Category: Aviation

Boeing Unveils LO F-15

No Comments

It appears that Boeing is looking to extend the life of the F-15 Eagle with a technological update (also here and here) called the Silent Eagle.

The two most obvious changes are creating weapons bays in the conformal fuel tanks and the canted tails, though it is also reported that there is a fair amount of radar absorbent material (RAM) added, including a frangable gun cover that hearkens back to how armorers treated the guns in WWII.

There are apparently no radar blockers in the inlets, even though Boeing has extensive experience with them in the F/A-18 E/F, because of potential export issues.

This implies that Boeing has decided (correctly IMHO) that they have no chance of selling these to the USAF, who have eyes for nothing for the F-22 and F-35.

They are suggesting a $100m unit price, though it is not made clear in any of the articles as to whether this is unit price, or fly-away cost.

The implication is that $100m will be cheaper than the F-35 JSF, and perhaps this is less an exercise to sell more F-15s than it is to sell more F/A-18E/Fs by implying that the JSF will break 9 figures in cost.

If they are implying this, they are probably right. The JSF shows a lot of signs of cost escalation and schedule slippage.

Powerpoint courtesy of The DEW Line, video of missile actuator courtesy of Boeing.

Potential Rafale Sale to Libya

No Comments

It makes sense.

Khaddafi has signed a deal for 6 months exclusive negotiations for the Rafale.

This purchase actually makes sense for Libya, because they have a reasonable chance of being able to continue to operate the aircraft even in the face of an embargo by the US, such as the sort that grounded the Venezuelan F-16s, and the competitors, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and SAAB Gripen, both have significantly more US content.

This would be the first foreign sale of the Rafale, and I’m sure that the French foreign ministry and Dassault are both drooling at the prospect.

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda

No Comments

Another flying car. This one from Terrafugia.

It appears to be very much on the “roadable plane” side of the roadable plane/flying car divide, and I rather expect that it will be like the rest: single digit production followed by an exit of the business.

In any case, here is a vid of their first flight.

It really appears to love the ground a lot, but that may be because of its relatively long wheel base relative to dedicated aircraft, requiring more force to rotate.

The Navy is Doing This Because the USAF Can’t Be Bothered

No Comments

After years of ground troops begging for something lower, slower, and with more short field capability, it is the US Navy that is considering a solution, the Super Tucano turboprop trainer configured for the light attack mission.

You could probably buy 50 of these aircraft for the price of one JSF, and it can loiter over the battle area for a much longer period of time, and spot things that the fast movers would miss.

Shades of the A-1 Skyraider, which wasn’t a USAF idea either.

Naval aviation is fighting it, because, well, has a propeller and all, but it looks like this will actually be used, because it’s what the guy on the ground needs.

Worldwide War Pigs: Drop Tank IRST Tests Well For Supers

No Comments

About 1 ¾ years ago, I wrote about how Boeing was looking into putting an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) on the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet by fitting it to the front half of a center-line drop tank.

Well, Boeing has completed successful flight tests on the system, which is supplied by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control*.

There hasn’t been an aircraft in the US inventory with an IRST for air-to-air since the F-14 Tomcat was retired, but Russian and European fighters have embraced this technology.

The advantages of going passive are real, though I would wonder about the reliability of the system under the very turbulent and vibration laden environment beneath the Super Bug.

My original post on this.

H/t Worldwide War Pigs

*Full disclosure, I worked at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in the late 1990s.†
†Yes, I have worked everywhere. Maybe I can’t hold down a job, but more likely this has been my role as “technical hit man”, where you are parachuted in to take care of a specific need.

China’s Chengdu J-10 Modified

No Comments

It appears that there have been some upgrades and/or fixes to China’s Chengdu J-10 canard-delta fighter.

If you look at the top (newer) image it appears that an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) unit has been added just forward of the cockpit, and that the inlet has been modified from the original aircraft (bottom).

Douglas Barrie thinks that there may have been vibration or air flow instability issues with the original inlet, but it looks to me more like an attempt to reduce RCS in the forward aspect.

Or maybe it’s a buff with photoshop.

What Have They Got To Hide

No Comments

In this case, it’s the Federal Aviation Administration, which has a proposed rule to block public access to raw bird strike data:

The FAA says requests for data from the public “have typically been for specific data fields, individual airports or detailed portions of the database” and that responses from the agency “have addressed each request individually and adequately”.

However, the agency cautions public analysis of bits and pieces of the data could lead to inaccurate portrayals of airports and airlines, which could have a negative impact on their participation in reporting bird strikes.

So, they are saying that think that ordinary people are too stupid to understand the data.

More likely, they are covering something up, like certain airports being having a lot more problems with bird strikes, and the FAA, which is tasked with both regulating and promoting aviation, finds this information inconvenient.

Ceramic Composites Starting to Find Way Into Engines

No Comments
Production verification ceramic matrix composite vane

Well, we now have another reason to support a 2nd engine for the JSF, it appears that the GE/Rolls-Royce F-136 alternate engine will be the first production engine to use ceramic composites. (paid subscription required)

Right now, they are looking at using it on stationary parts of the engine, “vanes, shrouds, combustor liners,” though there is investigations of using it on rotating parts too.

There is both a significant weight savings (Nickel is heavy), and a reduction and/or elimination of the need for cooling air.

STOVL JSF Range Same as AV8B Harrier

No Comments

Bill Sweetman looks up the current numbers for the JSF and the Harrier, and finds the following:

But the bottom line is this: with 2,500 pounds of weapons, plus the gun pod, the AV-8B has a hi-lo-hi operational radius of 508 nm. The F-35B’s design radius, with no gun, two 1,000-pound bombs and two AMRAAMs, is 450 nm: the most recent numbers (from 2007) show it exceeding that and just about equalling the AV-8B’s range.

Huh. Obviously, there are differences, a supersonic dash speed, some level of stealth, and a superior avionics suite, but it’s a less than impressive performance for an aircraft that will enter service about 30 years after the Harrier II.

We Finally Have a Price for the JSF

No Comments

The catch? Engines are not included.

So, it’s a $70 million (A-model) or $80 million (B-model) paperweight.

That’s clear.

As Bill Sweetman notes:

  • The Norwegians think it’s $52M.
  • The Israelis think it’s +$100M.
  • The Dutch think it’s €56M.
  • The Danes think it’s $82M with spares and training.
  • Davis thinks it’s $70M for an F-35A in 2014.
  • Davis thinks it’s $70M for a F-35C without engine in 2014.
  • Davis thinks it’s $80M for a F-35A in 2014.
  • The USAF budget says it’s $91M flyaway in 2013.
  • The GAO thinks it’s $104M

I’m inclined to believe the GAO at this point.

Thick flying wing for UAVs faces windtunnel tests

No Comments

Interesting new aerodynamic concept here, a very thick wing with slots in it to improve lift to drag ratio.

I have no clue if it will work, though there is rather a lot of analysis that indicates that it might, but given the non-aerodynamic advantages of a thicker wing in terms of structure and volume, it is an intriguing concept.

It appears that this could be tied with some sort of bleed air technologies to work as control systems too.

US Air Force Sacrificing ECM Capabilities to Push F-22 & F-35

No Comments

The Air Force has yet canceled the stand-off jammer EB-52.

If you look at electronic warfare assets for the USAF, they have been starved for some time, and the USAF’s argument is that AESA radars can fill the gap on their stealth platforms.

To my mind, what is going on here is that the Air Force is systematically defunding projects that might constitute a threat to the F-22, F-35, B-2, and NGB.

If you possess sufficient EW capabilities to negate the newer integrated air defense systems, then you don’t need stealth, so those EW capabilities have to be killed, even if they, as in the case of the EB-52, make stealth more effective and more survivable.

The Case for the Abolition of the US Air Force

No Comments

Robert Dilger and Pierre Sprey, the latter being largely responsible for the A-10 and F-16, are arguing that the current procurement strategy of the US Air Force does not serve the military needs of the rest of the military.

The thing is that they provide a historical perspective or an organization that has always continued to follow the failed philosophy of Giulio Douhet, and it’s clear that the Air Force is not, and has never been, capable of providing for the needs of the warfighters, because they continue to pursue the elusive goal of total victory from an air campaign alone.

This goal has never worked except in a nuclear scenario, and their observation is spot on:

In summary, over the last 60 years of combat, our Air Force has, at higher and higher cost, demonstrated less and less effect on the outcome of each succeeding war. The root causes are equally clear: first, the blind insistence on procuring and planning for little besides the failed strategic bombardment mission; and second, the ingrained development incentives that reward increasing unit cost and complexity without regard to the effect on actual combat effectiveness and force size. If the new Administration follows the “business as usual” pattern, the sequence of events and outcomes is easy to project.

While these problems have existed since the creation of an air force, even in the USAAC days, it has become progressively worse as the Air Force has continued as an independent branch.

As to their specific recommendations:

  1. A new close support aircraft smaller, more survivable, and more lethal than the A-10, one that is affordable in vastly larger numbers. (The Air Force plans to use small numbers of the unmaneuverable, highly vulnerable and ineffective F-35, at $150 million each, for this mission.)

  2. A forward controller spotter plane dramatically more survivable, longer-loitering and far lower cost in than a helicopter, able to land next to the tents of the supported troops. (The Air Force suffers from the delusion that close support can be called in using drones, satellites, and other “high tech” sensors, contrary to the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.)

  3. A small, affordable dirt strip airlifter to meet the real emergency needs of beleaguered battalions in the boonies. (The Air Force always short-changes this in-the-mud prop mission in favor of large jet transports.)

  4. A super-maneuverable new air-to-air dogfighter with all–passive electronics, far smaller with far higher maneuvering performance than the best of the F-16s and thus able to outfight the F-22 or any other advanced fighter in the world. (Emitting no radio/radar signals whatsoever, this new fighter will obsolete the F-22’s electronics, defeat any enemy fighter’s passive warning/identification-friend-or-foe system, and render useless the enemy’s radar-homing missiles which rely on seeking our fighter radars.)

I agree with items 1-3, but I am dubious of 4, where I do think that the provision of a radar, both for BVR air to air and poor weather strike missions would be desirable, though I think that advances in electronics could vastly reduce the weight of such a system.

I would also add another procedural change, and remove procurement authority from the service, and place it in the hands of the US Army, who, after all, is the consumer of the services that the USAF offers.

The Tanker Competion is Back

No Comments

Yes, the 767-A330 competion rebid advanced, as the Joint Requirement Oversight Council is reviewing the new requirements for the recompete.

This is going to be a long and expensive process, and the A330 is superior (more flexible, longer range, carries more fuel, and the tanker is flying now), and Murtha’s suggestion for a dual buy to forestall another challenge is ruinously expensive over the life of the program.

Won’t be pretty.