RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Boeing To Resume ABL Testing This Summer
Mar 26, 2008
| Boeing expects to resume testing of its Airborne Laser (ABL) this summer, starting with ground tests.Flight tests using the beam control and high-energy chemical laser will follow. The chemical laser modules are now being integrated onto the 747-400 ABL airframe at Edwards AFB, Calif., following a series of beam-control flight tests using a low-energy surrogate laser last year.
Boeing ABL Vice President Mike Rinn says the company hopes to avoid a time gap betwen the critical shootdown of a boosting ballistic missile target next year and design work on the second ABL aircraft. Boeing is still eyeing the 747-8 with its redesigned wing and longer range for the second ABL. The fiscal 2009 budget includes about $16 million to begin studies for designing the aircraft. But Boeing hopes more money will come to begin detailed design work following the ballistic missile shootdown next year. |
ACCIDENT
B-2 Crashes on Takeoff From Guam
source : aviationweek
Feb 23, 2008
|
|
The US Air Force has launched an investigation following the first loss involving its’ more than $1.1 billion Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. The aircraft – one of four deployed to the Pacific island from Whiteman AFB, Missouri – crashed shortly after take-off on 22 February. Both crew members ejected and are in “good condition”, according to a statement released by the US Pacific Air Forces command.
The 509th Bomb Wing B-2 detachment was in the process of being replaced by six Boeing B-52 bombers as part of a scheduled rotation in support of the US-led global war on terrorism, and the PACAF confirms that “No munitions were on board at the time of the accident.”
Now reduced to an active inventory of 19 aircraft, the USAF’s B-2 fleet achieved initial operating capability in April 1997, and has since supported US and coalition combat operations in countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo. The aircraft could potentially receive the service’s developmental Boeing Massive Ordnance Penetrator: a 13,600kg (30,000lb) bunker-busting weapon as part of a future upgrade.
B-2 crash revives memory of 1990 scandal
It’s not unfair to view the first crash of the Northrop Grumman B-2A as a testament to the stealth bomber’s admirable safety record.
How many other advanced aircraft designs have avoided a single non-combat related accident after two decades in service? (Nope, I can’t think of one either.)
But the crash offers a good excuse to remember one of the B-2’s little-known mechanical problems that briefly caused a public scandal for the manufacturer almost 18 years ago, and remains a problem for the bomber fleet even today.
This problem may or may not have played a role in the accident in Guam, but I’m sure it will be checked out by the US Air Force’s crash investigators.
The flawed part — called the actuator remote terminal (ART) — came to light in 1990. Northrop revealed in its annual report that year that the company was under investigation by the Department of Justice because of the flawed part. A report by The Los Angeles Times, dated April 3, 1990, said:
“The system is called the Actuator Remote Terminal, a device that the Air Force was forced to upgrade while the B-2 has been grounded for modifications since late last year. The ART system has been plagued by severe technical problems, according to an informed source, though the Air Force has denied that the system is not working properly.
The ART plays a critical role in keeping the B-2 stable in flight. It takes commands from the bomber’s flight control computer, relays them to flight control surfaces and then provides feedback information to the computer. The B-2, which has an unconventional all-wing design, relies on its computers to maintain stability and without the computers would be unstable.”
A year later, USAF officials declared the problem solved. Here’s a report from Aerospace Daily in July 1991:
“Maj. Gen. Stephen B. Croker, interviewed by The DAILY in his Pentagon office, said two problems were found in the design of the B-2’s fly-by- wire flight control hardware, called the Actuator Remote Terminal System (ARTS), in “the 1987 timeframe,” but neither endangered flight crews or renders the B-2 unsafe to fly. Both charges were made in an ABC television program aired Thursday night.
The first problem concerned the fact that “the cooling wasn’t adequate in the area of ARTS,” and that, presumably, the system would overheat and fail. This was solved by “a redesign…adding cooling vents” to the B-2 airframe in the area of the ARTS, Croker said.
The second problem, more serious, involved the design of a circuit board, which was laid out such that all four redundant ARTS computers relied on a single resistor. A “single point” or “one-path failure” in this part might have had “a cascading effect,” disabling the flight controls on one side of the plane and making it unflyable, Croker said. The cascading effect was considered “highly improbable,” he added.”
Although the problem was “solved” in 1991, the same part was linked to B-2 reliability problems in combat operations nearly eight years. A USAF press release reported on June 11, 1999:
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, Okla. (AFPN) — The System Engineering Branch of the B-2 System Program Management Division here has solved a major problem affecting the B-2’s mission effectiveness during Operation Allied Force.
In addition, the Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., division cut the flow days from a contracted 45-day turnaround to a two-day turnaround.
The actuator remote terminal, or ART, works the various control surfaces on the B-2. Without it, the wing cannot fly. Because of an airflow-cooling problem, the ART was one of the high-failure items on the B-2 bomber.
“Unlike other aircraft, the B-2 is a fly-by-wire system — no mechanical interconnects to the flight controls,” said Bob Cotton, avionics armament team lead for Oklahoma City B-2 System Program Office. “We send electrical signals from the pilot stick to the actuator remote terminal to the hydraulic actuator, which makes the aircraft perform its various flight maneuvers.”
The wing reached a critical point when there was a lack of supply assets for the actuator remote terminal. Rather than cause aborts of combat missions, the B-2 System Program Management Division set out to solve the problem.
“The vendor we were using had a limited capacity for repair,” said Cotton. “He was meeting a 23- to 24-day turn around in some instances, but with the increased flying schedule, he was unable to surge his capacity to the point that he could take care of requirements.”
Don Ward, flight control avionics equipment specialist, initiated an investigation into how best to repair the actuator remote terminal line replacement units.
A team of engineers from Tinker traveled to Whiteman AFB, Mo., to provide on-the-spot training of ART repair.
The team worked on a compacted schedule around operational mission requirements to accomplish a solution. The sensitive actuator remote terminal has to be set down on a solid granite surface for repairs to ensure leveling. (Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service)
COMMON NEWS
A cheaper alternative to using the fighter itself could be a “fourth-generation trainer”, and associated integrated training system, that could take a student pilot from basic to advanced training, then through the tactical weapons and operational conversion units (OCU), and on to the frontline alongside the fighter.
| “I admire Alenia Aermacchi’s decision to put cockpit customisation at the heart of the M-346’s digital architecture” |
Alenia Aermacchi has designed the M-346 for this role, and the aircraft is the only all-new European advanced/lead-in fighter trainer in development. Its main rivals are the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) T-50 Golden Eagle, and the BAE Systems Hawk 128.
Although still in development, w ith Italian military certification not due until mid-2007, Flight International was invited to assess the M-346’s potential to span the “basic to OCU” gap and be a one-stop solution to the training, capability and budgetary problems faced by air forces fielding fourth-generation fighters.
Alenia Aermacchi is the result of the merging of Alenia and Aermacchi in July 2003, and is part of Italian aerospace and defence giant Finmeccanica. Based at Venegono in Varese, near Milan, the company has delivered more than 2,000 trainers to date. Its products include the SF-260 piston primary, M-311 turbofan basic, and MB-339CD turbojet advanced trainers.
The M-346 has its origins in European studies of a new advanced trainer in the late 1980s, in which Aermacchi participated. These led to the AT-2000 proposal for an aircraft with an empty weight around 6.2t and a single afterburning engine. Aermacchi believed the better option was a lighter aircraft, around 4.5t, with two non-afterburning engines and advanced aerodynamics to give high agility, but docile low-speed handling. In 1992, the company left the European study to pursue its own design based around two engines.
| Inlet location improves efficiency |
At the end of 1992, Aermacchi joined with the Yakovlev design bueau, which was struggling with development of the Yak-130 jet trainer for the Russian air force to replace the Aero Vodochody L-39 trainer. Aermacchi suggested the requirement be changed from basic to advanced lead-in fighter trainer and it took the basic Yak-130 shape and developed it. According to Emanuele Merlo, head of flight technology, the M-346 is a totally new aircraft, internally and externally.
The wing was moved up the fuselage, having been too low on the Yak-130 and causing horizontal stabiliser blanking at mid to high angle of attack (AoA). The leading-edge extensions (LEX) were reduced and redesigned to give controllable vortex lift. Two small vertical fins were added at the wing roots to “trap” and control the LEX vortices at AoAs from 25-30° upwards. These LEX vortex controllers ensure the “vortex burst” over the wing at high AoA is symmetrical and controllable.
Blended wing
The wing was remodelled to blend into the fuselage for improved span loading. A saw- tooth was added to the full-span leading-edge flaps. Thickness was optimised from root to tip, and planform, profile and camber were optimised for best lift/drag over the widest possible envelope from short field and subsonic manoeuvre, through transonic penetration to supersonic cruise.
The single fin was repositioned for high AoA and the engine nozzle positions changed to reduce zero-lift drag. The air intakes were completely redesigned and are now 98-99% efficient over virtually the entire operating envelope, says Alenia Aermacchi. The shielded intake position under the LEX also improves engine efficiency at high AoA and when supersonic. The engines were changed to Honeywell F124-200s, each producing 6,250lb thrust (28kN) and with full-authority digital engine control (FADEC). The inlets are sized to accommodate up to a 20% increase in thrust from the present engine or possible future versions.
The sharp “chine” nose of the Yak-130 was rounded and redesigned to reduce frontal area, prevent unwanted vortex development in sideslip and allow installation of radar. A top-mounted airbrake was placed on the fuselage spine; horizontal-tail control power was raised to improve short-field performance and post-stall manoeuvring pitch recovery; and a fixed (removable) in-flight refuelling probe was added on the right side of the nose. There are now nine hardpoints (three wet), including wingtip missile rails.
Digital control
A digital fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS) operates the ailerons (there are no spoilers), rudder, taileron and leading-edge flaps. Simple half-span flaps are pilot operated. The quadruplex FCS can lose two channels and still provide safe operational capability. Rear-cockpit instructor controls provide the ability to “degrade” the FCS into various “training” modes. Although configured with a centre stick, the cockpit has been designed to accept a sidestick if requested by the customer.
The first M-346 prototype flew in July 2004 and the second in May 2005. Initial operational clearance of the FCS is due at the end of this year, with full clearance and Italian military certification due in mid-2007. Production rate is envisaged at three a month with an initial run of 12 aircraft plus one static and one fatigue test airframe planned for 2007, after certification.
The prototype has been demonstrated to the Greek air force, which has a critical need to replace its ageing T-2 Buckeyes, and Alenia Aermacchi has a memorandum of understanding with Hellenic Aerospace Industry for Greek participation in development and production of the M-346. Other potential customers include Chile, Poland, Portugual, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. There is also the Advanced European Joint Pilot Training (AEJPT), or Eurotrainer, requirement involving 11 countries.
As part of its AEJPT studies, Alenia Aermacchi modelled the training mission density and superimposed it on the M-346’s flight envelope. The four “hot spots” – low speed/low altitude (circuits and approaches), 420kt (775km/h)/500ft (150m) (low-level attack), M0.7-0.8/20,000ft (air combat manoeuvring) and M0.7-0.9/38,000ft (air interception) – fall within the M-346 operating envelope. In the air combat training mission, the M-346 at full dry power would use 50kg/min (110lb/min) of fuel and could remain in the training area for 18min – three times the endurance of the afterburning T-50, the company claims.
Embedded training simulation (ETS), a system already operational on Italian air force MB-339C/Ds, allows the M-346 pilot to train within a virtual scenario involving computer-generated forces displayed in the cockpit. ETS allows early introduction and enhanced proficiency with situational awareness, tactical operations, sensor management and weapon deployment. The ETS system can simulate offensive sensors such as radar, defensive aids such as radar warning, datalinked information and a wide variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The full integrated training system includes ground classroom trainers, procedural tactics trainers and full mission simulators that can be linked together and to the aircraft.
Basic empty weight is about 4,600kg and, with two pilots an a full internal fuel load of 2,000kg, the M-346 weighs around 6,700kg clean at take-off. Given a combined thrust of the two F124 turbofans of 12,500lb, the aircraft has greater than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio from around half fuel when clean. This is important when comparing the M-346 with trainers with a single afterburning engine that can exceed 1:1 only in reheat and at the cost of fuel and training time. Maximum take-off weight fully loaded is 9,700kg. This is also the maximum landing weight.
Three 465kg-capacity external fuel tanks can be carried (limit M0.92), which gives the M-346 a range (with 10% reserves) of 2,850km (1,540nm) compared with 2,070km clean. The aircraft’s service ceiling is 45,000ft, time to 40,000ft is 3.5min at an initial climb rate of 21,000ft/min (107m/s). Maximum speed is M1.2 at altitude or 572kt equivalent (590kt true) at 5,000ft. Load factors are +8/-3g. Take-off run is around 400m and landing roll around 500m.
The FCS endows carefree handling throughout the flight envelope. The aircraft is spin resistant and can be held inverted for 30s. With about 500kg of internal fuel, final approach speed is around 100kt indicated.
The F124-200 turbofan has a dual- redundant FADEC. The throttles feature a spring detent at 90% NH (core speed) to represent full dry power, giving a time for take-off roll of around 20s, typical of current trainers. Full throttle travel gives 100% NH, representing afterburner and giving a roll of 11s, typical of current fighters. The engines are surge resistant with auto-relight, which can be achieved up to 30,000ft and M1.
Maximum sustained load factor at 15,000ft and M0.6-0.8 is +6g and turn rate 14.5°/s – performance that exceeds many fighters and all trainers in either dry power or reheat. Only above M0.8 at this altitude does the KAI T-50 in reheat start to better the turn rate of the M-346. Maximum angle of attack is 40°, which matches or exceeds the limits of most modern fighters and allows the M-346 to undertake post-stall manoeuvres. Maximum roll rate is 230°/s and can be sustained up to 6g.
Dual systems
An auxiliary power unit (APU) is fitted that can be used for air supply, engine starting and 28V DC power supply up to 25,000ft. The hydraulic system has one pump per engine, with dual 3,000lb/in2 supply to the primary and secondary flight controls and wheel brakes. Park brake, steering, speed brake and landing gear are driven from the right-hand system, allowing the left engine to be shut down during taxi back after landing. An emergency power system is linked to the left hand supply.
The electrical system has one 20kVA 115V AC generator per engine and left and right transformer rectifier units to give 28V DC power. There are also separate AC and DC external ground-power receptacles on the left-hand side of the nose close to the pressure refuelling panel.
Main wheel brakes and nosewheel steering are “control-by-wire”, with steering selectable from high (taxi) to low (take-off and landing). The main gear folds forward into the fuselage, but wheelbase is a generous 2.7m. Gear limiting speed is 250kt. Carbon brakes allied to the low approach speed negate the need for any reversers, brake chute or lift dump.
The canopy is hinged on the right, electrically operated and features a bird-proof blast-shield transparency between the cockpits. The canopy can be jettisoned manually from inside or outside the aircraft using an explosive severance system, so there is no transparency-shattering miniature detonating cord obscuring the view. In an ejection, striker arms on top of each seat shatter the canopy. The seats are auto-sequenced, auto-separated and a command eject function is available to the instructor in the rear cockpit.
The heart of the avionics are two main computers, linked by 1553B databuses, one for navigation, weapons, head-up (HUD) and multifunction displays (MFD) and one for comms/audio. Both cockpits have three 5 x 5in (125 x 125mm) MFDs, an upfront control panel for comm/nav/ident and data insertion and the wide-angle HUD. The cockpit is night-vision compatible and provisioned for a helmet-mounted display (HMD). The HUD will be able to display infrared imagery from a pod-mounted sensor. Alenia Aermacchi says it will be able to customise the HUD and MFD formats and stick and throttle controls to closely match any fourth-generation fighter.
Alenia Aermacchi is convinced a two-engined trainer offers higher levels of safety. Its figures show one loss per million flight hours, rising to 10 for a single-engine aircraft. The company has designed the M-346 for low life-cycle costs, high reliability and low maintenance.
| The nose can house multi-mode radar |
There is extensive built-in test and an on-board maintenance/fatigue data recorder. The aircraft is maintained by “on condition” for essentially all of its service life. After 100h, an 8h two-man inspection is carried out and after 500h a preventative inspection is conducted by a bigger team. The engine hot section is inspected, on-airframe, every 2,000h and the cold section every 4,000h. There is no engine time between overhauls. The direct ratio is 3.5 maintenance manhours/flight hour. Recently the prototype flew direct from Venegono to Greece and flew nine demonstration flights over two days without fault.
Short flight
Our short test flight took place from the company airfield at Venegono in mid-June using the second prototype, aircraft 002 registered X616, with roughly 100h on the airframe. The M-346 was still in the middle of its development and certification programme and had not been cleared over its full envelope.
The principal limitations on 002 were a maximum altitude of 40,000ft (45,000ft for the production aircraft), speed at altitude of Mach 0.85 (M1.2 production), speed at low level of 530kt indicated (572kt production), gear limiting speed 200kt (250kt production), maximum +20° AoA in all configurations (+40° production), load factor +7/-1.6g (+8/-3g production).
The fly-by-wire FCS had been cleared to software Phase 1 (direct link) and was undergoing Phase 2 (reversionary mode) testing at the time of my flight, which would be conducted in Phase 1 standard. Phase 3 (full carefree handling) had been tested in the full mission simulator, which I flew briefly later as a comparison, but had yet to be loaded and tested in the prototypes in the air.
My safety pilot was Olinto Cecconello, experimental chief test pilot and M-346 project test pilot. He also flies the Eurofighter Typhoon as a test pilot and is able to bring fourth-generation fighter “read across” to the M-346 design.
Because of air traffic control and aircraft limitations we elected to look at handling and performance in the air combat manoeuvring training role and finish with some high-speed low-level transit and visual work. We could not go supersonic and did not have the time for a weapons or ETS evaluation.
Cecconello would take the front cockpit, and I the rear in the role of an instructor, drawing on my 1,200-plus hours on Hawks, many in the back seat as an instructor. I was planned to fly the complete sortie, but had no time for simulator familiarisation before stepping into the rear cockpit. The ease with which I could fly the aircraft would be a mark of how good its design was.
Because Venegono’s runway 36 is short, just 1,420m, we elected to go with clean wing and 1,500kg internal fuel. Aircraft 002 carries 500kg of flight-test instrumentation and the landing gear, taken directly from an Aermacchi AMX, is nearly 100kg heavier than in the production aircraft. With crew, take-off weight was 7,700kg. Outside air temperature was +28°C (82°F), wind calm, QNH 1018mb and visibility 8km with haze, clear sky and no turbulence. The operating area was to the north east, above the mountains surrounding Lake Como and so our base level was 10,000-15,000ft.
Boarding was via a ground ladder, but production aircraft will have a drop-down ladder “post” for crew entry. Stepping in was simple with the enormous canopy side-hinged to the right. The Martin-Baker Mk16 ejection seat was comfortable, with electric adjustment and a five-piece harness, which I like for negative g. I immediately liked the fact that all cockpit switches are forward of the pilot’s body line so there would be no need to bury my head or operate switches “blind” – something I had not seen since the Folland Gnat.
The three large head-down MFDs were bright, with clear formats and sharply defined symbology and with bezel buttons for sub-menu selection. The layout closely resembles that of the Eurofighter and Rafale. The centre stick, again similar to the Eurofighter’s, is positioned so as not to obscure the centre MFD. Mounted on the left sidewall, the throttles are “twinned” to look like a single unit and move along rails rather than a quadrant – a nice design that frees up console space.
APU start assist was simple. I liked that the engine-start rotary selection knobs are press in to turn/select and not pull out, preventing damage to the switch. Post-start we had to wait about 12s for the OBOGS to start operating. The canopy was then closed electrically, but in a two-action sequence. The first activates a horn and brings the canopy over and down to about 25cm (10in) above the side rail. The second action fully closes the canopy after a delay of about 3s to ensure no fingers are trapped – another excellent design detail.
Field of view in the rear cockpit is outstanding (and even better in the front). The canopy is so large and clear that it gives the slightly weird impression of not being there at all. The rear seat is so high that you almost lose sight of the front seat and, with no detonation cord to disrupt the forward view, it gave the impression of being in a single-seat cockpit.
Accurate taxiing
| The canopy is so large and clear that it gives the slightly weird impression of not being there at all. The rear seat is so high that you almost lose sight of the front seat |
We were ready to taxi 2-3min after start. Power to move was small and throttles close to idle at taxi speed. Taxiing was accurate, and tight turns easy to achieve with nosewheel steering (NWS) set to low and the carbon brakes were progressive and effective. I did not like the small NWS engage button at the base of the stick’s forward face, or having to cycle between low and high settings on the cockpit coaming. I recommend a chunkier switch or paddle so that students can find it in a hurry and, as it is steer-by-wire, incorporating the low/high modes into a digital schedule and leaving it fully engaged.
Line-up checks consisted of setting the trailing-edge flaps to take-off (20°), which automatically scheduled the leading-edge flaps to 20°, checking both engines momentarily at 80% NH then setting 100% and releasing brakes (aircraft 002 was not yet fitted with the production “pseudo reheat” throttle detent at the 90% NH position). Acceleration was rapid and telemetry showed a 400m ground roll, 11s take-off run and lift off at 8° AoA and 130kt (I was a little late to pull at the target rotate speed of 115kt).
| M-346 is designed to handle and manoeuvre like a modern fighter |
The HUD can show various flightpath vector (FPV) symbols, but we selected climb/dive angle (CDA – a velocity vector in pitch, but locked laterally). To aid accurate pitch capture, the HUD take-off symbology features additional pitch target bars that were useful at rotation until the CDA stabilised. Gear and flap were selected up immediately to observe the 200kt indicated limit speed, and the aircraft throttled back just seconds later to observe an ATC speed limit of 300kt. I felt no pitch changes with gear or flap travel.
After the gear came up, the HUD automatically changed to navigation mode. In the ATC positioning turns that followed, the controls already felt powerful, light, harmonised and fighter-like. They reminded me of the Dassault Mirage 2000, which has the nicest fly-by-wire FCS of any fighter I have flown to date.
After stabilising at 3,000ft, we were re-cleared to climb to 29,000ft. Full power and 300kt best climb speed gave a climb angle exceeding 25° and a climb rate that was off any clock I could see. The cockpit environment remained quiet and smooth. The FCS with its Phase 1 software load still felt extremely good. The control mechanical characteristics were just about perfect, with low breakout forces, just 0.25kg, in all axes. Roll rate was well over 200°/s and the roll could be stopped precisely at the 90° point.
The FCS uses a flightpath hold control law, so the pilot can place the FPV at any pitch angle, release the controls and the aircraft will maintain that flightpath angle during speed change. I tried this inverted, with the FPV on the horizon line, and released the controls. It was impressive to see the aircraft maintain -1g precisely with no stick input.
Longitudinally, the aircraft has auto-trim with gear up and above 190kt, so throughout the climb and accelerating to M0.85 at 29,000ft, the stick never moved and there was no a need to trim in any axis – a fighter-type feature. I could detect no pitch changes with power. I could not exceed M0.85, so cannot comment on transonic/supersonic performance and handling.
I descended rapidly to 20,000ft for some hard combat-type manoeuvring. I liked the airbrake, which can be selected to any angle up to 60°, with the position shown on the combined airbrake/flaps/gear display panel just above the gear handle.
In the 15,000-20,000ft height band, at 300kt and with 1,200kg of internal fuel, the lift boundary was buffet limited around +4g. Cecconello says the automatic scheduling of the leading-edge flaps still has to be perfected in FCS Phase 3, which should allow more g to be generated. I would recommend investigating scheduling the flaps automatically with increasing AoA versus airspeed, as in the KAI T-50, but this may require strengthening of the flaps.
Rapid roll reversals, highly loaded rapid rolls, low-speed loops and a high g wing-over all showed the aircraft to have no vices or control law discontinuities. Field of view was superb all the way around to the fin.
The aircraft was stabilised gear and flaps up at 20° AoA, the Phase 1 FCS limit, equating to 109kt. Later, flying the simulator with Phase 3 FCS indicated that at zero airspeed, with full aileron deflection held against full opposite rudder, the M-346 was completely spin-resistant.
Laterally and directionally, the aircraft could be rolled with rudder in the direction of the applied rudder pedal, and over 12° of sideslip could be generated to “kick off drift” for a crosswind landing in up to the demonstrated 30kt limit. The FCS damped any Dutch roll. Overall, I thought the FCS even at Phase 1 was excellent, and at Phase 3 it should be superb.
We then dived to 1,500ft for a high-speed, low-level transit home at 500kt-plus following the HUD navigation symbology. The low-level ride felt steady and comfortable and the aircraft/engine combination feels strong in this flight regime. There is a lot of excess thrust at low level, so I have no doubt the 572kt equivalent airspeed will be achievable when cleared.
We broke into the circuit at +5g, from 360kt indicated, slowing with full airbrake. With the gear down, below 190kt, the aircraft requires manual trim, but this is an enhancing feature to give students the necessary feedback from on the stick on speed change if they lose attention to the HUD. Downwind, I checked the gear down and the leading- and trailing-edge flaps were at 20°. The turn on to finals was flown at around 150kt until the AoA “bracket” came into view (the HUD having automatically reverted to landing mode), then 12º AoA held before slowing to 14º AoA (128kt) for the roll.
Soaking it up
From the instructor position I found the forward canopy arch blocked the view of the touchdown point, but Cecconello says the arch will be half the size in the production aircraft. The FPV was placed over the intended landing point, small bursts of power holding the AoA, and the trailing-link gear soaked up the touchdown with no hint of bounce.
Two rollers were completed then, due to a problem with his microphone, Cecconello decided on a full-stop landing. This was with full landing flap (leading-edge 25°/trailing-edge 40°), with telemetry showing a touchdown at 115kt and 13º AoA and stopping within 600m without the use of heavy braking. Flying and demonstrating an accurate circuit and touchdown to a student would be simple. The aircraft was as easy to fly as any jet I have flown and could be coped with by a basic student. We shut down with 600kg of fuel, having used 900kg over a flight time of 45min.
A teaching effectiveness graph developed by Alenia Aermacchi – with the Eurofighter and Rafale referenced at 112% – puts the M-346 at 92%, 10% ahead of the T-50. The company claims the M-346 could save an air force around €2 million ($2.5 million) per student pilot, as its training effectiveness equates to reduced OCU flying hours. Alenia Aermacchi argues these savings make the M-346 a cheaper solution than current Hawk 115-type advanced trainers.
My overriding impression after flying the M-346 is of an aircraft with great handling and performance, a true fourth-generation trainer in design and part of an integrated training system. I believe the M-346 has the potential to offer “one-type” training from basic through to fighter lead-in, and I admire Alenia Aermacchi’s decision to put cockpit and display customisation at the heart of the M-346’s digital architecture. ■
General: AMRAAM Derivative Could Target Sats
Apr 1, 2008
| The F-22 could be carrying an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile, costing less than $1 million, in a few years if the military and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) decide to hone the capabilities of a new missile defense weapon from Raytheon.A derivative of the Aim-120 AMRAAM, the Pentagon’s established long-range air-to-air missile, is once again being tailored for a new mission – this time the interception of Scud-type short and medium-range ballistic missiles.But a senior U.S. Air Force official confides that the capability is inherently that of a cheap, rapidly-deployed, air-launched weapon for shooting down satellites in low-Earth orbit if the service or Missile Defense Agency were to order its further refinement and development.
Raytheon officials say they haven’t researched the ASAT mission and have no opinion about its feasibility. They do note that the AMRAAM derivative isn’t as large or nearly as energetic as the Raytheon Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) that shot down an errant National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite earlier this year (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 22). However, they note that if launched at Mach 0.85 at 30,000-40,000 feet, the new, 358-pound missile becomes much more capable against objects at altitudes of 30 kilometers (19 miles) or more. The Air Force general was much more blunt. “If you put the missile in an F-22 and launch it at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet while in a zoom and at a 45-degree angle, you’ve got an ASAT capability against spacecraft in low-Earth orbit,” he says. Raytheon officials gave Aviation Week a look at the latest test video of the sensor capability of this new, air-launched, missile-defense weapon they’re developing. The AMRAAM-derivative is called the NCADE, for Network-Centric Airborne Defense Element. For this test, smaller Aim-9 air-to-air missiles were used. Two F-16s, each carrying an Aim-9 equipped with the NCADE’s highly specialized infrared seeker, attacked a 14-inch diameter target missile over the White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The first missile grazed the target missile’s body and took off two fins. The second came within about a yard of the target missile, which is good enough to validate the system, according to Mike Booen, Raytheon’s vice president of advanced missile defense. Future testing will involve the missile’s divert and attitude control system. For the present, NCADE is being developed as a boost-phase interceptor with seekers that can distinguish between the rocket plume and hard body from launch. That avoids inaccuracies or last-minute course changes caused by seekers having to shift from the plume’s heat as an aiming point to the much cooler target missile’s body. Raytheon planners originally looked at unmanned platforms to carry the NCADE for long-endurance missions. Candidates include the Predator B and perhaps an even higher-performance UAV that could offer added speed and altitude. It might even bring the long-envisioned Predator C back to life, a program that was put on the back burner as Predator A production and development of the Predator B accelerated. Another option could be the 2018 future bomber. However, Booen says Air Force planners are adamant that the missile be on forward deployed, manned fighters like the F-22. They bring up the frustration in the 1991 Gulf War when pilots could see Scuds ascending but had no way to attack them. “NCADE could make almost any platform multimission,” Booen says. He also contends that 20 missiles could be on the ramp, ready for operations in as little as four years at a cost of less than $1 million each in four years from a given start date. More demonstrations are proposed for 2009 that could lead to a program start in 2010.
|
Retirement of the F-117 ends a chapter in the development of stealth that began with the Skunk Works’ Have Blue technology demonstrators, which began flying in December 1977.
These pioneered the arrowhead-like planform and facted airframe, designed to minimise the aircraft’s radar cross-section by preventing energy being reflected back to the radar.
Work on the F-117 began in 1978, the first full-scale development aircraft flying in June 1981 at the highly secret Groom Lake base north of Las Vegas in Nevada.
To save time and money, the F-117 used off-the-shelf equipment, including F404 engines and cockpit controls and displays from the F-18, and fly-by-wire computers from the F-16.
The F-117 became operational in 1982, flown by the 4450th Test Group from an isolated airfield constructed in the Tonopah Test Range, north of Groom Lake.
Flights were conducted in secret, and only at night, until November 1988, when the F-117’s existence was publicly acknowledged so the stealth fighter could begin operating with other USAF aircraft.
The Nighthawk made its combat debut in December 1989, conducting the first strikes against Panamanian forces in Operation Just Cause. F-117s went on to make the opening attacks of Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Allied Force in 1999 and Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
Originally designed to carry a pair of 2,000lb laser-guided bombs internally, the aircraft was upgraded to carry satellite-guided munitions and hard-target penetrators.
In 1992, the F-117s became part of the 49th Fighter Wing based at Holloman. Of the 59 aircraft built, seven were lost – including one that broke apart during an air display and another shot down by Serbian forces.
Increasingly costly to operate and maintain, the F-117 is being retired to save money for modernisation, the USAF says. Holloman’s 49th Fighter Wing will re-equip with Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor stealth fighters.
source: flightglobal.com
Fears about a cancer-causing substance in the cockpit has prompted the Israeli Air Force (IAF) to suspend training flights for its 62-aircraft fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufas.
“According to tests the substance is formaldehyde that recently was defined as causing cancer above certain concentration,” says the IAF spokesman.
Formaldehyde is a known by-product of jet engine exhaust, but it’s not clear if the IDF detected uniquely high levels in the cockpit of the F-16I. By contrast, the IAF’s fleet of 125 F-16C/Ds remain fully operational.
Israeli sources say an IAF team is traveling on Sunday to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics headquarters at Fort Worth, Texas, to identify the source of the potentially cancerous substance.
The sources also indicate that the immediate source of the formaldehyde is probably the F-16I air conditioning system.
Lockheed Martin is “investigating some recent IAF pilot reports regarding the air quality in their F-16I aircraft and we are providing this support,” a company spokeswoman says. “We have not had similar reports by other F-16 users.”
There are 3,561 F-16s in active service with international air forces around the world, according to Flight’s Milicas database.
DATE:17/03/08
suitable aircraft could be produced to meet the 2010 deadline the former Government had set.”The second part of the study will now examine Australia’s air combat capability needs until 2045, including the plan to acquire the F-35s. Further announcements on this are expected in late-April. The review’s findings will be incorporated by end-2008 into a new Defence White Paper, which will guide future defence planning.
The decision will be a relief to Boeing, which has already cut metal on the RAAF’s first aircraft. Australia, which is scheduled to receive the first two-seat F/A-18Fs from 2010, became the first export customer for the aircraft and its decision was seen as a major vote of confidence in the fighter. Boeing hopes that this will pave the way for other orders in the region, in particular a $12 billion 126-aircraft tender in India.
In February, Australia’s air force chief told Flight International that he was for ordering the F/A-18s. “We are asking them to spend a lot of money, so it is understandable that they want to examine it,” Air Chief Marshal Geoff Shepherd said then of the review. The next stage, he added, was with the F-35. “Our future is with the JSF, by 2020 we want to have an all F-35 fleet. We believe that the Super Hornets will serve us well until the F-35s come in. If the government gives us the OK for the F/A-18s, we will be able to handle any delays to the F-35 through mid-life upgrades for the Super Hornets.”
South African Air Force To Receive First Gripen Soon
Mar 8, 2008Ten years after a contentious selection process, the South African Air Force will formally receive the first of its 26 Saab Gripens next month. These aircraft will form the core of the service’s defensive and offensive capability for the coming decades.
The fighter purchase constitutes the single largest procurement item within the 1998 Strategic Defense Package, and its significance extends beyond the purely military sphere. That’s because the choices made in the package were driven not only by a desire to revamp the South African military’s weapons inventory, but also by aspirations to reshape the country’s defense-industrial base and to support the broader national economy.
The end of the apartheid regime allowed the country’s armed forces to reenter the international arms market to revamp their inventory. The acquisition decisions made in late 1998 – born out of the government’s 1996 defense white paper and the following defense review – were intended to modernize the armed services, replacing quantity with quality.
The Strategic Defense Package also contained a clear industrial imperative to draw in both direct technology transfer and indirect business. Besides revamping the military, it aimed to help recast the country’s defense industry. At its peak, the sector accounted for 9% of those employed in manufacturing, according to the government’s 1999 white paper on South Africa’s defense-related industries. The change in government and in the country’s military posture saw the defense budget decline by over 50% during the 1990s, with acquisition funding falling even further, according to the report. The defense industry – and Denel, in particular – continues to wrestle with these developments.
The defense package procurements covered combat aircraft, advanced jet trainers, light utility helicopters, submarines and maritime helicopters. The combat aircraft and the jet trainers alone would total $2.2 billion.
Fiercely contested, the process and the decisions remain controversial. Today’s leader of the African National Congress, Jacob Zuma, is under scrutiny over corruption allegations related to some of the acquisitions. For a country struggling with serious poverty and the need to provide basic amenities to many, defense acquisition expenditures appeared to be a luxury it could ill afford.
However, South Africa’s geostrategic significance coupled with the region’s volatility militates toward the retention of capable armed forces.
The acquisitions were to be the catalyst for transforming not only the South African National Defense Force (SANDF) but also the defense industrial sector. Until this point, the development of both had been closely intertwined with the apartheid regime. The military was structured to deal with the border conflicts and the insurgency that sprang out of the regime’s racist ideology, with actors on both sides of the conflict also proxies in the Cold War.
For the last two decades of apartheid, the country was unable to openly buy Western military equipment – the result of the 1977 United Nations embargo. It had forged close links with Israel as a defense-industrial partner. This relationship was to wither following the end of apartheid and the emergence of a multiracial government in 1994.
The 1996 white paper set out the country’s need for “a balanced, modern, affordable and technologically advanced military force.” It also said: “The primary role of the SANDF shall be to defend South Africa against external military aggression. Deployment in an internal policing capacity shall be limited to exceptional circumstances and subject to parliamentary approval and safeguards.”
The Gripen was selected – in preference to the Dassault Mirage 2000-5 and the then-Deutsche Aerospace Mako – to meet the South African Air Force’s requirement for a combat aircraft to eventually fill the roles of its Mirage F1 and Cheetah C aircraft. The BAE Systems Hawk was chosen as the successor to the Aermacchi MB326, known in the SAAF as the Impala Mk. 1. In numerical terms, the programs were far from a one-for-one replacement.
Hawk deliveries started in 2006, with all 24 to be delivered to the air force by the end of 2008. As of January, 20 had already been delivered to AFB Makhado. Delivery of the Gripen will also begin this year, with all of the aircraft handed over by 2012. The nine D two-seat aircraft will be delivered first, to be followed by the 17 single-seat C models. The SAAF’s No. 2 squadron, which currently operates the Cheetah C from Makhado, in the country’s north, will reequip with the Gripen. The first six Cheetah C pilots will start type conversion at the air base in September, supported by two Swedish instructors.
Alongside manufacturing structures work on the Gripen as a part of the offset-related defense industrial package (DIP), there was also a commitment to flight testing in South Africa, says Johan Rydin, Saab’s Gripen in-country director.
A 2004 memorandum of understanding between Saab and Denel set out the timescale for the program to be carried out at South Africa’s Gripen Flight Test Center. The facility is at AFB Overberg on the country’s southeastern coast, conveniently colocated with the Denel-run Overberg Test Range (known as OTB).
The MOU “set a first-flight target date of Aug. 15, 2006,” says Rydin. “We did it four days before on the 11th.” The plan was to carry out 100-150 flights, concluding at the end of October 2007. They finished on Nov. 1, he adds.
The Gripen eventually flew 199 sorties totaling 178 hr. It averaged 17 flights per month, he says, “five more than we thought we could achieve.” The proximity to the OTB was a clear benefit, with the weapons range providing the ability to rapidly conduct multiple sorties. On one occasion, four free-fall bomb-trial flights were carried out during a 5-hr. period.
Aircraft reliability was also high. “The aircraft had only three snags in 18 months,” he notes.
One of these, however, was particularly dicey. During a low-altitude flight test, possible fuel contamination was a worry due to a problem with the center-line drop tank. The aircraft had to be grounded temporarily in January while the issue was resolved. The other two problems were related to the environmental control system. Magnus Lewis-Olsson, Saab’s flight test operations manager, says the aircraft has been used for a variety of trials, including examining the performance of “various software loads of increasing capabilities.” He adds that flight testing has covered the navigation and communications suites, as well as night flying and initial free-fall bomb clearance and utilization. The latter included areas such as weapon-aiming symbology and asymmetric weapon-release characteristics. These trials used Mk. 81 and Mk. 82 bombs.
The OTB range also provided radar emitters for tests of the aircraft’s electronic warfare suite, while chaff and flare dispersion tests have also been done. The flight test program culminated in 10 sorties that included mock air-to-air engagements with a Cheetah C.
The air force has yet to publicly identify its weapons integration priorities for the Gripen, although a choice of precision-guided bomb is pending. Trials also will begin in the second quarter using the Rafael Litening II laser designator pod with the aircraft.
While the air force has selected the Denel Dynamics A-Darter imaging-infrared guided missile as the short-range weapon for its Gripens, it may procure an interim weapon pending the completion of A-Darter development. The program is funded jointly by South Africa and Brazil. The integration costs of the missile were one of several changes to the overall program that resulted in the number of C-standard aircraft being reduced to 17 from 19 in 2006.
The test center will be transferred to Denel and the SAAF around the fourth quarter of this year, while Saab will continue to provide support into 2009. The Swedish company also is considering using the center to support its own product development. This could include further Gripen variants, as well as UAV and unmanned combat air vehicle research. Were any of these to come to fruition within the next four years, the value of the work could be included as part of the DIP.
“The industrial participation approach was intended to leverage industrial value for the country, to provide economic and social benefits,” says Jonathan Walton, BAE’s executive vice president for South Africa. The government’s aim was to secure work worth up to “400% of the contract value,” he notes. “Several bidders were offering this level of industrial participation.”
Given the size of the requirement, Walton says, “there was quite a lot of cynicism about the IP package.” The target is defined as the delivery of $8.7 billion worth of economic benefit through the provision of work packages, subcontracts and financial investment.
The importance of the participation program is underscored by President Thabo Mbeki’s request to then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair that his government “ensure BAE would deliver,” according to Walton.
The South African government set out the overall framework for offset in 1996 when it established the National Industrial Participation (NIP) program. This covers all state purchases over a certain value. In addition, military procurement is covered by the requirement for a DIP for offset directly related to the acquisition.
The defense industrial package amounts to 17% of the total obligation. Flexibility has been required in delivering part of the offset, since some of the originally projected business did not materialize. Walton points to optimistic expectations for the total of BAE Hawk exports as an example. Direct offset includes Gripen and Hawk aerostructures work as well as Hawk final assembly. Indirect structural work includes packages on the Euroýýfighter Typhoon.
BAE’s expansion into the land systems sector has proved a distinct benefit in the South African offset context. Its 2004 purchase of Alvis also brought with it South African subsidiary OMC. Walton says the company had to make the case for this to be considered as IP-investment by the government since, “in South Africa, aerospace is seen as strategic and not land. It was very challenging.” Land Systems South Africa, as the company is known, is owned by BAE Systems and the government’s Black Economic Empowerment Group. BAE is the majority shareholder, with 75%. The land systems business also provided offset credits once the order intake exceeded an agreed “pre-investment baseline.”
The broader “national industrial” package covers the remaining 83% of the total offset requirement, says Walton. To fulfill this, BAE and Saab set up the South Africa National Industrial Participation organization. “The government encouraged us to invest in green-field companies,” says Walton. So far, 42 projects – including automotive, agro-processing, information technology, ship repair, biotech and medicine – have been established.
With regard to the DIP, Walton says industry faces several challenges. “We are extremely dependent upon the ability of the projects to deliver,” he notes. A comparatively strong rand has also “hindered the export performance” of some of the projects.
While there have been challenges associated with direct offset, Walton says fulfilling the NIP is proving to be more difficult. Most of the problems and some poor performances have been in the national participation projects – but “this is probably what the NIP program is all about,” he adds. The national participation program is geared to investing in businesses and projects that likely would not have otherwise received financial support.
BAE and Saab report every six months in a formal meeting with the government on the state of the NIP.
Walton says there’s still a need for more DIP on Gripen. A “major project” is being discussed, though he declines to provide further detail. This may well be related to the future variant of the Gripen, for which a demonstrator is now being built. “We’re not in panic mode.”
By 2011 – when the offset packages are due to be fulfilled – Walton sees BAE’s presence beyond this as “predominantly in the land systems.”
At one point BAE Systems had been selected by the government as the strategic partner in Denel. The company was expected to take an initial 20% stake in Denel.
Shaun Liebenberg, Denel’s CEO, says there were “attempts to sell Denel on the international market to BAE or EADS, but there were too many issues.”
Liebenberg was appointed as Denel CEO in 2005 with a mandate to restructure the ailing group and return it to profitability. One of his aims was to conclude a series of equity partnerships covering the eight main areas of the group’s business.
The latest – and likely his last, since he will leave his post in May – was the sale of a majority stake in Denel Munitions to Germany’s Rheinmetall Group at the beginning of February. (Liebenberg is joining Rheinmetall.) The move resulted in considerable comment in the South African press.
Liebenberg also has been pushing Saab to increase its stake in Denel Saab Aerostructures. Saab currently has 20%, with options to increase first to 51% and potentially to 70%.
The initial deal with Saab was driven by the need to gain “competency,” suggests Liebenberg. The company’s aerostructures business has run into difficulties on some contracts – including its work on the A400M, where it is responsible for the wing-fuselage fairing. BAE’s Walton notes that Aerostructures was “faced with the loss of the A400M work.” This outcome, he suggests, would have been a major setback for the company.
The Denel CEO says the issues on the A400M arose partly because the company had “never done anything like this before.” As for Airbus, there was a “lack of clarity” regarding the design, he asserts. As of January, there were still design changes related to the weight-reduction effort.
Irrespective of the A400M teething troubles, Liebenberg sees the aerostructures business as offering considerable promise. “The marketplace is competitive but there’s a huge undersupply,” he notes. Denel has held discussions with Embraer on becoming a risk-sharing partner in the latter’s proposed C-390 airlifter, building on its experience on the A400M.
Denel is also looking to forge closer ties with AgustaWestland based on its final assembly of the A109 light utility helicopter, which is part of the Strategic Defense Package.
Liebenberg wants the Defense Ministry “to focus on long-term contracts.” He advocates increasing the amount of maintenance and support carried out by industry instead of by the military. This constitutes a controversial approach in the South African context, so it’s unclear how his departure will affect the proposal and, indeed, the broader outlook for Denel.
China’s J-10 fighter leads Taiwan air threat, says USA SOURCE :FLIGHTGLOBAL
07/03/08
Spearheaded by new indigenously developed or improved fighters and bombers, such as the Chengdu J-10, China is building up its capability to use force against Taiwan while maming it harder for the USA to come to the defence of the island nation.
That is a conclusion of the US Department of Defense’s latest analysis of Chinese military power, submitted to Congress at the beginning of March. The report highlights the increasing capability of Beijing’s air and air defence forces
A growing percentage of the 490 combat aircraft based within unrefueled range of Taiwan are newer, more advanced types, claims the Pentagon.
These include the indigenously developed F-16-class J-10, which is to be joined by the more-capable Shenyang J-11B, a Chinese-developed upgrade of the Sukhoi Su-27SK.
The report also highlights the modernised Xi’an JH-7A fighter-bomber, whcih can carry precision weapons including the YJ-91 anti-radiation missile as well as TV-guided missiles and laser-guided bombs.
China is also upgrading its Xi’an H-6 bomber fleet with a new variant, the H-6K, featuring new engines, a glass cockpit and six underwing pylons for what the DoD says is a new long-range cruise missile.
The Pentagon claims China is increasing the capability of its air force with Russian-supplied Ilyushin Il-78 aerial refueling tankers as well as developing several types of airborne early warning and control
aircraft, including the Xi’an KJ-2000 based on the Russian Beriev A-50 and the indigenous Shaanxi KJ-200 based on the Y-8 transport.
Beijing is also equipping its armed forces with new air-launched and surface-launched missiles, long-range unmanned air vehicles and unmanned combat air vehicles, the Pentagon report says.
General: We Will Find A Way To Buy 380 F-22s
Feb 13, 2008
|
|
U.S. Air Force Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of Air Force Materiel Command, told a group of reporters Wednesday that the Air Force will figure out a way to buy 380 F-22s, despite the fact that the Pentagon – through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) – has capped the number of Raptors to be procured at 183.“We think that [183] is the wrong number,” Carlson said. Even 380, a number he joked is a “compromise” from the 381 the Air Force originally asked for, still leaves too much room for risk. That risk could even include a future conflict with China, he said. “Most people say in the future there will be a Chinese element to whatever we do,” he added.“We’re committed to funding 380,” Carlson said Feb. 13 after speaking at Aviation Week’s Defense Technology and Requirements conference in Washington. “We’re building a program right now to do that. It’s going to be incredibly difficult on the Air Force, but we’ve done this before.” He added there are only three places from which to draw funds to accomplish the Air Force’s goal: operations and maintenance, research and development and procurement. “We don’t have a [money] printing machine,” he said. “We have to pay for it.”OSD and the Air Force have long disputed how many Raptors to buy, with the Air Force maintaining that it needs 380-plus, especially as the rest of its fleet ages. OSD has tried to cap F-22s in light of planned future Joint Strike Fighters, which also are made by a Lockheed Martin-led team, as well as burgeoning defense investments elsewhere like shipbuilding and ground vehicles. Airbus launches alternative fuels tests with A380 GTL demonstration flight
Remy says alternative non-food feedstocks that are renewable and sustainable, such as algae, are expected to reach maturity by around 2015 with aircraft approved to fly with advanced biofuels as early as 2020. “We believe 25% of jet fuel could be alternative fuel by 2025 and 30% could be biofuel by 2030,” he says. According to Robert Nuttall, R-R vice-president market and environmental strategy, the demonstration was flown with production Trent 900 engines which were operated to maximum power on take off with no restriction. During the flight, checks were made of engine parameters at different flight levels and in holding conditions, of fuel system indications, of engine transients at maximum altitude and descent, and of relight characteristics, he adds. |
With South-East Asian air forces looking to update their fleets across the board, some fascinating manufacturer tussles are afoot (flight international)
South-East Asia is developing into a very open and competitive market for military aircraft, with regional air forces looking to renew fleets which have some aircraft that have been in service for more than 40 years.
Almost all major defence contractors have a chance of selling to the region. Singapore has ordered US fighters and is choosing between South Korean, Italian and UK advanced jet trainers. Indonesia and Malaysia have gone for Russian Sukhoi fighters in recent years, while Thailand warmed Swedish hearts with an order for the Saab Gripen multi-role combat aircraft.
Not just fighters
All four are likely to order more aircraft in the next few years, and Vietnam could begin a major fighter replacement exercise early next decade. And it is not just fighters that are required – maritime patrol aircraft, airborne early warning capability, attack, utility and transport helicopters, and trainers are all on the region’s shopping list.
“This is not a classic arms race as there is no real animosity among the players,” says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies. “Most of the purchases are needed to replace old inventory and prevent a drop in relative capability. But there is also an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ – tit-for-tat, non-aggressive procurement rivalries.”
One official at a major Western defence contractor points out that although North-East Asia and India grab most of the headlines, South-East Asia is a key market. “Singapore, for example, has a big budget and its decisions are often taken very seriously elsewhere,” he says. “Its order of the [Boeing] F-15, for example, was seen as a vote of confidence in the aircraft. Its decision in the advanced trainer competition will also be closely monitored.”
Tough market
Boeing says the region will remain a tough, open market. “Competition is intense, and always will be. We believe customers will make their decisions based on technology access, low risk, proven capability and value for money.” 
Leading the way is Singapore, with tactical fighters, advanced trainers and maritime patrol aircraft all on the horizon. The South-East’s biggest operator of Lockheed Martin F-16s has ordered 24 F-15SGs, and is looking to increase its “strategic depth” in the next decade, says air force chief Maj Gen Ng Chee Khern.
Buyers’ requirements and possible suppliers
|
|---|
Singapore aligned itself with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme in 2002 at the “security co-operation participant” level, the lowest rung of the four-tier international teaming set-up. Delays in the fighter’s development have kept the country waiting for the final configuration, but that information should be delivered this year. Singapore will then have to choose between a second batch of F-15s and going ahead with the F-35.Hawk viability
Advanced jet trainers are also on Singapore’s wish-list. It is evaluating the AermacchiM-346, BAE Systems Hawk 128, and Korea Aerospace Industries T-50. The Hawk has been the standard for more than 30 years, but its viability has come into question after it was eliminated from an United Arab Emirates contest, where it faced the same rivals.
Singapore’s choices could have an impact on those of its neighbour. Bitzinger points out that when Singapore ordered F-16s, Malaysia bought 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKMs to complement its fleet of 18 MiG-29s, eight Boeing F/A-18Ds and 13 Northrop F-5E/Fs. Its first all-Sukhoi squadron should be combat ready in the first quarter of 2009.
Kuala Lumpur is keen to buy more fighters and is likely to choose between a second batch of Su-30s and possibly F/A-18E/Fs for delivery from 2011. A contract must be awarded in 2009 if funding is to be secured in time for the country’s 2011-15 five-year plan. Both internal and external politics will play a role in its decision.
“General elections are expected this year and the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition should win again,” says a Kuala Lumpur-based observer. “Some factions favour the Russians and others favour the Americans, and we must see who gains the upper hand. Russia has been a reliable supplier, but the MiGs have faced technical problems. But if Malaysia buys American fighters, it must induct aircraft that are very different from what it already has. It may make sense to stick to one type.”
Malaysia’s priorities are maritime patrol aircraft and utility helicopters, however, says the observer. “Malaysia must live up to its commitment to monitor its waters. It also needs new utility helicopters to replace its ageing ‘Nuris’ [Sikorsky S-61] after recent high-profile crashes.”
Financial considerations may lead to upgrades of the F/A-18s and MiG-29s, which have six years’ life left without modification, instead of new fighters, he adds.
Neighbouring Indonesia, the region’s most populous and largest country, also needs to upgrade its aircraft. A fleet of 12 F-16A/Bs, 10 F-5s and 11 A-4 Skyhawks are a testament to the country’s historical close relationship with Washington. But much of the fleet was grounded after a US arms embargo, imposed in the late 1990s after the Indonesian government’s bloody crackdown on separatist forces in East Timor, cut off the supply of spare parts.
Cancelled orders
Jakarta turned to Russia and ordered 12 Su-30s in 1997, but cancelled that order in 1998 after the Asian financial crisis. In 2003, former Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri unexpectedly confirmed an order for two Sukhoi Su-27s and two Su-30s during a visit to Moscow. Eventually, Indonesia plans to buy 48 new aircraft to replace its front-line fighters. It is also looking to replace its ageing Rockwell OV-10 Broncos and BAE Systems Hawk 53s, and is considering the Aero Vodochody L-159, Hongdu K-8 and KAI KO-1B turboprop.
The USA lifted its embargo on Indonesia in 2007, which should lead to the availability of spare parts, possibly upgrades to existing fighters, and maybe even an order for newF-16s. But many in Jakarta are still unhappy. “How can we be sure the USA won’t impose another embargo?” says an Indonesian defence ministry official. “The Russians seem to be more reliable, especially during difficult times for our country.”
search and rescue
Indonesia also has a requirement for utility and search and rescue helicopters, a shortfall that was highlighted by the army’s difficulty in reaching victims of the December 2004 tsunami. Jakarta has already been in talks with Russia to buy four Mil Mi-35 attack helicopters and five cargo helicopters of an unspecificed type.
A tight budget could halt those ambitions, however. “Indonesia says it wants 48 fighters by 2010, but I doubt it can afford half of that, even if the Russians give a good discount,” says one defence contractor. “And while new fighters will bring bragging rights, the priority has to be helicopters. The government can’t be seen to spend too much on defence procurements as well. Poverty alleviation remains a big goal.”
Like Indonesia, Thailand postponed plans for new F/A-18s and F-16C/Ds after the 1998 economic crisis and stuck to its 60 F-16A/Bs and 35 F-5E/Fs. Last year, however, the air force said it would spend 
$1 billion on new helicopters and aircraft over the next five years. The first phase began in December last year with an order for six Saab Gripens and an option for six more to replace the F-5s. The deal includes two Saab Erieye airborne early warning aircraft, with the first likely to be delivered in 2010.
Thailand’s choice of Sweden’s Gripen over its traditional source, the USA, has raised eyebrows. “Talks have been ongoing for several years and the Swedes have developed a very good relationship with the Thais,” says a Singapore-based observer. “Saab is also keen to get export sales and it must have made a very good offer.”
The observer says he expects Bangkok to exercise its options for Gripens around late 2009, forming a
proper squadron of the type. Thailand will then need to decide on a follow-up order between the F-16, F/A-18 and the Gripen. “The Thai-US relationship stretches back to the Vietnam war. Things were a little rocky during the 2006 military coup, but both countries will continue to be good friends. Gripen gave Thailand a very good deal this time around, but I doubt it can continue doing that,” says the observer.
Swedish success
All the major contractors will also be eyeing Vietnam, which will require new fighters early in the next decade. Hanoi has about 220 combat-capable aircraft, mostly 1970s and 1980s-era fighters such as the MiG-21 and Su-22. It tried to modernise in the 1990s, buying Su-27s and Su-30s from Russia and reconditioning Su-22s and L-39s. But plans to buy Dassault Mirage fighters from France fell through under pressure from the USA and it did not go ahead with upgrades for the MiG-21s.
Defence contractors say Vietnam’s growing economy has boosted state coffers, possibly paving the way for a competition. Dislodging the Russians could be tough, given the close relations between the countries, but Vietnam’s growing economic ties with the USA and Europe could help defence contractors from those two regions.
But there is no such optimism about the Philippines, which is short of money and has a track record of corruption tainting tenders. Its air force has Aermacchi SF-260 and S-211 aircraft, many of which are not operational, and a helicopter fleet mainly comprising Vietnam War-era Bell UH-1H Hueys and MD Helicopters MG520s. But Manila desperately needs to renew its fleet, especially to help its army cope with separatist rebels.
Last year, after a delay of several years, Philippines president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo set aside a budget of about 1 billion pesos ($30 million) to buy attack helicopters. But this month the defence department overturned a decision to buy MD Helicopters MG530F helicopters following irregularities in the selection process and ordered a fresh tender. The government has also said it would set aside7 billion pesos for 20 attack and utility helicopters over the next few years.
Contractors are not rushing in to show off their wares, however. “We don’t know if the money will come in, and the best equipment might not win anyway due to the corruption,” says one official. “The best thing to do when it comes to the Philippines is to roll your eyes, offer your products with a shrug, and not expect anything to happen.”
Countries such as Laos and Cambodia are in a similar position, with a shortage of cash and the taint of corruption putting off defence contractors. Oil-rich Brunei may have the money, but has dithered for years on a deal for light combat aircraft.
Myanmar, on the other hand, has been shunned by most contractors following an arms embargo imposed on its ruling military junta for its brutal crackdown on pro-democracy activists. The country bought 10 second-hand MiG-29s from Russia in 2001, but its main supplier is China. Beijing has sold it about 60 Chengdu F-7Ms, derived from the MiG-21, 42 Nanchang A-5s, which are modified MiG-19s, and 12 K-8 primary trainers that can be used for light ground attack.
China is seen as a potential alternative supplier of relatively cheap weapons to the region. It has offered to sell eight Harbin Aircraft Z-9, a licensed copy of Eurocopter’s AS365N Dauphin, to the Philippines for its utility helicopter requirement and has reportedly held talks with Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Indonesia. Its new Chengdu J-10 and Chengdu/PAC JF-17 fighters could be an alternative to Russian and US aircraft.
Beijing may need to improve the quality of its exports, however. Myanmar has had problems with the performance and reliability of many of its Chinese aircraft, and has reportedly lost several F-7s through accidents. It has also had trouble obtaining spare parts. China may find it tough to convince a market weaned on Western weapons that it offers viable alternatives.
Still, South-East Asia has an annual arms budget of around $2 billion, so the likes of China will not stop trying. And defence contractors will keep flocking to events such as the Singapore Air Show to display their offerings and talk to prospective customers.
“Look at China and India – they mainly buy Russian,” says Bitzinger. “Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are all good customers of the USA. In South-East Asia, almost everyone has a fair chance of winning something. This is one of the most open and competitive markets around, and it will continue to be so for some time.”
2/20/2008
The F-15E Eagle program, which seemed to be on its last legs only a few years ago
, could yet gain orders for a further 110 aircraft in Asia.
That doesn’t count a contract for 20 Eagles that South Korea will probably sign in March or April, says program director Steve Winkler.
South Korea has already ordered 40 F-15Es (called F-15K in that country’s sub-v
ariant) in the first part of its three-stage FX program for 120 fighters. The next batch, which Korean media say will include a 21st aircraft to replace one that crashed, will be the second stage, FX-2.
That leaves an outstanding South Korean requirement for 60 under FX-3.
Japan, meanwhile, probably wants 50 aircraft to replace two squadrons of McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Phantoms, says Winkler. The F-15E is a contender, possbily in an upgraded form, along with the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Beyond that, Boeing is hoping for top-up orders from Israel and Saudi Arabia for their sub-variants of the F-15E, the F-15I and F-15S, respectively.
And the company, having now taken orders for 24 F-15SGs from Singapore, will be well placed if that country also needs a few more.
(FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 21/02/08)
Korea Aerospace Industries is expecting to receive the go-ahead to develop the F/A-50 fighter around mid-2008, paving the way for government funding for the programme.
The aircraft, a light combat version of KAI’s T-50 advanced jet trainer, has been mooted for several years as a possible replacement for the air force’s Northrop F-5s. South Korea has already committed to 50 T-50s and 22 A-50s, a weaponised version of the aircraft.
The company is finalising design and production details, and getting permission from the USA government due to the T-50’s use of some sensitive equipment derived from the Lockheed Martin F-16. It will then submit a long-delayed proposal to the South Korean government, says a company source. A development contract could soon follow, with the company expecting the government to commit to at least 60 aircraft.
The company has said that the government would take care of development costs and KAI would become the prime contractor. While a cost estimate has not been revealed, the company anticipates that it would be cheaper than other alternatives as the platform has already been developed for the T-50.
A request for proposals has been issued for equipment such as radar warning receivers, precision-guided bombs, countermeasures dispensers, datalinks and weapons management systems. The company hopes to fly the first prototype by early 2010. The programme will sustain the company’s T-50 line beyond late 2012, when the last of the air force’s A-50s is delivered.
Tags: accident, airplane, bussiness, FALCON, incident, MIG 1.44, military aviation, news, stealth fighter, SUKHOI FAMILY, warcraft
