Cazas contemporáneos (generaciones 4ª reciente y 5ª)

[Chorbis]

Buena info compañeros.

La verdad es que me va a dar penita cuando se vayan retirando los Hornet y superhornet de las cubiertas de los "portas".

A ver que tal se porta, los materiales y pinturas stealth del F-35 en un ambiente salino.

[alejandro_]

Aquí están las informaciones a las que me referí, de estos meses de junio y septiembre:

Muchas gracias por los datos. Me sorprende que EEUU no haya pensado en adquirir más cazas de 4° generación. Están amortizados y pueden ser entregados con rapidez. Un contrato de F-18E/F solucionaría los problemas de golpe.

Saludos.

[alejandro_]

Pongo este texto en ingles, pero merece la pena. Se trata de una entrevista con el director de ventas y marketing del JF-17, mahmood Khalid,.

Some interesting highlights from an interview conducted by Defence Industry Bulletin and PAC Vice-Director and JF-17 sales and marketing manager ACR Mahmood Khalid, during the Paris Airshow.

DIB: Since we last spoke, the first Block of JF-17 – that unique ‘role model’ where an air force is not buying from the industry but producing its own fighter jets – is in operational service. The second Block is in assembly. What is your interim ‘resumé’ on this type? Are you happy with the performance, the avionics, the engine, and so on?

ACRK: Yes, the 50 Block-Is are out there. The Block-II’s design is frozen and the first one flew on February 9. But I have to correct you because already four Block-II aircraft have been delivered to the PAF...There will in fact be a new unit, a fourth squadron of Block IIs. It will be raised within this year, but not with these four airplanes yet. No number or name has yet been decided...All together around 60 airframes have been built, 50 are in operation and the rest are undertaking tests in Pakistan and China. As far as the operational aircraft goes and the whole ‘role-model’ concept, as you called it, we’re really happy with it. Happy with the avionics, including the radar. I can also reveal that this type can be called combat proven as it has been used over the FATA-areas in western Pakistan, where it has employed both guided and unguided munitions. Also ‘jointness’ on a national level is working okay – the datalink is effective for what you can call a ‘national solution’ and allows an integrated picture from onboard and off-board sensors. Most importantly for Pakistan, ‘Thunder’ provides an F-16- or Gripen C/D like capability at an affordable cost, which can be locally upgraded or have weapons added, as the PAF decides. Of course, this combination is attractive for many countries all around the world.

DIB: But for exports, you will need to be able to increase production, right?

ACRK: We’re able to do that. We’re going to produce about 20 ‘Thunders’ per year for our PAF, like we did with Block-I. This means that from today on, we will build Block-IIs for about two and half years. But we can then increase production to maybe 25 aircraft per year. As you rightly say, this aircraft is globally marketed – and it is getting serious attention from multiples parties. Therefore it’s also my responsibility to fulfil sudden demand. We can never be ‘surprised’ by an order. So as I said, the infrastructure and the manpower is there for 25 per year. Our air force has certain requirements and other clients have – or will have – those too. Based on them, we are organising production with the suppliers, ordering long-lead items, some parts and the sub- and main assemblies necessary to be delivered ahead of final assembly.

DIB: Those suppliers are also fully under the control of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra?

ACRK: Those that are in Pakistan, yes. But as 42% of the JF-17’s structure is built at and brought in from China, and 58% in Pakistan, this production organisation involves our Chinese partners as well. All avionics integration, final-assembly, all flight-testing is done in Pakistan. Where it concerns suppliers, everything is controlled by or assembled in Kamra.

DIB: We’ve heard rumour that the first 50 Block-I airframes will get some retrofitted features from the Block-II?

ACRK: That’s true. They’ll get improved avionics, better software and the air-to-air refuelling-probe. There’ll be no other external differences between I and II, except that we’re considering chin stations under the intakes.

DIB: I’m glad you mentioned the refuelling-probe. Why is this only being added to Block-II later rather than from the beginning?

ACRK: JF-17 will have a South African-sourced in-flight refuelling system, which is being implemented by integration of a fixed air-refuelling probe on the starboard of the fuselage, slightly behind the cockpit. The airplane is small, so there’s no possibility to house it inside. Two aircraft from Block-I are upgraded for flight-testing of the system. The installation on the Block-II aircraft will be conducted from 2016 onwards, with about the 24th or 26th aircraft. Block-II aircraft 09-109 will be used to test it. I expect that earlier aircraft will be subsequently retrofitted with it – even Block-I is a possibility, if so decided. Because the fuel system was designed from the very beginning for air-to-air refuelling, it was a design requirement. Maybe a few components need to be strengthened in order to take the loads, but that’s all. It will be detachable too. If we don’t need it, we can remove it and seal the position. That job can be done in 45 minutes.

DIB: Earlier you said the current Block-II’s design has been frozen, which means it retains the same engine – the RD-93. That further means any discussions on another engine, such as the EJ-200, or of conformal fuel tanks or an AESA radar will have to wait until the Block-III, which already on the horizon. What’s currently under consideration?

ACRK: There is a team at Kamra looking at what’s happening in our world and what might be necessary. This includes the likes of HMD, AESA, IRST and the additional chin hardpoints for targeting pods. The currently completed Block-II aircraft has an improved version of the avionics and EW package, as well as the improved KLJ-7 V2 radar. This mechanical radar for the moment remains the same, but it will be replaced by an AESA radar in Block-III. Concerning the engine, right now we’re very happy with the RD-93. But if a future customer indicates that they prefer another, more powerful engine, there are provisions from the hardpoints in the engine tunnel to accommodate that.

DIB: Is it true that among the few JF-17s and FC-1s undertaking testing at China’s CATIC or CAC, there’s one which already flight tests with a Chinese-made engine? Which one would that be? A WS-17, I assume, because of the complement name? Or WS-13?

ACRK: Yes, there are tests ongoing in China concerning a future engine-option*. We always keep the options open. The best equipment will find its way into the aircraft. The type of engine involved in that JF-17 cockpit detail will be revealed very soon.

DIB: Concerning the radar – for an AESA you are depending on foreign suppliers? Chinese, I guess...

ACRK: Yes, the AESA radar will not be produced indigenously. There is one under development at NRIST [Nanjing Research of Electronic Technology], I think. But the Chinese are just one option we have for this. That’s not been decided yet.

DIB: A question on weapons integration…I suppose the heavy anti-ship missile C802AK is integrated, while the later CM-400AKG not quite yet. If the aircraft carries it, you need range to go out at sea and therefore you need at least one additional fuel tank. And if it’s suspended, you’d need to rebalance the weight...

ACRK: Yes and no. The C802 is in PAF-squadron-use in the Block-I at No.2 Squadron. Live-firing was done together with CATIC in China. The CM-400 is however integrated, but not contracted. And if we carry a large anti-ship missile, we will carry one or preferably two fuel tanks, with the other one at the centre station. After it’s been spent, the automatic flight control/management system will compensate the changes in loads.

DIB: Let’s talk about the upcoming two-seater. AVIC boss Mr Li has said progress on it is being made. How essential is it?

ACRK: For us in the PAF, it’s not that essential. We’ve done fine in the operational conversion to the ‘Thunder’ with the high-fidelity, full-mission simulator at Kamra. It has everything – artificial targets from East and West, et cetera. Our pilots all come to Kamra to train and to keep an 80:20 hour-rate – that’s 80 in the air, 20 in the dome. But several potential customers – I cannot tell you who – have asked for it. So the ‘JF-17B’ will definitely come. In fact, first metal has already been cut for it and it will fly next year.

Notes by the author: *Since 2013 there have been indications that a future JF-17/FC-1 engine might well be the medium thrust WS-13. Last year, a source at Guizhou Aviation Industry Corporation (the facility most frequently associated with work on WS-13) wrote in a report that: “The modified design-tool method was developed for a general blading design system and its application for the axial/ centrifugal compressor of FC-1s Block-III powerplant. According to the similitude theory, at the precondition of the equivalence of converse mass flow and converse revolution speed at the second stage inlet, the increase of the mass flow was growing with the pressure ratio. By CFD computation and analysis, all the performances met the requirement and the design result was perfect. The results show that as the speed of the fan increases 1.1%, the mass flow increases 7.1%, the pressure ratio increases 7.4%, the efficiency increases 2.9% and the stall marge increases 0.8%. Analysis and valuation of the performance and matching characteristic indicate that this design can satisfy the more thrust requirement of the new turbofan engine.” This information describes the medium thrust engine in question as having a 4 stage LP compressor. This matches well with the RD-33 configuration of 4/9/1/1 (4 stage LP-compressor/9 stage HP compressor/1 stage HP-turbine and 1 stage LP-turbine), on which WS-13 is reportedly based. Further the actual increase in mass flow achieved with a new fan closely matches Russian modifications of RD-33** (the ‘ancestor of RD-93), using similar methods.

**The Russian RD-33MK (for MiG-35) used a new wide chord fan of identical diameter (similar to the Chinese efforts described above) to achieve a 6% increase in mass flow, along with a new FADEC and improved combustor liner resulting in an engine with 9070kg thrust and 1000 hour TBO. Of the improvements listed here, only an increased mass flow has a significant effect on thrust, FADEC and combustion liner changes improve TBO, reducing smoke and weight (via a lighter control system). Given the Chinese fan design has a higher mass flow increase (7.1% vs. 6%) and the specific reference of increase in T4 (turbine-inlet) temperature to increase thrust (as oppose to the mere consequence of increased mass flow via air compression), it appears likely that the WS-13 variant aims to have higher thrust increase compared with the RD-33MK, or alternatively greater TBO. A useful reference perhaps is the 9.300kp thrust target of RD-93MA, under development currently for future JF-17 blocks. At Paris (June 15), the author attended a press conference with AVIC vice- president Li Yuhai and with PAC’s ACR Khalid. Li confirmed that “a new Chinese turbofan for the J-17 has completed lab tests and is in flight testing progress”. He stated that the new engine would have a thrust slightly larger than the 8.7-ton thrust of the JF-17’s current Klimov RD-93 turbofan. It was also confirmed that in 2010 China obtained a Russian commitment to meet a potential requirement of up to 500 RD-93 engines to support the JF-17 programme. This figure would support Pakistan’s requirements for up to 275 JF-17s – plus all international exports .

[Orel]

Interesante alejandro_.
Dos detalles:

‘Thunder’ provides an F-16- or Gripen C/D like capability at an affordable cost

Semejante a F-16 Block 30 y previos (sin MLU), pero no a los Bloques 40/50/50+ ni últimos niveles de MLU. Y semejante a Gripen C, efectivamente no NG (E/D).

There is a team at Kamra looking at what’s happening in our world and what might be necessary. This includes the likes of HMD, AESA, IRST and the additional chin hardpoints for targeting pods.

Que un caza que voló en el siglo XXI no cuente con HMD ni IRST...
Sobre el pod, ¿sabéis si usan efectivamente el chino WMD-7 ó -9?

[Orel]

Continuación de la noticia puesta hace unas semanas, EEUU ya ha respondido negativamente. A Corea del Sur le ha pasado con el F-35 lo mismo que a India con el T-50. A esos dos países les prometieron que comprando esos cazas les darían retornos tecnológicos para poder desarrollar sus propios cazas avanzados (KF-X y AMCA). Pero una vez comprados han comprobado que era mentira, no les pasan una mier... Para que luego digamos que siempre sale mejor comprar fuera ya horneado por otros, que total siempre se obtienen los retornos buscados. Pues sí... o no, y te puede pasar esto:
EEUU rechaza pasar a Corea del Sur las 4 tecnologías clave del F-35 que necesitan para desarrollar cazas recientes: AESA, IRST, EOTGP (targeting pod) y RF jammer (perturbador radar). Sin ellas no pueden desarrollar nuevos cazas:

KF-X project dealt further blow
US rejects request for tech transfer
2015-10-16

The U.S. government has rejected South Korea's request to transfer core technologies on F-35 stealth fighters, dealing a further blow to Seoul's KF-X project to develop its own fighter jets...
As Seoul has failed to persuade Washington, the KF-X project is expected to falter. The government said it can develop the necessary technologies on its own, but questions remain about whether this is possible and whether it can achieve its goal of developing indigenous jets by 2025...
The four technologies -the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electronic optics targeting pod (EOTGP) and radio frequency (RF) jammer- are considered critical in the development of high-tech fighter jets...
According to the report submitted to the defense ministry by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) in November, it is impossible for the KF-X project to proceed if it fails to secure the core technologies.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 88839.html

[Orel]

Continúa la nueva novela: el Presidente de Corea del Sur ha echado al Secretario de Asuntos Exteriores por fallar en la obtención de las 4 tecnologías clave del F-35 que necesitaban para su nuevo caza indígena así como por informarle demasiado tarde.
Y eso que es país aliado de EEUU y compra más F-35 que Holanda que es socia del programa (y ya veremos Noruega y Dinamarca).

President sacks foreign affairs secretary over botched KF-X project
2015-10-19
President... replaced senior presidential secretary for foreign affairs..., Monday, amid mounting calls for her top security aides to take responsibility for failing to obtain four key technologies related to F-35 stealth fighters from the United States.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 88983.html

South Korea’s foreign affairs secretary is first person to be sacked over KF-X fiasco
http://alert5.com/2015/10/20/south-kore ... -x-fiasco/

[Roberto Montesa]

Y que alguno piense que aqui, por 10 aparatos para la armada, iban a darnos algo mas que las gracias...

[alejandro_]

Que un caza que voló en el siglo XXI no cuente con HMD ni IRST...

Bueno, estamos hablando de un caza de bajo coste. Incluso tiene armamento BVR en su versión simple.

EEUU rechaza pasar a Corea del Sur las 4 tecnologías clave del F-35 que necesitan para desarrollar cazas recientes: AESA, IRST, EOTGP (targeting pod) y RF jammer (perturbador radar). Sin ellas no pueden desarrollar nuevos cazas:

No parece que fuese una obligación del contrato. Lo mismo pasa con otras transferencias de tecnología, los principales sistemas se siguen produciendo en el país productor.

Saludos.

[Orel]

Bueno, estamos hablando de un caza de bajo coste. Incluso tiene armamento BVR en su versión simple.

Es cierto que un IRST es caro (el AESA como vez ni lo cité porque son aún carísimos) pero un HMD (uno de los sencillos) es algo que con poco coste ayuda mucho al piloto, en AS y sobretodo en AA en combate cercano, el más esperable en un caza ligero. Y como dije en un caza de este siglo es curioso que ni en la tercera versión sea algo seguro.

No parece que fuese una obligación del contrato. Lo mismo pasa con otras transferencias de tecnología, los principales sistemas se siguen produciendo en el país productor.

No sé, habría que ver si EEUU presionó para que no fuese obligación (si es así), pues Corea del Sur anunciaba que obtendría mucho retorno del programa y que a quien le comprase el caza lo más probable es que les apoyase también para desarrollar su propio KF-X. Corea del Sur ya manejaba estructuras y motores por los F-15K (Boeing) y F-16 (Lockheed), lo que necesita es precisamente conocimiento en aviónica y sensores modernos. Lo que no tendrá por parte de Lockheed.

¿Quedará la puerta abierta, como en teoría así es, a que otra compañía les ayude con el KF-X? Porque se trataba de un contrato jugoso también. Básicamente Boeing (más probable) o Airbus/Eurofighter.

[Chorbis]

Primer vuelo de la enésima versión del F-16

http://fly-news.es/aviones/primer-vuelo ... tin-f-16v/

Como bien dice en el pie de foto, es un F-16 Block 50 modificado con los sistemas representativos de la versión V. Por ello me pregunto si los CFTs serán opcionales en esta versión o vendrán de serie.

Le interesará a algún país, a estas alturas, la adquisición nueva de esta variante (MLUs de versiones existentes aparte)???

[Orel]

Han tenido que sacar esa versión, como Boeing sus SuperHornet Bloque III y Silent Eagle, porque casi estás obligado. Son cazas muy rentabilizados y es barato seguir sacando evoluciones, pero hasta ahora el interés mundial es nulo y a futuro no va a aumentar precisamente. En los concursos prevalecen normalmente cuartas avanzados nuevos (Rafale, EFA) o F-35. Obviamente hablando de países que pueden, que luego están los que incluyen en la lista cazas actuales cuando saben que no pueden permitirse más que F-16 de tercera mano.

[Orel]

Tras la negativa yanqui, Saab ya está ofertando a Corea del Sur el AESA de su Gripen E para el KFX.
Y, alejandro_, respecto a si estaba o no incluído en contrato, al menos esto:

...US officials confirmed in mid-October that they will not export [AESA, IRST, EOTGP, jammer] to South Korea for the KFX, citing International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). This is despite transfer of technology being a key element of the KRW7.34 trillion (USD6.41 billion) FX-III deal signed in 2014 under which Seoul acquired 40 Lockheed Martin F-35As for the Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF)...
http://www.janes.com/article/55370/adex ... r-aircraft

[Orel]

Finlandia lanza su programa para nuevo caza, para sustituir sus 55 Hornets.
Planean las RFI en febrero de 2016, las RFP en 2018, concurso en febrero de 2019, contrato en 2021, IOC (capacidad inicial) en 2025 y FOC (capacidad plena) en 2030. Dicen que sus Hornet "morirán" a finales de la década de 2020 y comenzarán a retirarse en 2025.

Como véis, el grupo de trabajo que definió los candidatos este junio basándose en tasas de producción y mejoras futuras presentadas incluyó: Eurofighter, Rafale, SuperHornet y Gripen. Los destaco porque ninguno de ellos es seguro que siga en producción cuando esperan contratarlo (2021), ni siquiera cuando esperan hacer el concurso (2019). SuperHornet y Eurofighter cerrarían sobre 2018 (aunque Boeing ya anunció posibles mayores extensiones y Eurofighter dijo que ya en su día extendieron la cadena del Tornado tres años sin pedidos y por ello pudieron venderle un lote más a Arabia Saudí), el Rafale está pendiente de la firma de su Tranche 5 (actualmente acaba en 2020) y el Gripen -aún con Brasil- no seguirá en producción tras 2020.
Vamos, que siendo para tan tarde tiene todos los visos de que el candidato único -aunque antes haya algún otro- sea el F-35.

El documento oficial largo:
http://www.defmin.fi/files/3182/HX-ENG.pdf
Y noticia:

Finland launches HX fighter procurement programme
20 October 2015

Finland's defence forces received authorisation from the country's defence minister, Jussi Niinistö, to launch a procurement programme [HX] to replace the country's Boeing F/A-18C Hornet fleet on 20 October.

According to the Finnish Ministry of Defence (MoD), the current Hornet fleet is expected to reach the end of its service life by the end of the 2020s due to overall structural fatigue, the weakening of relative capabilities, and the availability of the aircraft's systems, spare parts, and software. It is expected that the current Hornet fleet will be phased out from 2025 onwards.
...
According to the working group's report, requests for information are currently being drafted for delivery in February 2016. Requests for quotes are to be issued in 2018, before a tender is issued in February 2019. Contracts are planned to be signed in 2021, with an initial operating capability being reached in early 2025. Full operational capability is to be reached around 2030.
...
Viable candidates identified by the working group included the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, and the Saab JAS-39 Gripen. The recommendation was based upon current production rates and planned upgrade packages in the future.

http://www.janes.com/article/55405/finl ... -programme

[Orel]

Lockheed confirma que dará a Corea del Sur los retornos a los que se comprometió por la compra del F-35, teniendo en cuenta los permisos de exportación:

“We have our offset programme that we signed up to on F-35 in support of KFX. We intend to fully meet our obligations under this programme. We've had relationships with Korean industry and [the government] that have endured for decades. We are very supportive of their aspirations to develop KFX.”
...
South Korea plans to eventually obtain 120 twin-engined KFX fighters, and 20% programme partner Indonesia 80. The ambitious aircraft will be more advanced than conventional types such as the F-16 but less so than the F-35.
KFX will rely heavily on imported technology, but Seoul sees it as a crucial stepping stone to building a credible aerospace industry.
...
"I won't get into the specific details, but what we committed to the Korean government was a level of effort, and a certain number of man years in support of that, as well as an amount of documentation that we would transfer,” says Over. “This has to be done under a framework that the US government permits through export licences. That is where the conversation is happening between the two governments right now…this will determine what the US government allows.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ff-418057/

[alejandro_]

Pakistán podría adquirir otros 8 F-16. sería una versión no puntera (Block 50/52).

El F-16V ha sido ofrecido a Filipinas. UAE podría adquirir otro paquete de F-16.

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/ ... an-report/

Saludos.