RvETito

Another Class A incident (damage cost more than 1 million $) with the F-22- during taxi in Tyndall AFB an USAF F-22 hits a canadian CF-18. This has happened in tuesday.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/04/first_jsf_fighter_jet_will_cos.php The Dutch authorities estimate JSF price 110 million EUR per test airframe. Ouch! Wasn't it supposed to go in mass production as a cheap alternative of the F-22? If those numbers are correct it goes well above the Eurofighter for instance... And normaly test beds are cheaper than the final version which should have all the features implemented.

No comment, T-38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ

What a waste! Now if americans are clever they will organize Kamov helicopters final assembly in the F-22 production lines after the last one goes out :D

I guess he's lost for the cause, unfortunately. He did some nice mods for BS as well but vanished more than an year ago. Hope he's ok though.

Well, after all it comes to management. Ka-32 has already set a benchmark in Canada- 285 flight hours per... month. And that can't be possible without proper maintenance and logistics. So russian system works but not for all, that's the problem. When you pay you get, trouble is that it allows to pay less and accordingly get less (quality). But russians are not the one to discover the hot water- quality issues are common for all. For instance Airbus, what I'm currently working on- they just skin you alive for nothing, that much you pay. And same problems like ukrainian parts- I get an overhauled actuator for installation and it leaks right from the box...

Assuming that the pilots and ground crew have been trained in Krasnodar (according to the article) where there is an overhaul factory as well I suppose representatives of this plant are the ones to assemble and test the planes. The article also says that local personel has also taken active part in the assemble.

During this conflict many things have been implemented on these planes (mostly maintenance related) that are yet to be inntroduced in the Russian Air Force. Here are some, translating from the article: 1. Copmressor blades RAI at home plate. In Russia this is done only in overhaul factories. 2. Visual inspection of operation of the wheels cooling fans has taken 15 min work per aircraft. In Russia it lasts 18 months already and the end is yet to be seen. 3. For two months in Ethiopia has been developed and implemented wiring scheme for mix use of rockets and bombs on the Mi-24. On russian Hinds not possible- either bombs or rockets. 4. Using new batteries control methods an on-condition service has been implemented for the 15STzS-45 nad 20NKBN25 batteries which is still not done in Russia although those methods date from 1993. 5. For one week is implemented methodology for control of the magnetic deviation of inertial systems IKV and Tz-050 while this still is not fact in Russia given the methods date ... 1977. 6. Within few months is implemented local on-the-line overhaul of most of the avionics components of the Su-27, something on what is working a whole department of 13 GosNII ERAT since 1993 and still there is no approved solution. So this conflict might be the only one where russian modern fighters have been used properly, maintenance including.

Adopting western avionics in easterm aircraft is something russians/ukrainians have big experience with. In my previous job we made many modifications of our An-12's and An-26's- Honeywell EGPWS, ACAS/TCAS II, weather radars, transponders, Garmin GPS and GNS- all through design authorizations. They became fully operational and compatible in Eurocontrol (i.e. the whole world) airspace. That works for years and is not a problem at all. But russian and especially ukrainian logistics (parts and materiels supply) is indeed a nightmare, giving you here 1st hand painful experience. They just don't seem to care what the AOG abreviation means. Not to mention the quality, again, especially of parts from Ukraine. It comes with all the certificates and stamps, you put it on the aircraft and it fails on the first flight or engine run :mad: Another thing to add- russian hardware is not difucult at all to operate in EU. Mind you the Ka-32A11BC is the main firefighting power in Spain (12 pcs) and Portugal (6 pcs). This year it's EASA type certificate is expected to be due. Which means a lot. But that's just Kamov :D:D:D

What so strange about it? The N001E can provide longer SARH missile guidance in STT compared to the N019E, hence LA will come sooner for the Su-27 even when using the same missiles. I don't state the article is the whole truth, it just gives another point of view. And it doesn't say anything new actualy, everyone knows that the first Su-27 has better BVR capabilites than the first MiG-29, when it comes to detection/track/lock ranges. As for the ranges- they say first R-27R launch at 45km head-on (high alt-high speed), then R-27T at 10km both head-on or in chase. They mention only one MiG-29 dual R-27R launch- of the low flyer after leader's been shot down- 4km altutude separation and supersonic speed is what claims to be the Su-27's dodge due though pilot has seen the two splashes of the selfdestructing missiles near, article say.

Ever since Russia left the An-70 program leaving it 100% in ukrainian hands it's considered dead or at least frozen. I hardly see it as an alternative.

You must have read the wrong article because the one I posted is full of criticism toward the russian hardware/military system in general and points out a lot of weak sides of the russian aircraft.

I've read that too. Just found this which gives totaly different outline of this aerial conflict. This article also says about some problem with the SARH R-27's (no problems reported on the IR R-27T). Namely one missile hasn't selfdestroyed after losing track and it's remains have been evaluated for the reason. It says that main reason for missed shots has been the poor pilot performance of operating the radar and building/keeping the proper attack profile. When fired properly (especially in pairs) the SARH R-27 has worked. Note that these are the non-E variants.

http://www.aviaport.ru/news/2009/03/26/169637.html It's in russian but thought it's worth posting it here. IMO it is written by a representative of some (I suspect Krasnodar) russian overhaul factory who has been in charge of assembling and maintaining ethiopian Su-27's. According to this article the ethiopian Su-27's have two confirmed and one partialy confirmed kills over eritrean MiG-29's. What is interesting to read is that all of them are made by export R-27R and R-27T missiles. There hasn't been any R-73 launch, what we've read so far. All of the engagements have been 1v2 in favor of the MiG's. The typical scanario includes one Su-27 flying long endurance CAP at high altitude while the MiG-29's have used ambush tactics with two planes with severe altitude separation- one at the same altitude as the Su-27 and one on the deck. The GCI usualy sees the low flyer quiet late thus giving the Su-27 warning too late, or often it has seen it himself by the Beryoza warning. Both the Su-27's and the MiG-29's have used dual missile launch (including R-27T for the Su-27) and despite they've used exactly the same SARH missiles and same high speed-high altitude profiles the Su-27 has had a cruical advantage of 1-2 sec earlier LA which is due to the longer target illumination time limit.

Main disadvantage is the risk of blades intersection (collision). For that you need severe rotors separation hence the mechanical complexity. Also this makes the rotor mast pretty large - more drag. It's not quieter than a single rotor design, on the opposite. As for advantages- they are much more than the drawbacks- better power use efficiency, better performance (except for speed) and maneuverability, independance of the controls.

It's especially hard moment when test pilots die. They are priceless people. A plane you can built but to become a test pilot takes years of studies and training.

If something has gone wrong at low altitude it most probably is a pilot mistake- altitude/attitude missjudge, g-loc, other health issues etc. But it could have been a technical issue as well. Usualy at low altitude if things go out of control the pilots have the instinct to punch out though military and especially test pilots will often risk their lives to save the aircraft and will stay in trying to recover. It could have been any or combination of those factors. What should be said here is that the F-22 is famous for it's reliability and safety. It even beats the notorious reliability of the F-15 as the most reliable new design in the USAF, without even making a two-seater. You can really see where all those billions have gone. What will really suck now is if LM blames the pilot (although it's their pilot) for everything to defend it's product while trying to convince the Pethagon to buy more of them.

It happens either way.

I said there are two antennas, not beams ;) The DISS-32 is not so reliable as it is in BS. Similar to the radiolatimeter it's operation highly depends on the surface the helicopter is flying over. The older versions of Ka-32 have exactly the same DISS-32 like Ka-50 (though the indication is difirent) and I've seen it many times going inoperative in flight usualy when flying over water surface or steep terrain. It only serves navigation and autopilot, it is never used as a speed reference for maneuvering.

FedEx MD-11 cargo has crashed today at landing at Narita Airport near Tokyo. No survivers. . Seems like a classic case of PIO. Same problem here for an Iranian Su-24- http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b2_1237278935 In this case it's the ejection system that makes the difference between life and death.

At pitch angle over 30 degrees the GS data is all but accurate. The Doppler ground speed and drift angle measuring device DISS-32 is installed in the tail boom (two circle antennas on the bottom) and it scans straight down the helicopter. You realize when you're at 90 degrees pitch up for instance the DISS will measure infinity ;) Same as when you turn her upside down. In high attitude angle flight you shouldn't be using the HUD for speed reference at all- look at the Shkval screen or at the IAS gauge. And try be more gentle with the collective to avoid rotor RPM drop and generators switch off. You might wanna know that this is considered an emergency IRL. Having generators automaticallly off (rotor RPM below 80%) with both engines running means that you gotta go back to flight school :P

You just answer your own request- why the HUD doesn't show IAS, especially in low speeds. There is no such an airdata system in the world that can accurately measure dynamic pressure of an airflow slower than 50-70 km/h. One more thing- IAS is by no means function of the pitch angle. You can fly both 90 degrees up or down and have IAS indication on the gauge provided the IAS is more than 60-70 km/h. It's the direction and magnitude of the aircraft's velocity vector (ram airflow) that matters.

Well this kill could be as real as the thousands of kills the F-22 has scored. The americans have a lot of experience in training flight evaluation, a kill is proved by automatic systems not by human's decision to eliminate subjective factors.

Seems like the F-22 has a new challenge- EA-18G Growler Power: EA-18G boasts F-22 kill (PHOTOS) By Stephen Trimble on February 25, 2009 10:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis Today was Electronic Awareness Warfare Appreciation Day at Andrews AFB. The base hosted a sort of petting zoo for high-tech jamming systems. I noticed a Boeing EA-18G parked on the side, and struck up a conversation with the pilot. As we chatted about interference cancellation systems, I couldn't help but notice an odd decal decorating the side of the fuselage. I asked the pilot: "What's that aircraft decal on the fuselage?" "That's an F-22," he said. "Well, why is it there?" "Because this is the EA-18G that killed an F-22," he explained. "Um, really?" Alas, after that bombshell, the conversation quickly dried up. I did learn the EA-18G kill was courtesy of a well-timed AIM-120 AMRAAM shot. And I learned the simulated combat exercise took place at Nellis AFB. How the EA-18G escort jammer got the shot, and whether its jamming system played a role in the incident were not questions the pilot was prepared to answer. For the spotters, the aircraft pictured above is EA-1, the first of two Lot 27 F/A-18Fs converted into flying prototypes for the EA-18G program. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html#comments What the hell is an escort jammer?