Military and Aviation News Thread (NO DISCUSSION)

[Emu]

http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-official-says-bin-ladens-killed-england-plane-070149954.html

 

UK police confirm 3 bin Ladens killed in England plane crash

 

LONDON (AP) — Three relatives of the late al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden were among four people killed when a private jet crashed on landing in southern England, British police confirmed Saturday.

[mwd2]

An Mi-28N military helicopter has crashed near Russia’s Ryazan during an aerobatic display performed as part of the Aviadarts competition in the 1st “military Olympics” in Russia.

 

 

Source

[BIGNEWY]

lucky to walk away from that

[ФрогФут]

lucky to walk away from that

Only one of two.:(

[JaNk0]

Aren't those helicopters fitted with ejection seats?

[joey45]

Only one of two.:(

 

R.I.P.

[mig29movt]

An Mi-28N military helicopter has crashed near Russia’s Ryazan during an aerobatic display performed as part of the Aviadarts competition in the 1st “military Olympics” in Russia.

 

 

Source

 

Did they eventually managed to get there and fight the fire?? :ranting:

Or help these lads?

[BIGNEWY]

Only one of two.:(

 

damn, R.I.P :(

 

Not a good week for display teams, A gnat, a spit, and now a Mi-28 :(

Edited August 2, 2015 by BIGNEWY

[mvsgas]

Aren't those helicopters fitted with ejection seats?

 

AFAIK, the only helicopter in the world to be fitted with one is the KA-50, not sure if the KA-52 even has ejection seats.

 

P. S.

I think it does, so Kamov attack helicopters KA-50/52 are the only ones that have ejections seats in the world AFAIK...Not really an ejection seat, more like a rocket attached to your chute harness.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e42_1429167831&comments=1

Edited August 2, 2015 by mvsgas

[Bucic]

Aren't those helicopters fitted with ejection seats?

Only two inflated side slides plus parachutes for each crew member. At least according to an old documentary on the '28. What is certain however is the '28's extremely well thought-out crash-worthy seat and cockpit floor assembly. The cockpit is also very rigid.

[zaelu]

It also has a shock absorbing cockpit floor that is collapsing in case of crash.

[Call911]

AFAIK, the only helicopter in the world to be fitted with one is the KA-50, not sure if the KA-52 even has ejection seats.

 

P. S.

I think it does, so Kamov attack helicopters KA-50/52 are the only ones that have ejections seats in the world AFAIK...Not really an ejection seat, more like a rocket attached to your chute harness.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e42_1429167831&comments=1

 

Ugg that looks extremely hazardous @ 0:50, prayers for the pilots, an family.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Call911

[Emu]

Longbow Missile Scores 7:1 Against Fast Attack Boat Swarm

 

http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html#.VcCppvlVhLM

 

 

In a recent test series performed by the US Navy, eight Army/Lockheed martin AGM-114L ‘Longbow Hellfire’ missiles destroyed seven fast naval craft simulating fast attack craft performing swarm attacks, similar to those practiced by the Iranian navy in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The test was part of the engineering development test of the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM), for use on littoral combat ships (LCS).

 

The tests, that took place in June 2015 in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Virginia, evaluated the integration of the vertically-launched AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile system for the SSMM solution. In this application the missile receives initial target data from a surface search radar or an airborne radar on a helicopter, before launch. After launch, it activates the onboard millimeter wave seeker to find the target. The system has an initial range of eight kilometers and features fire-and-forget and multi-mode capability. The multi-purpose warhead ensures effectiveness against various types of attacking craft.

 

 

Integration of the “fire-and-forget” Longbow Hellfire missile on LCS represents the next evolution in capability being developed for inclusion in the Increment 3 version of the surface warfare mission package for LCS. When fully integrated and tested, each 24-shot missile module will bring added firepower to complement the LCS’s existing 57mm gun, SEARAM missiles and armed MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter.

 

The SSMM is expected to be fully integrated and ready to deploy on LCS missions in late 2017 and to increase the lethality of the Navy’s fleet of littoral combat ships.

 

The test scenarios included hitting targets at both maximum and minimum missile ranges. After a stationary target was engaged, subsequent targets, conducting serpentine maneuvers, were engaged. The tests culminated in a three-target “raid” scenario. During this scenario all missiles from a three-shot “ripple fire” response struck their individual targets.

 

 

 

The ‘Guided Test Vehicle-1’ test was designed to test the launcher, the missile, and its seeker versus high speed, maneuvering surface targets that represented fast inshore attack craft that are a potential threat to Navy ships worldwide. “This test was very successful and, overall, represents a big step forward in SSMM development for LCS,” said Capt. Casey Moton, LCS Mission Modules program manager.

 

The Navy evaluated several solutions for the SSMM capability, including EO and semi-active laser guided weapons such as the Griffin IIB missile. The Longbow was selected, in part, for its ability to conduct simultaneous attacks on different targets. Another aspect was affordability, as thousands of AGM-114L are already in stock with the US Army.

 

In 2011 the Navy originally favored the Griffin IIB missile developed by Raytheon to be the follow-on missile, after the cancellation of the Non-Line of Sight Launch (N-LOS) missile system originally planned to be the primary surface weapon for the LCS. When the threat of Fast Attack Craft/ Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FAC/FIAC) became acute, primarily in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Western Indian Ocean, the capability of simultaneous target engagement became top priority, positioning the Longbow as the Navy’s favorite weapon for short- range Surface Warfare (SuW).

 

During the mid-June tests off the coast of Virginia, the modified Longbow Hellfire missiles successfully destroyed a series of maneuvering small boat targets. The system "hit" seven of eight targets engaged, with the lone miss attributed to a target issue not related to the missile's capability. The shots were launched from the Navy's research vessel USNS Relentless.

[Emu]

SM-6 ‘Dual 1′ Defeats Ballistic and Cruise Missiles on a Live Firing Test

 

http://defense-update.com/20150803_sm-6_dual1_test.html

 

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and US Navy conducted a successful series of missile intercepts in the Pacific Ocean last week, demonstrating the capability of a newly modified missile interceptor to defeat short range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with the same weapon. The SM-6 was designed from the start to defeat air breathing targets such as cruise missiles, but the recent test was the first to demonstrate the modified variant’s capability to defeat ballistic threat missiles in their final seconds of flight.

 

This ‘Multi-Mission Warfare (MMW) Events’ was the first live fire test of the new SM-6 Dual I missile. During two follow-on flights additional ‘SM-6 Dual I’ missiles were used against targets simulating air launched and surface launched cruise missiles, demonstrating the multi-mission capability of the new SM-6 variant. Part of the U.S. ballistic missile defense, MDA’s Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) program will protect against ballistic threats in their terminal phase of flight using SM-6 missiles integrated into the Aegis Weapon System. Called SM-6 Dual 1, it’s on track to achieve initial operating capability in 2016.

 

 

The missiles were fired from the AEGIS BMD destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), configured with the latest Aegis Baseline 9.C1 (BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) version, and using Standard Missile SM-6 Dual I and SM-2 Block IV interceptor missiles. This test marked the first endo-atmospheric (lower atmosphere) engagement of a Ballistic Missile target to demonstrate a Baseline 9.C1 capability. This capability allows Aegis to engage ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. “This important test campaign not only demonstrated an additional terminal defense layer of the BMDS” said MDA Director Vice Adm. James D. Syring, “it also proved the robustness of the multi-use SM-6 missile on-board a Navy destroyer, further reinforcing the dynamic capability of the Aegis Baseline 9 weapon system.” Syring added.

 

“SM-6 is the only missile in the world that can do both anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense from sea,” said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. “U.S. Navy commanders want both capability and flexibility to meet a wide variety of missions, and that’s exactly what SM-6 offers.”

 

SM-6 delivers a proven over-the-horizon, air defense capability by leveraging the time-tested advantages of the Standard Missile’s airframe and propulsion. The missile incorporates the advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities from Raytheon’s Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), and employs both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fuzing techniques to defeat air breathing and ballistic missile targets.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Putin & Hollande reach agreement on Mistral cancellation

 

All Russian funds, equipment and materials are to be returned. After all Russian equipment is removed, France will gain full ownership and control of the vessels.

[tflash]

Enjoy (with a grain of salt): http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-forces-top-guns-score-wins-in-the-uk-1204336

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/indian-air-force-beats-raf-12-0-in-training-exercise/ar-BBlsTLR?ocid=spartandhp

[Python]

I read that yesterday, those kind of articles really do make me chuckle. I believe a RAF spokesman has actually responded to these. He basically said we were being gentleman at that point to our newly arrived friends, once the real trials began we had pretty good success. Still, those SU-30's are rather lovely, I wish I'd gone down for a look now.

[Weta43]

He basically said we were being gentleman at that point to our newly arrived friends

 

Yes, that's a well known part of joint exercises - the part where one side uses the first day of an infrequently organised occasion, running at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds per hour, that could allow realistic evaluation of each other equipment, training and strategies, to instead spend the day pumping up the other side's ego by deliberately letting them win.

 

I've noticed aver the years that one side or the other always refers to that day after every joint exercise...

Edited August 7, 2015 by Weta43

[shagrat]

Actually I read something about the Typhoons "fighting with a hand tied to their back" referring to a close quarters dogfight, without advanced weapons (ASRAAM?, IRIS-T?)...

So, the guys brag that they could win knife fights against sharpshooters? At least it sounds like that to me. :smartass:

 

Edit: and actually it is not unheard of, that these exercises can have specific setups, that put one or the other plane in a disadvantage, on purpose, like the exercise where the Typhoons "owned" the US F-22.

The idea is to see what happens against similar or superior opponents if you are forced into a dogfight.

Even as the Typhoons seem to have dominated BVR quite well against the SU-30s it seems it is a wise decision to engage them in a dogfight only when you have an advantage or you know how to outmaneuver the guy.

Edited August 8, 2015 by shagrat

[Yurgon]

Edit: and actually it is not unheard of, that these exercises can have specific setups, that put one or the other plane in a disadvantage, on purpose, like the exercise where the Typhoons "owned" the US F-22.

 

Yeah, I guess we have the exact same situation here: We know the result claimed by one of the parties (12-0), but not the rules or any specifics (Tiffies loaded with external tanks vs. clean Sukhois? Don't make much sense, but we don't know if they flew like that from the articles, or do we?), except this time the Tiffy is the one that looks bad. :smartass:

[Emu]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/indian-air-force-beats-raf-120-in-training-exercise--using-russiandesigned-jets-10444466.html

 

In an interview with Indian television, IAF Group Captain Ashu Srivastav claimed victory over the British aircraft during close-range dogfights – prompting an RAF source to label his claim “comical”.

 

Responding to the Indian claims, the RAF source they were clearly designed for the “domestic audience”. He told The Independent: “There must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India, as the headlines of the Indian press bear no relation to the results of the tactical scenarios completed on the exercise in any shape or form.”

 

The RAF source also stressed that the Typhoons had effectively been fighting “with one arm behind their backs” as they did not make full use of their more advanced weapons systems.

 

http://forces.tv/00317417

 

Once the IAF were comfortable flying in foreign air space the Large Force Exercises (LFEs) began and subsequently the RAF Typhoons proved more than a match for the Indian SU-30's.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Emu

[Emu]

Yes, that's a well known part of joint exercises - the part where one side uses the first day of an infrequently organised occasion, running at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds per hour, that could allow realistic evaluation of each other equipment, training and strategies, to instead spend the day pumping up the other side's ego by deliberately letting them win.

 

I've noticed aver the years that one side or the other always refers to that day after every joint exercise...

If it was a realistic evaluation, the RAF pilot would have just looked at the Su-30 and fired an ASRAAM, so clearly a realistic evaluation wasn't the aim. It's actually very common not to do realistic evaluations, with many restrictions, sometimes guns only, limited missile parameters, one aircraft simulating a foreign threat or a 3rd gen aggressor etc.

 

I've noticed that India has never had an exercise where it's come out and given the same account as the other side afterwards. Same thing happened with the USAF vs IAF clash a few years ago, and with the previous Indrarush in 2011.

 

http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british_typhoons_whacked_indias_sukhois_joint_exercises.html

 

The NDTV report has also been pulled up on it's Su-30 reliability claims by a photographer too and it doesn't even have a good reputation in India.

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=27590&start=30

 

A few discrepancies have been picked up in that report.

 

Mainly over the reliability of the Sukhois..... which they claim was perfect. "The IAF also encountered no serviceability issues with any of its participating jets"

 

I spent 3 days photographing them from the fence and on one occasion a Sukhoi didn't launch because of technical failure (I have an airband scanner and the ground abort was very clear).

 

It's been reported on two further occasions (not witnessed by me), a Sukhoi had to abort and RTB due to technical failure.

 

That immediately puts the rest of the article in question.

 

 

p.s. Just to prove I was there, here are my shots....https://www.flickr.com/photos/evansaviography/sets/72157654022158093

 

But to be fair, it isn't just the IAF, it's very rare for both sides to come out of these things and give a compatible account afterwards. I personally can't think of a single example where they have... EVER!

Edited August 8, 2015 by Emu

[*Rage*]

I think those claims are very dubious. Even without Asraam a Typhoon should not lose 12-0 in WVR against an MKI.

[Emu]

The other thing is that if you look at the actual IAF quotes in the NDTV article, they don't really say much. The more fantastic assertions made in the article don't have quotation marks around them.

[Weta43]

If it was a realistic evaluation, the RAF pilot would have just looked at the Su-30 and fired an ASRAAM, so clearly a realistic evaluation wasn't the aim.

 

I've yet to see anything sourced here that says the Typhoon wasn't 'using' all available sensors or ASRAAM or IRIS-T, only a vague statement that the RAF were fighting 'with one hand tied behind their backs', which could mean anything - AoA limits, G limits, flying with full tanks - or limits on weapons and sensors, or the fact that they were engaging in WVR combat in the first place, and the RAF felt that this wasn't their strength against the Indian Su-30..

 

The Indians have made some BIG claims, which sound incredible (actually incredible), but without actual proof one way or the other, all the rest is 'it can't be true because I don't want it to be true...' which is also the only reason to suggest the RAF 'threw' the engagements

Edited August 8, 2015 by Weta43