Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[Grand Danois]

The future might lie in a relatively new concept called Fluidic Thrust Vectoring (FTV). By subtly changing the air-flow inside the nozzle or tailpipe the exhaust can be deflected to provide thrust vectoring control. It's less complex, lighter, cheaper, more durable and stealthy compared to a mechanical system.

http://www.billcrowther.net/research/Flow_control/FTV/FTV.html

Ultimately the concept might even replace aerodynamic control surfaces such as flaps, ailerons etc.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/index.php?p=196


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Pretty kewl concept. It's the "less complex, lighter, cheaper, more durable and stealthy compared to a mechanical system" that really makes it attractive. Some of the concepts for IR suppresion of exhaust jets seem to be complimentary to FTV.

 

[Dalregementet]

This accelerating finance crisis that will spark a global economic downturn will decrease defence spending for some years ahead. The financial resources just wont be there. Western countries will get higher interest rates/less spending and higher unemployment. China... what happen when americans decrease spending at Wal Mart? Yes, less revenues for chinese factories and less resources to the PLA. The price on oil? Well, right now Brent is on 84.06$ per barrel which means less revenues for Russia... i.e. less money for the russian defence/air force. Norway will also suffer from a global downturn, not as much as Iceland by far, but to some extent, Norway will also be affected, though much less than most countries.

I guess that a highly capable fighter aircraft with low life cycle cost, in combination with an outstanding industrial offset package, must be tempting in these days?

 

[Dalregementet]

Money talks...

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk.

Studies have now been commissioned to analyse whether Eurofighters could be adapted to fly off the carriers.

If Britain abandons the JSF, it will be seen as a further snub to the Americans following Gordon Brown’s decision last week not to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Only a week earlier, during a visit to London, Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, had said he understood Britain would be sending more troops to meet what commanders say is a 10,000 shortfall.

The possible ditching of the JSF results in part from spiralling costs that have seen the price of the planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion.

Britain has already paid out £2.5 billion in preliminary costs but next spring must start paying for actual aircraft. At that point it is committed to the entire project whatever the price.

Once full production begins, Britain will be paying more than £1 billion a year for the aircraft, exacerbating the already dire state of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget.

“That has really concentrated minds at the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis. “Put simply no-one has the faintest idea how much this project will cost.”

The cost is only part of the problem. There is serious concern over the aircraft’s lack of firepower as it can only carry three 500lb bombs, compared with as many as eight on the Eurofighter.

There is also increasing frustration over the continued American refusal to share information on the technology involved.


The full article...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837746.ece September 28, 2008

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk.

Studies have now been commissioned to analyse whether Eurofighters could be adapted to fly off the carriers.

If Britain abandons the JSF, it will be seen as a further snub to the Americans following Gordon Brown’s decision last week not to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Only a week earlier, during a visit to London, Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, had said he understood Britain would be sending more troops to meet what commanders say is a 10,000 shortfall.

The possible ditching of the JSF results in part from spiralling costs that have seen the price of the planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion.

Britain has already paid out £2.5 billion in preliminary costs but next spring must start paying for actual aircraft. At that point it is committed to the entire project whatever the price.

Once full production begins, Britain will be paying more than £1 billion a year for the aircraft, exacerbating the already dire state of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget.

“That has really concentrated minds at the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis. “Put simply no-one has the faintest idea how much this project will cost.”

The cost is only part of the problem. There is serious concern over the aircraft’s lack of firepower as it can only carry three 500lb bombs, compared with as many as eight on the Eurofighter.

There is also increasing frustration over the continued American refusal to share information on the technology involved.


The full article...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837746.ece September 28, 2008

Mate there's already a thread on this, and i think everyone's decided this is about as likely as the US pulling out of the F-35 program.

Anyway the fact that the reporter thinks the platform can only carry 500lb bombs says plenty about their capacity to comment on its capability IMHO.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8246

 

[Grand Danois]

This accelerating finance crisis that will spark a global economic downturn will decrease defence spending for some years ahead. The financial resources just wont be there. Western countries will get higher interest rates/less spending and higher unemployment. China... what happen when americans decrease spending at Wal Mart? Yes, less revenues for chinese factories and less resources to the PLA. The price on oil? Well, right now Brent is on 84.06$ per barrel which means less revenues for Russia... i.e. less money for the russian defence/air force. Norway will also suffer from a global downturn, not as much as Iceland by far, but to some extent, Norway will also be affected, though much less than most countries.

Some data points and commentary. DK is projected to have a 16 bn USD surplus on the public budgets this year with 3 months to go. Unemployment is 1.6%. 08Q3 has seen net growth to GDP and 08Q04 was expected to as well - before the credit crisis really set in. The economists are saying that the recession comes at a good time, as it'll take the heat off the economy.

The relevance of this in context of the fighter competition: There is a term that translates into "financial effect", i.e. in a Danish context public domestic spending has a financial effect close to 1. If instead of using the money in public context, the are used for tax breaks, the financial effect is c. 0.3, because a high proportion of the money goes offshore (imports). A high financial effect is bad for the economy as it will over contribute to overheating. Thus the value of offsets are dependent on when, how and amounts of offsets are implemented. Currently items which are "imported" are less detrimental to the economy. To sum up: If a national economy has high public budget surpluses, high trade balance surpluses and a low unemployment rate, injection of offsets are destabilising.

Iceland. They really need the offsets package. Without any jets though.

Norway. Well. There's still a lot of oil money. However, diversification could be a good idea...

Russia is interesting. Earlier this year, I read that at the Russian Govt budget surplus becomes zero at $70/bbl oil. With the announced increase in Russian defence expenditure, coupled with the current price of oil and internal inflation, they're probably going to hit that zero-surplus situation this year or next year.

I guess that a highly capable fighter aircraft with low life cycle cost, in combination with an outstanding industrial offset package, must be tempting in these days?

It has always been a tempting package. Well balanced and rounded.

 

[stigmata]

OK. It's just that this is an aerospace thread after all.

I know, its only distant, hence why i don't get into discussion with it. But i do worry, and i think it affects just about everything on this planet. It was more of a one-line reminder
to ponder the possible implications.
IMV, todays defence is more a battle of the currency and trade balance rather then territorial defence.

Iceland. They really need the offsets package. Without any jets though.

LOL

 

[stigmata]

This accelerating finance crisis that will spark a global economic downturn will decrease defence spending for some years ahead.

That would be the decent thing to do. I just don't see it happening. USA are spending more then ever despite their financial mess, and other countries are also increasing military expenses.

 

[Feanor]

Just out of curiousity, the OLS system offered on the MiG-35, is it in any way similar to the DAS? I mean in terms of general principles and purpose.

 

[cobzz]

Just out of curiousity, the OLS system offered on the MiG-35, is it in any way similar to the DAS? I mean in terms of general principles and purpose.

It would be more similar to EOTS not DAS. Obviously, they're both optical systems, however, I don't think OLS can track ground targets, nor does it have a laser.

 

[Scorpion82]

It would be more similar to EOTS not DAS. Obviously, they're both optical systems, however, I don't think OLS can track ground targets, nor does it have a laser.

OLS-K is specifically designed to detect, identify and track ground targets and it features a laser designator/range finder.
DAS is not for target designation but detection, identification and tracking, next to FLIR imaging and MAW. So yes OLS-K is more compareable to the EOTS acting as a kind of onboard TGP.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just out of curiousity, the OLS system offered on the MiG-35, is it in any way similar to the DAS? I mean in terms of general principles and purpose.

I dont think so, AFAIK OLS is akin to EOTS, or a combination of PIRATE and Lightning III integrated into a single system. EO DAS is like MAWS on steroids, different kettle of fish. Although OLS puts an EO sensor on the front and bottom of the platform, it doesn't provide 360 degrees of coverage and AFAIK OLS-K isn't designed for volume search in A2A mode (?).

 

[Scorpion82]

I dont think so, AFAIK OLS is akin to EOTS, or a combination of PIRATE and Lightning III integrated into a single system. EO DAS is like MAWS on steroids, different kettle of fish. Although OLS puts an EO sensor on the front and bottom of the platform, it doesn't provide 360 degrees of coverage and AFAIK OLS-K isn't designed for volume search in A2A mode (?).

Correct. The OLS-UEM is installed on the nose in front of the wind shield. The sensor is for AA work and comprises an imaging mid-wave IR sensor and LRF. Coverage is +/-90° in azimuth and +60°/-15° in elevations. OLS-K is based on the same technology, but covers the downward hemisphere with 360° azimuth coverage. The laser acts as designator as well. There is no coverage on the upper hemiphere however as it is the case for the DAS.

 

[energo]

Correct. The OLS-UEM is installed on the nose in front of the wind shield. The sensor is for AA work and comprises an imaging mid-wave IR sensor and LRF. Coverage is +/-90° in azimuth and +60°/-15° in elevations. OLS-K is based on the same technology, but covers the downward hemisphere with 360° azimuth coverage. The laser acts as designator as well. There is no coverage on the upper hemiphere however as it is the case for the DAS.

The analogy is: an IRST or targeting pod is like playing soccer looking through a straw, whereas DAS is like having six eyeballs all around your head, like a super I-Max.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[energo]

Pretty kewl concept. It's the "less complex, lighter, cheaper, more durable and stealthy compared to a mechanical system" that really makes it attractive. Some of the concepts for IR suppresion of exhaust jets seem to be complimentary to FTV.

Good point.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Feanor]

Here's what I found on it.

Electro-optical locators

Other innovative features in the MiG-35 sensor suite are two electro-optical units--an air-to-air device (OLS-UEM) built into the aircraft nose and a podded air-to-ground device (OLS-K). Both units have been developed by NII PP institute (Precizionnogo Priborostroyeniya, Precision Instruments), a specialist in optical and laser equipment used for trajectory measurement in missile and space applications. The OLS devices represent the first application of the institute's technology in the aviation domain.

The OLS-UEM (Optiko-Lokatsionnaya Stantsiya, optical locator station) imaging infrared search and track device detects and tracks air and surface targets, as well as showing the pilot an image of the target for identification purposes. The unit includes a thermal imaging camera (with a 320x256 matrix) and a TV camera (640x480). The optical portion, including the scanning mirror, which is shared by both cameras, is housed in a transparent leucosapphire dome. The mirror scans a zone within [+ or -] 90[degrees] in azimuth and within -15[degrees]/+60[degrees] in elevation (with respect to the aircraft axis). Airborne targets can be detected at distances up to 45km in the tail-on position, or 15km in the head-on position.

The integrated laser rangefinder operates at two wavelengths: 1.57 microns (eye-safe) for training and 1.06 microns for combat. The rangefinder can determine the distance to the target from 200m to 20km. The weight of the whole unit is 78kg and the overall size is similar to the former OLS-29 electro-optical unit on the MiG-29 developed by UOMZ in Yekaterinburg. The prototype of the OLS-UEM locator was installed in 2006 on the MiG-29M2 experimental aircraft, subsequently transformed into the MiG-35 prototype. The same device, in the simpler OLS-UE version, is installed on Indian MiG-29K shipborne fighters.

Another electro-optical search-and-track device, OLS-K (Konteynernaya, podded), is used for detection and tracking of surface targets. According to Nil PP data, the OLS-K device can detect a tank from distance of 20km or a motor boat from 40km. The laser can measure the distance up to 20km. The optical channel, which is shared by the infrared sensor and the TV camera, is installed under a transparent dome similar to the dome of the OLSU-EM unit. The device also includes a laser rangefinder/target designator and laser spot tracker. The OLS-K is installed inside a conformal pod (length 1,980mm, weight 110kg) mounted under the starboard engine air duct.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/162298365.html

However this seems to indicate that it does have 360 coverage.

MiG engineers have defined basic points of the optical locator system development:
- multispectrality. System should work both in visible and IR ranges
- integrity. TV and IR systems, laser ranging system should be united in one solid construction
- system should work on wide angles, up to 360 and identify shapes of aerial and ground targets

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video#more-287

Finally to draw the distinction, DAS is essentially a set of IR sensors that can feed tracking and targetting data to the main processor of the plane? Where as the OLS is a combination of laser, TV, and IR sensors that provide tracking but not targetting data? You guys used a large number of other acronyms to explain it to me, but instead left me more confused then before (my familiarity with avionics is very very poor).

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Mate OLS can not look through the airframe, it has a sensor on the front and bottom of the platform, what about the top? that would give 60~70% coverage. In any case OLS-K is not intended for A2A use. As indicated before the OLS system is comparable to a Typhoon with a Lightning pod slung underneath. It is a very different form of technology to EO DAS. More like EOTS split into two sensors.

 

[stigmata]

The analogy is: an IRST or targeting pod is like playing soccer looking through a straw, whereas DAS is like having six eyeballs all around your head, like a super I-Max.

And since those eyeballs are IR sensors like IRST, they are also looking through a straw i take it ?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And since those eyeballs are IR sensors like IRST, they are also looking through a straw i take it ?

They are like looking through a straw if you amplify the light from a certain area of sky so you can see further than a few miles, ever tried to find an aircraft through a pair of binoculars? Not easy.

 

[Feanor]

What about the laser and TV sensors built into it? Are they of any use in A2A?

EDIT: I'm still confused though. Please no analogies if you can explain this (I have no idea what EOTS is). What is the main difference between the DAS and the OLS? The number of sensors? So if the MiG-35 OLS had 6 sensors giving 360 coverage, it would be the same? Or is it something more? You mention that using IR to find and aircraft is like looking through a drinking straw. I've heard that analogy on these forums several times. The DAS also uses IR sensors. Is the fact that they cover 360 degrees what makes it different?

 

[stigmata]

Joint Strike Fighter chief test pilot Jon Beesley says that "DAS is basically missile launch detectors,".
To zoom in on anything would spoil that funktion.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1591.html

Edit: just found this

LITENING Pod + a IRST system will do what EOTS is planned to do and then some. The EOTS has a rather limited field of view. EO DAS is as in the words of JSF chief test pilot Beesely "basically missile launch detectors" but will also provide a synthetic IR view of the world. Most likely very nice for night flying.

Gripen will add 360 degree MWS/LWS to the EWS-39 for missile launch and other threat detection. So with that clear, that leaves the 360 synthetic IR image of the DAS, and well with IRST/LDP/HMD the visual IR coverage should generally speaking be good in forward/up/down/side aspects but blind to the rear. And afaik there's no plan to do something about it.

Maybe it's a good idea to add something there but I am not sure about its usefulness on Gripen (not saying its otherwise not useful) as the EWS-39 would give threat detection at a likely greater range and not as subject to bursts of light or other heat interruptions.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3605452#post3605452

There are apparantly several ways to skin a missile :drunk1