Military Aviation News and Discussion

Terran

Well-Known Member
Interesting article about NASA's QRSA test aircraft based on a DHC Buffalo airframe. Except for size, it would be useful for carrier resupply given the CV-22 flight ban. Impressive low speed characteristics required no catapult or arresting gear. Much of the research results were applied to other aircraft designs.

NASA’s Quiet Short Takeoff And Landing Test Jet Is Up For Sale (thedrive.com)
Other than the fact it’s based on 1970s air frames. As a demonstration platform fine but to actually get a production version? You would be starting from scratch. Which defeats the whole intention behind the CMV22B program. Osprey has its issues. But CODS isn’t likely to be defeated by this grounding. The USN still has C2R greyhound in service. Aviation groundings like this happen and are normally resolved in time.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Aviation groundings like this happen and are normally resolved in time.
Yes, many grounding are resolved eventually but the Osprey has had numerous issues over a considerable length of time. Not sure what legal exposure the US military has if they continue using it and more stuff occurs. Lawyers in the US can since blood better than sharks. As I have posted previously the V-280 must be a more reliable and safer tilt-rotor design.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Yes, many grounding are resolved eventually but the Osprey has had numerous issues over a considerable length of time. Not sure what legal exposure the US military has if they continue using it and more stuff occurs. Lawyers in the US can since blood better than sharks. As I have posted previously the V-280 must be a more reliable and safer tilt-rotor design.
It’s more a case that when it has had a crash because it is a transport it has a higher body count. It has issues farther because it’s the first of its type. Many have been due to the stresses of trying to operate a high disk load in dust out conditions where said dust will overwhelm the dust filters.
V280 will employ lessons learned from V22 but military aviation is and always will be operating at the Wild West of aviation due to its high risks and special performance needs vs commercial.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It’s more a case that when it has had a crash because it is a transport it has a higher body count. It has issues farther because it’s the first of its type. Many have been due to the stresses of trying to operate a high disk load in dust out conditions where said dust will overwhelm the dust filters.
V280 will employ lessons learned from V22 but military aviation is and always will be operating at the Wild West of aviation due to its high risks and special performance needs vs commercial.
Agree about the inherent dangers of military aircraft but at what point do you say “enough already”?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

It is official, Japan, UK and Italy team up for fighter development.


The agreement must be rectified by each country parliament, and thus one of reason joint development program schedule in 2025. RR as leading turbofan engine producers expected to take lead, however Japan IHI also already come out with prototype of 10KN+ turbofan engine. Well will see if this one not getting bog down with Industrial ego.

Let's see if France and German can resolve their differences and move forward on the competing project.
 
Last edited:

T.C.P

Well-Known Member

It is official, Japan, UK and Italy team up for fighter development.


The agreement must be rectified by each country parliament, and thus one of reason joint development program schedule in 2025. RR as leading turbofan engine producers expected to take lead, however Japan IHI also already come out with prototype of 10KN+ turbofan engine. Well will see if this one not getting bog down with Industrial ego.

Let's see if France and German can resolve their differences and move forward on the competing project.
What happens to Sweden? IIRC they were part of the Tempest program, are they going to join the Franco-German one instead?
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Great news on GCAP, the project is going from strength to strength. Not so optimistic about FCAS, but maybe this latest announcement will give the French and Germans a kick to get going.

What happens to Sweden? IIRC they were part of the Tempest program, are they going to join the Franco-German one instead?
They're currently assessing their options, not committed to any project. I think they've deferred a decision until the 2030s as to what they're doing.

Which I personally think is foolish - the UK, Japan and Italy makes GCAP essentially a sure thing. Gripen was a decent little plane, but it's going to be outclassed in the future. Even if they'd chucked in 10% of the GCAP development costs they'd have got more back in the long run. But maybe they'll just buy GCAP off the shelf without meaningful involvement in manufacture.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Agree about the inherent dangers of military aircraft but at what point do you say “enough already”?
We are nowhere near that point. V22 in all variants has had 16 hull losses since 91. Only 4 took lives. Farther a number were caused by human error. pilots who were either not trained for aspects of the Osprey’s unique flight profile (leading to changes in training ) or whom were making mistake.
“enough already“ would be significantly higher with far more evidences of a widespread fundamental problem. Thusly the V22 though having issues is a very safe military aircraft The grounding being an Abundance of caution.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Great news on GCAP, the project is going from strength to strength. Not so optimistic about FCAS, but maybe this latest announcement will give the French and Germans a kick to get going.



They're currently assessing their options, not committed to any project. I think they've deferred a decision until the 2030s as to what they're doing.

Which I personally think is foolish - the UK, Japan and Italy makes GCAP essentially a sure thing. Gripen was a decent little plane, but it's going to be outclassed in the future. Even if they'd chucked in 10% of the GCAP development costs they'd have got more back in the long run. But maybe they'll just buy GCAP off the shelf without meaningful involvement in manufacture.
GCAP is really Sweden’s only option if they want to continue being involved in manufacturing fast jets. The workshare issues with France and Germany plus Spain, a bridge too far IMHO. Like many other allies and NATO members, perhaps just evaluating the three major programs (four if you include the USN NGAD) and selecting one could be the best option.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
GCAP is really Sweden’s only option if they want to continue being involved in manufacturing fast jets. The workshare issues with France and Germany plus Spain, a bridge too far IMHO. Like many other allies and NATO members, perhaps just evaluating the three major programs (four if you include the USN NGAD) and selecting one could be the best option.
As far as the Franco-German aircraft goes, I am suprised that France is willing to work with Germany given german stances on exports. France willl never allow another country to tell them who they can sell to. The way Germany is vetoing typhoon exports, should not sit well with the French.

France sells weapons to whoever can pay for them, its why they are my favourite western country( as source of miltary gear). No BS political strings when it comes to weapon sales.

When our forex situation recovers enough to reinstate the MRCA program, I hope the BAF goes for the Rafale over the Typhoon. With the French we know we can gte the whole weapons package if we can affford it.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
As far as the Franco-German aircraft goes, I am suprised that France is willing to work with Germany given german stances on exports. France willl never allow another country to tell them who they can sell to. The way Germany is vetoing typhoon exports, should not sit well with the French.

France sells weapons to whoever can pay for them, its why they are my favourite western country( as source of miltary gear). No BS political strings when it comes to weapon sales.

When our forex situation recovers enough to reinstate the MRCA program, I hope the BAF goes for the Rafale over the Typhoon. With the French we know we can gte the whole weapons package if we can affford it.
I agree, Germany is a complete downer if export sales is a goal and these programs absolutely need export sales. If Dassault wasn't such a PITA to deal with France could have been in GCAP and Germany could buy whatever assuming they want to defend themselves and their neighbours.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This article discusses developments in high speed propulsion, specifically RDE (rotating detonation engine), dual mode ramjets, and TBCC (turbine based combined cycle) engines, The goal is an engine that can operate through a wide range of speeds including hypersonic, offer better fuel economy, and be smaller/lighter. Awesome if this GE demonstrator can result in a real massed produced engine.

GE's Breakthrough In 'Detonating' Hypersonic Propulsion Is A Big Deal (thedrive.com)
 

Meriv90

Active Member
If Germany is a problem, RR vs SAFRAN is another of a whole different entity.

The french refused the cooperation at the previous round, now with the Rafale export success they are even less compromising than before. So no chance of them joining both programs.

It would have been nice in an utopic scenario where with a common european defence we had enough CVs thus allowing lets say GCAP consortium to build long range air superiority fighter based on RR and the french a navalized jet based on Safran Engine. But as i said just an utopia.

Options for Germany if the FCAS fails and the French go for a low cost Rafale XL or their collaboration with India goes well and they can find another partner. Would be in my opinion:

-Go full american
-Go heavy on the Drone side and trade it G2G with GCAP or FCAS.
-Combine German financial power with SAAB swedish design capabilities (ex:T-7), buy off-the shelf tech from US/GCAP/FCAS and produce a single engine heir of the Gripen for low income countries and first line countries (Poland/Baltics/Ukraine etc.. etc...)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If Germany is a problem, RR vs SAFRAN is another of a whole different entity.
The french refused the cooperation at the previous round, now with the Rafale export success they are even less compromising than before. So no chance of them joining both programs.
Agree

It would have been nice in an utopic scenario where with a common european defence we had enough CVs thus allowing lets say GCAP consortium to build long range air superiority fighter based on RR and the french a navalized jet based on Safran Engine. But as i said just an utopia.
The French requirement for a naval variant is a huge problem for FCAS which is part of why the Germany/France issue is a problem along with workshare issues. Perhaps an extra "Euro carrier" for Germany and Spain would be an inducement but given the other EU defence needs, not realistic.

Options for Germany if the FCAS fails and the French go for a low cost Rafale XL or their collaboration with India goes well and they can find another partner. Would be in my opinion:

-Go full american
-Go heavy on the Drone side and trade it G2G with GCAP or FCAS.
-Combine German financial power with SAAB swedish design capabilities (ex:T-7), buy off-the shelf tech from US/GCAP/FCAS and produce a single engine heir of the Gripen for low income countries and first line countries (Poland/Baltics/Ukraine etc.. etc...)
For Germany and Sweden, buying off the shelf from whatever program becomes available seems like the solution if they don't want to partner up
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
The first six out of a total donation of sixteen MD500s have been shipped to the US for repairs and maintenance before delivery to Kenya. There they will be used for Kenya's UN peacekeeping missions.
It is a quite logic step, Kenya already uses the MD500 for many years.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Spain orders 16 Airbus C295 in Maritime Patrol and Surveillance configurations - Naval News
Spain to order 16 C-295 in 2 different versions, the C-295 MPA version to replace the P-3 Orion in the MPA role and the C-295 MSA to replace the CN-235 in the Maritime Surveillance role, the MPA will be able to conduct ASW and ASuW missions while the MSA is more about anti-smuggling, anti-drugs, and anti-people smuggling.
C-295 is quite a lot smaller & lower performance than a P-3, so whatever's fitted to it it won't be able to do everything a P-3 could. Should be fine for local patrolling, though.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
C-295 is quite a lot smaller & lower performance than a P-3, so whatever's fitted to it it won't be able to do everything a P-3 could. Should be fine for local patrolling, though.
Wonder if this is more about the Spanish Government supporting local manufacturing (C-295 is manufactured in Seville Spain) than buying something like the P-8 to replace the P-3. There is a solid market for aircraft in this class, especially the MSA model.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Wonder if this is more about the Spanish Government supporting local manufacturing (C-295 is manufactured in Seville Spain) than buying something like the P-8 to replace the P-3. There is a solid market for aircraft in this class, especially the MSA model.
Maybe a combination of costs, the requirement for a higher amount of platforms and using an own priduct.
An MPA-version of the A400M doesn't exist, and Airbus hasn't come yet with such a version for the A320 family.
 
Last edited:
Top