Category: Uncategorized

Bill Yenne discusses the life of soviet World War II fighter ace Lydia Vladimirovna Litvyak (Лидия Владимировна Литвяк) (1921 – 1943).

While the Typhoon and Gripen patiently wait the arrival of AESA radars, the Rafale has been operating with this modern sensor since 2013. The RBE2 AESA (it really needs a name) is the first fighter AESA in series production outside of the US and Japan, and put Thales at the forefront of radar technology. We went to the manufacturer of the RBE2, Thales, to find out more.

(As we have already said, the new radar does need a name- our suggestion would be ‘ravisseur’…)

What is the current contractual and funding status of RBE2 AESA?

60 RBE 2 AESA have been ordered in 2009 for equipping the batch 4 of the Rafale.

When did the first AESA radar enter service?

The first entered service in summer 2013.

How many have been delivered to the customer?

We are exactly in line with our contractual commitment.

(25 as of September 2014)

What percentage increases over PESA will the radar offer in terms of search and tracking ranges?

In terms of performance, detection range is increased by considerably more than 50% and the radar can look in many directions at the same time offering significantly enhanced tracking capabilities.

How much of an improvement will it be?

Angular coverage in azimuth is improved and very small targets with lower radar cross section such as cruise missiles can also be detected. Furthermore improvement of the situational awareness allows pilots to enlarge their potential to ensure the success of their mission.

How many transmitter/receiver modules does it have?

The active array is made up of several hundreds of T/R modules. It is confidential.

How does it compare with the Typhoon’s Captor in terms of detection range?

AESA radar of the Typhoon does not exist today. It seems to be a prototype. When it is in service on board the Typhoon comparison will  be possible to be done !

What modes does it have?

RBE2 provides unprecedented levels of situational awareness, with earlier detection and tracking of multiple targets as well as the capability of using several radar modes at the same time:

• All-aspect look-down/look-up detection and tracking of multiple air targets for close combat and long-range interception, in jammed environment and in all weather,

• Real-time generation of three-dimensional maps for terrain-following,

• Real-time generation of high resolution air to surface detection for navigation and targeting,

• Detection and tracking of multiple sea targets.

Does it have aggressive jamming or hacking modes? Can you explain this more.

We will not comment this.

What bands does it operate in?

It operates in X band.

Would multi static or similar operations be possible: could the radars of two Rafales work together to detect low RCS targets?

Yes,  thanks to coordination two Rafale can work together.

Is the new radar heavier than the baseline RBE2, how much weight is added by increased cooling?

It is the same weight and same interface as the baseline RBE2.

What features will the radar use to detect low RCS targets?

AESA brings the Rafale extended range capabilities supporting low observable target detection.

How long would it take to fit a RBE2 AESA to a Rafale built the with baseline PESA radar, what changes would have to made?

It takes less than 2 hours as we have just to remove the PESA antenna and to plug and play immediately the AESA antenna.

How much will it cost per unit?

No comment

Is the lack of a  repositioner a disadvantage in terms of field of regard?

We made the analysis as early as in the middle of the nineties to evaluate the advantage to use or not a repositioner. Our conclusion was that this solution works well when the situation is not complex but it is absolutely irrelevant when it becomes more dense due to a high quantity of targets spread in space.

No, it is not a disadvantage. We rejected the repositioner as this solution is not relevant for the majority of the missions.

Was the RBE2 the first fighter AESA produced outside of the US and Japan?

Yes it is the first and only serial AESA produced in Europe.

Are there any plans to offer the RBE2 AESA as a radar for F-16s?

No the RBE 2 AESA is specifically designed for the Rafale.

Hush-kit is reminding the world of the beauty of flight.

What was Italy’s ultimate fighter?

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read

Without new orders, the Eurofighter Typhoon is perilously close to the end of its production run (the first components of the last ordered aircraft having already been made). A big incentive to potential air force customers is the promised Captor-E radar. This extremely capable set is already in development, so we spoke to the manufacturers Selex to find out more.

 

 HK: What is the testing schedule? Testing  is continuing following the Farnborough International Air show involving Eurofighter, BAES and the Euroradar partners. It is planned to align to anticipated customers’ requirements for production systems.  

What is Selex’s current experience of designing and building fighter AESA’s? Selex ES has over 60 years of Fire Control Radar experience from the AI23 radar on the Lightning aircraft to present Captor-M and Captor-E radars for Eurofighter Typhoon working with the EuroRADAR Consortium. The EuroRADAR Consortium is led by Selex ES (UK) and in partnership with Selex ES (Italy), Airbus (Germany) and Indra (Spain) has invested heavily in Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar over the last 16 years. During that time a number of Technology Demonstrator Programmes (TDPs) have been completed.

When will an operational radar be completed? The operational radar is planned to be completed to meet the anticipated customers’ requirements.

When do you expect to see squadron service? This will be dictated by the customers’ requirements for entry into service either as retrofit of the existing best-in-class M-Scan radar or as fitted to new aircraft procurement.

What percentage increases over Captor will the radar offer in terms of search and tracking ranges? This information is classified but Captor-E will offer increased range performance, extended missile guidance, faster detection and tracking of multiple targets. In addition, it is expected that Captor-E will significantly improve accuracy and reduce track latency, especially against manoeuvring targets due to the extreme beam agility inherent in AESAs.

How many transmitter/receiver modules will it have? Will it require more or less maintenance than the Captor-M? The exact figure is classified but Typhoon has a large radome which does allow for a high TRM count. This increases both transmitted and received power which provides a significant competitive advantage in maximum detection range and other radar capabilities over the majority of other fielded AESAs. Captor-E will have reduced life cycle costs. Mechanically scanned arrays by design place extreme stresses on their structure and motor to rapidly reposition the antenna between alternate edges of the field of regard. The majority of this beam repositioning is now completed electronically; the much-reduced mechanical demands on the repositioner and the robust mechanics of its novel design should ensure far less maintenance. In addition, the avionics in the rest of the radar benefit from newer technology and excess processing power.

Will it offer superior detection range to RBE2 AESA and by what margin? We believe that the large power and aperture available to Typhoon offers superior detection ranges; indeed, during Flight Evaluation Trials several evaluating nations have already commented that Captor-M invariably detected targets at significantly greater ranges than RBE-2. Captor-E should enhance detection even further and improve that significant tactical advantage. If you combine that power and aperture with the innovative repositioner providing a Wide Field of Regard of ~200 degrees you have an air combat-decisive advantage. Our competitors and potential adversaries who field a fixed plate antenna with a field of regard of only ~ 120 degrees are not only stuck with the legacy tactics associated with a mechanical radar but additionally will have significantly reduced power and tracking at the edges of that field of view. Captor-E will revolutionise air combat by offering our pilots the option to ‘jump into the notch’ whilst maintaining tracking on a hostile aircraft; instantaneously reducing an adversary’s missile range and degrading his radar picture. This will offer a significant operational advantage over typical fixed plate AESA radars such as RBE2 and the APG series.

What modes will it have? The radar will have a comprehensive suite of air to air and air to ground waveforms supporting a flexible and powerful concept of interleaved multi-role operations implemented through an efficient radar resource management system as well as high resolution modes for surveillance and reconnaissance. Will it have aggressive jamming and hacking modes? Can you explain this more. I am sure that you will understand but unfortunately this information is classified.

What bands will it operate in? I-band

How much, and what, testing has been done on the radar so far? The Full Scale Development programme has been progressing to schedule, the precise details are private to the ER partners and EF stakeholders only.

Why has it not a large flying testbed? Various Technology Demonstrators such as AMSAR and CAESAR have been flown on ‘hack’ aircraft and CAESAR flew very successfully in May 2007 on a DA5 Typhoon.  The experience and trials data gathered during these programmes has led to improvements in modelling and simulation techniques which allows industry to develop complex equipment on the ground and reduce the burden on flight test programmes.

Would multi static or similar operations be possible with a Captor-E: could the radars of two Typhoons work together to detect low RCS targets? I am sure that you will understand that the details supporting detection of low RCS targets is classified but EScan technology does provide the capability for enhanced cued search and track both actively and passively.

How similar will the set be to the Gripen E/F’s radar- to what extent is research pooled? Captor E and Raven are completely different radar systems. Captor-E for EF Typhoon is provided by the Euroradar consortium for which Selex ES is the lead contractor working with Selex ES Italy, Airbus Ulm and Indra Spain. Raven ES-05 is provided solely by Selex ES.

Will the new radar be heavier and use more power than Captor-M? The Captor-E system is heavier than the existing Captor-M, all provisions both mechanical, electrical and cooling are provided to allow fitting to T3 aircraft and T2 aircraft retrofit. The benefit of Typhoon’s excess thrust is that the extra weight is not expected to have an impact on performance; as evidenced by Typhoon’s agility with 6x1000lb Paveway IIs.

How long would it take to fit a Captor-E to a Typhoon built with Captor-M, what changes would have to made? How much would the operation cost? It is not a lengthy process and provisions are in place to support this.

How much will it cost per unit? This is commercial information private to stakeholders and customers.  

In what ways is an AESA with a repositioner superior to a conventional AESA? In addition to the significant air combat advantages discussed above the innovative re-positioner extends the radar’s field of regard to ~200 degrees which is some 50% wider than traditional ‘fixed plate’ AESA radars. The wide field of regard provides significant benefits in both air to air and air to ground engagements allowing the Typhoon to turn away from the oncoming threat whilst continuing to track and support weapons engagements. The radar can carry out high resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging whilst maintaining a safe distance from enemy forces.

Love aviation like we do? This madness can only survive with your donations. Click here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Hush-kit is reminding the world of the beauty of flight. What was Italy’s ultimate fighter? Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read

To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- we need donations. We’re trying to do something different with Hush-Kit: give aviation fans something that is both entertaining, surprising and well-informed. Please do help us and click on the donate button above – you can really make a difference (suggested donation £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty. A big thank you to all of our readers.

Nick Pope investigated UFOs for the UK Government. Today he is recognised as one of the world’s leading authorities on UFOs, the unexplained and conspiracy theories. Hush-Kit asked him for his views on the most controversial aeronautical conspiracy theories.

Is there any evidence to support the 9/11 conspiracy theories? 
There’s no significant evidence of any conspiracy here. 9/11 was not an “inside job”, and neither was it “allowed to happen”, with the powers that be looking the other way. I learned a lot about conspiracy theories (and found myself at the centre of a few!) while investigating UFOs for the MoD, and comment on the subject extensively in the media. It’s clear to me that 9/11 conspiracy theories – like most conspiracy theories – arise partly because of public distrust of government, and partly because of misunderstandings about the way in which governments and the intelligence agencies work. To give an example, the CIA was aware of two of the 9/11 hijackers, but didn’t inform the FBI. This might sound sinister, but poor information-sharing is typical in the intelligence community. Applying a bit of science and a bit of common sense deals with all the various 9/11 conspiracy theories. As an example, some people say the towers couldn’t have collapsed as a result of aircraft hitting them, because aviation fuel doesn’t burn at a sufficiently high temperature to melt steel. This is flawed reasoning, because all that was necessary for the towers to collapse was for the steel to lose its structural integrity, and that happens at a lower temperature. And that’s exactly what happened. Bizarrely, there are even a few engineers and architects who support 9/11 conspiracy theories (most, of course, do not). All I can say is that I wouldn’t let them anywhere near my house!

What is the chemtrail theory and is there any truth in it? 
When I was a kid, I was taught that the trails I often saw behind aircraft were called contrails, or vapour trails. Now, some people call them chemtrails and think they’re part of a sinister New World Order plot to poison people. The theory is crazy. You’ve only got to see how low crop-spraying aircraft need to fly to be effective to realise that spraying anything from 35,000 feet is going to have no discernable effect. And where are all these aircraft supposed to come from? I know from my MoD career that both in the UK and the US, the Air Force struggles to complete its core tasks, so the idea of fleets of aircraft spraying an unsuspecting population in science fiction. Interestingly, the US Air Force was getting so many questions about this that some years ago they put an article entitled “The Chemtrail Hoax” on their website. It has also been suggested that chemtrails relate to secret weather control projects. I’m skeptical about this too, though there’s no doubt that the US Government (and others) have done some work on weather modification, e.g. Project Popeye, where the US military seeded clouds to make it rain on the Ho Chi Minh trail, during the Vietnam War. Additionally, the concept of geoengineering (championed by people like Professor David Keith) is attracting increasing attention given that climate change continues to be such a major political issue.

How did Amy Johnson die? 
The official story is that she flew off course while ferrying an aircraft to a military base (standard work for an Air Transport Auxiliary officer), ran out of fuel and ditched in the Thames Estuary, where she drowned. There’s a claim that she was shot down by UK anti-aircraft fire after failing to respond to a request for a coded signal, but that’s based on a single, unverified claim from a former gunner who believes he was responsible. There’s a related theory that the ship involved in her rescue reversed and that Johnson was killed by the propellers. There was – and still is – huge sensitivity over so-called ‘friendly fire’ incidents, and this would have been compounded by the fact that the victim was one of the most famous women in the world, so these theories aren’t too outlandish. There are some less likely conspiracy theories about Amy Johnson’s death, e.g. that she was shot down by the Germans, was fleeing the country with a (possibly German) lover, that she was engaged on a secret government mission, or even that she faked her own death. Short of discovering the wreckage of her aircraft, the mystery is unlikely to be resolved.

Should we believe any UFO reports are alien spacecraft – if so which are hardest to explain away?
We shouldn’t believe it, but we shouldn’t rule it out either. There’s certainly some intriguing evidence, but no definitive ‘you can take it to the bank’ proof. Over the years, the MoD’s UFO project investigated around 12,000 UFO sightings, and many other governments had similar research efforts. The cases that we found most compelling were ones where the witnesses were pilots, and where an uncorrelated target was simultaneously tracked on radar. There are plenty of such cases in the MoD’s UFO files, but they’re buried among thousands of less interesting cases (the best place to hide a book is in a library!) and are hard to find. Those of us who have looked at this issue from within government have mixed feelings about the UFO phenomenon. On the one hand, there are a lot of easy-to-explain cases out there, involving misidentifications and hoaxes. And it’s frustrating to constantly be accused of being part of a cover-up. On the other hand, there are some genuinely unexplained cases too, and as we always used to say, the believers only have to be right once! The most compelling and mysterious UFO case of all time is probably the Rendlesham Forest incident, and I co-wrote a book about this (“Encounter in Rendlesham Forest”) last year with the two main witnesses, John Burroughs and Jim Penniston, both of whom were in the United States Air Force at the time of the incident.

Was the Aurora spy plane real? What evidence was there?
I was personally involved in this controversy, because of the theory that many UFO sightings being reported to the MoD in the early Nineties might involve secret prototype spy planes – possibly Aurora. To clarify the position we asked the US Government for assurances that no such aircraft was being operated in UK airspace. We were given these assurances (and told that the aircraft didn’t exist) and on that basis, Defence Ministers gave similar assurances to Parliament. But some of my colleagues in the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff weren’t convinced, and asked the Americans again, which nearly caused a diplomatic incident, as the US Secretary of the Air Force took this as an accusation that he’d lied to the UK and misled Congress. So I think I’d better stick to the line that Aurora never existed, for fear of causing another diplomatic incident!

How many nations are likely to be flying secret aircraft projects today and what are they?

More than we think, I suspect, especially if one includes UAVs. I don’t think it’s any great secret that countries such as the USA, Russia, China, the UK, France, Israel, India and Pakistan operate and are developing a range of secret, prototype aircraft and drones, with technology running many years ahead of what you’ll see at the Farnborough or Paris airshows, or in the aviation press. I’m sure other countries are in the game too, but even with their being the target of sophisticated intelligence-gathering operations, it’s difficult to be certain about countries such as Iran or North Korea. And with that, I’m probably in danger of straying into areas that are classified, so on the basis that the Official Secrets Act binds me for life, I’d better not say any more on this point.

Hush-kit is reminding the world of the beauty of flight.

What was Italy’s ultimate fighter?

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read

You should also enjoy our Top Tens! There’s a whole feast of fantastic British, French, Swedish, Australian, Japanese , Belgian,  German and Latin American aeroplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read as is the Top Ten cancelled fighters.

Read an interview with a Super Hornet pilot here.

One was a pioneering stealth drone and the other is expected to be the fastest car on earth, we suspect they shared a granddad. 

New Year’s Eve, and vodka-sozzled Zhenya Lukashin departs Moscow in a Tupolev Tu-134. Zhenya is the central character in the 1976 Soviet romantic comedy The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (Ирония судьбы, или С лёгким паром!). Zhenya has left the snowy concrete jungle of Moscow for the identical snowy concrete jungle of St. Petersburg. The brief external shots of the aircraft in flight, with their distinctly dodgy special effects, have a certain magic about them. Though his destination may have been as dire as his point of departure, and his journey a soporific flight of drunkenness, the aircraft (at least the exterior) itself is decidedly otherworldly.

The Tu-134 is a twin-engined airliner in the same category as the equally attractive Caravelle. Its racy appearance is largely due to dramatically raked back wings set at an even more extreme angle than Britain’s exceptionally fast VC10. The 35 degrees of sweep was a ‘magic angle’ recommended by the central aerohydrodynamic institute (TsAGI) that was also adopted by the Tu-95 bomber.

Best of all, the Tu-134 had a drag ‘chute! This very unusual feature, shared with its Tu-144 stablemate, was replaced with thrust reversers in later models.

The Tu-134BSh variant had a long pointed nose containing the same radar as the Tu-22M bomber. This elongated nose, not found in a breakfast like Gogal’s (to over-bake a Russian cultural reference), was fitted to train crewmen for the complex bomber. More importantly, it looked fantastic and not entirely unlike Herge’s Carreidas 160.

The Tu-134 was a great aircraft, built in large numbers, far more comfortable and efficient than earlier Soviet jetliners. Noise restrictions eventually killed the type (at least for Western operations) though dozens endure the Eastern elements as gate guards, bars and occasional rusting waste in remote locations across the former USSR and satellite states. 

_____

If you like this kind of thing, look at the donate buttons on the top and bottom of this screen and consider sending some money to the humans who made this so they can make you more. Many thanks :-) 

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

You should also enjoy our other Top Tens! There’s a whole feast of fantastic British, French, Swedish, Australian,Japanese , Belgian,  German and Latin American aeroplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read as is the Top Ten cancelled fighters.

Read an interview with a Super Hornet pilot here.

According to a report released by the Government Accountability Office there is a severe risk that observers will be bored with the F-35 before it even achieves Initial Operating Capability. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II project is the biggest military procurement deal in history, with a total programme cost estimated at over one quattuordecillion dollars over the aircraft’s anticipated 25 year service life.

The report released on Tuesday, pours cold water on the upbeat progress reports propagated by manufacturer Lockheed Martin. An excerpt from this damning document reveals that “Public interest in the aircraft, after years and years and years of print and on-line articles has diminished any curiosity left in the heart of anyone”. More alarmingly, even pilots of the stealthy fighter jet are growing weary of thinking about the so-called ‘Gray Slug’, and there is a severe risk that some will fall asleep at the controls. One USAF servicemen, who spoken on conditions of anonymity, noted that “It’s not the fastest airplane, or the most colourful, or the best-looking – and I’m sure as hell bored of reading about it. I’ve tried pinching my hand during sorties to stay awake – I’ve even tried playing Snake on the helmet system, but it was too juddery to get a good score…like many I’ve applied to transfer to a tanker unit in the hope of a little more adrenaline.”

Aviation journalists, when not collecting Northrop Grumman lanyards at air shows, have also expressed exhaustion. One journalist we talked to at the Farnborough Air-show opined that “Block this, Block that, budget this, budget that…I can’t bear to read or write another single word on the bloody thing. I like that Russian one though, the one that looks like a YF-23 and doesn’t work”, he later added- “Oh yes, and that Chinese Firefox one named after the juice drink is cool too” before disappearing to the stall of a Dutch manufacturer of ball bearings to get a free sandwich and pen.

With so little interest in the type, Lockheed Martin is preparing to ‘sex it up’ by adding silicon breasts and a rubber penis as part of the low rate initial production (LRIP) 8X phase of the project.

European fighter houses are watching these developments with curiosity and many expect that Saab is soon to counter with a completely topless Gripen that can blow smoke-rings out of a recently developed 3D vectoring nozzle. Eurofighter are planning a big sombrero for the Typhoon, but are yet to reach agreement (or funding) from the client nations.