much more time than the alleged 6 months timeframe stated by Alonso.
TomcatViPC’mon faulty logic? Really? Be specific at least.
Sign In
