NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md: The fundamental building block for all future avionics software on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter has entered flight testing on an F-35 test jet.
"Block 1," the first of three principal software-development blocks for the F-35's mission systems, made its inaugural flight on Nov. 5 in the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft known as BF-4. The functional check flight from Naval Air Station Patuxent River lasted 1.5 hours, and all planned test points were accomplished.
"Getting this software up and flying in an F-35 is a big step in the process of validating our avionics system and ensuring that it operates in a way that gives our warfighters a clear advantage over any adversary," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin F-35 program general manager. "The flight went as planned, and we look forward to expanded mission systems testing in the coming months."
The Block 1 software will enable most of the primary sensors on the F-35, which possesses the most powerful and comprehensive mission systems package of any fighter ever to fly. Block 1 forms the foundation of all subsequent software blocks. It enables information fusion from the F-35's radar, electronic warfare system, distributed aperture system, electro-optical targeting system and other sensors, and provides initial weapons-release capability.
Block 1 has been undergoing airborne testing since May on the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed, a highly modified 737 airliner that incorporates the entire integrated F-35 mission systems suite, including an F-35 cockpit. The test bed provides initial in-flight validation for F-35 software blocks before they are introduced into actual F-35 aircraft.
The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment.
Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 133,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2009 sales from continuing operations were $44.0 billion.
NATAL AIR BASE, Brazil: More than 145 Colorado Air National Guard Airmen are taking part in the fifth annual Brazilian-led exercise CRUZEX, in Natal, Brazil, Nov. 8 through Nov. 18.
CRUZEX V, or Cruzeiro Do Sul (Southern Cross), is a multinational, combined exercise involving the air forces of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, France and Uruguay and includes more than 82 aircraft and almost 3,000 Airmen. Observers from several other countries also are there.
To support the exercise, Air Guardsmen from the 140th Wing at Buckley Field, Colo., deployed to maintain, plan and fly sorties of six F-16 Fighting Falcons alongside their multi-national counterparts.
"It has been terrific working with the other forces," said Brig. Gen. Trulan A. Eyre, the 140th Wg commander and exercise co-director. "We are all working together and we have enjoyed every minute of it."
The two-week exercise focuses on building strong partnerships with airmen from across Latin America and France while ensuring they are prepared to assist the international community as part of UN-type coalition efforts.
"It is about partnership building," General Eyre said. "A unique aspect of the Air National Guard is that we have partnerships all around the world. It is an absolutely fascinating opportunity for the (140th Wg) to expound our horizons a little bit beyond our partners of Slovenia and Jordan and deploy to Brazil."
He said the most important aspect of the deployment is the opportunity for U.S. Airmen to meet others from around the world.
"(The airmen from the different countries) have done stuff that we have never done before, and we have done stuff that they have never done before, so we can share those experiences and learn better techniques to accomplish our unique missions," General Eyre said. "Any time you get to work with coalition partners, it is a great time to learn from them. However, we aren't down here to teach, although we will when we are called upon to do so. We are down here to learn."
This learning and sharing of ideas built and solidified bonds between the participating countries, opening communication channels that didn't exist before, General Eyre said.
"We now have personal contacts with the participating countries," he said. "If another partner country is in need, we now have face-to-face contacts with (representatives) from these countries, people who we may ask for help or who may ask us for help. We now have the type of partnership that whatever is needed, we will be there to support each other."
The general also expressed his gratitude that 140th Wg Airmen were able participate in the exercise.
"The host-nation hospitality has been wonderful," he said. "We appreciate being asked to participate in this exercise, and we would very much like to participate in future exercises."
MOSCOW: Sukhoi Company conducts flight tests of serial Su-34 fighter bombers at the Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) flight testing station in Novosibirsk. Serial production of the Su-34 has been set up at the NAPO plant, which is a part of the Sukhoi holding company.
The Russian Air Force already has in service several Su-34s. Another consignment of such planes is due by the end of the year.
In 2008 a state contract was signed with the government to supply the Russian Defense Ministry with Su-34 serial-production aircraft.
The Su-34 can effectively attack land-based, sea- and airborne targets by day and night in all weathers using the entire suite of its airborne munitions, including high-precision types. In terms of operational capabilities this is a 4+ aircraft. Its active safety system, along with the newest computers, provides extra capabilities for the pilot and navigator to perform aimed bombing and to maneuver under enemy fire.
The excellent aerodynamics, large capacity internal fuel tanks, fuel-efficient bypass engines with a digital control system, in-flight refueling device and add-on fuel tanks enable the aircraft to fly long distances close to those of medium strategic bombers.
The aircraft features an outstanding flight performance, maintainability and maneuverability. It has long-range aiming systems and modern onboard devices for communications and information exchange with on-land control posts, ground troops, surface ships and in-flight aircraft. It is fitted with a smart anti-radar defense system. The Su-34 has a sophisticated survival system, including an armored cockpit. The aircraft can perform missions at a low altitude in by-pass and fly-by modes.
Last July Su-34s proved their high combat capabilities and flight performance at the Vostok-2010 military exercises. The aircraft successfully hit mock targets in the Russian Far East after flying non-stop all the way from a base in the European part of Russia. The mission involved a mid-air refueling operation.
Su-34's combat potential will be enhanced soon by new airborne munitions.
Russia has completed its part of a contract on the delivery of A-50 Mainstay AWACS aircraft to India, a Russian aircraft industry official said.
India ordered three A-50EI variants, developed on the basis of the Russian Il-76MD military transport plane and fitted with the Israeli-made Phalcon radar system, in 2004. The first two aircraft are already in service with the Indian air force (IAF).
"We have finished retrofitting a [third] transport plane for special tasks, and sent it to Israel in October to be fitted with electronic equipment for future delivery to India," a spokesman for the Taganrog-based Beriyev aircraft center said on Wednesday.
In many aspects, the A-50 is comparable to the E-3 Sentry of the U.S. Air Force. It is fitted with an aerial refueling system and electronic warfare equipment, and can detect targets up to 400 km (250 miles) away.
According to the Indian media, the IAF could order two more A-50 planes from Russia and Israel in the future.
In addition to the Russian A-50 aircraft, India has purchased eight Boeing P-81 long-range maritime reconnaissance (LRMR) aircraft from the United States, and signed a deal with Brazil to jointly integrate domestically developed AWACS systems onto three Brazilian-made Embraer-145 aircraft to be later commissioned with the Indian air force.
Tomorrow's IAF must be a comprehensively 5th Generation force, using custom-designed aircraft for specific operational tasks
A firestorm of criticism from hundreds of indignant netizens followed my last column (“Scrap the MMRCA, buy US F-35s”), which argued that the Indian Air Force is blundering in buying a 4th Generation Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) just a couple of years before Lockheed Martin’s 5th Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter enters operational service. Given that the IAF will operate its 126 MMRCAs till about 2050, anything short of today’s cutting edge would become irrelevant long before that.
Broadly speaking, the critics’ arguments were: the F-35 is not designed as a high-speed fighter (true); its primary role is striking ground targets and is, therefore, merely a “bomb truck” (Churchill might have said: “ Some truck! Some bombs!!”); the F-35 is many years away from operational readiness (false); it is too expensive (depends on how you calculate); and, of course, the unsurprising, “Goddamit! We can’t trust the Yanks.”
Since my previous 900-word article could hardly cover all corners of this $10-billion question, I shall stay on this subject this week and outline the military realities and doctrinal issues that must shape the IAF’s decision.
What are India’s foreseeable security threats and how must the IAF respond? While Pakistan remains a lingering hangover, especially in its embrace of cross-border terrorism, it is diminishing as a full-blown military threat to India. The IAF’s most likely missions against Pakistan centre on air-to-ground strikes: punitive raids against terrorist camps or ISI locations, perhaps in retaliation for yet another terrorist outrage; or pre-emptive strikes against Pakistani ballistic missiles when a nuclear launch against India seems imminent.
A devastating ground strike capability is also primary for contingencies on the China border. With Beijing relentlessly developing roads and railways to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has already built, and is increasing, the ability to amass an invading force faster than the Indian Army can rush in troops to defend the threatened area. With an attack imminent, or some Indian territory already captured, New Delhi’s immediate response will inevitably centre on air strikes against PLA forward troops and the routes on which their logistics — ammunition, fuel, food, water and medical care — depend. In the 1962 debacle, one of New Delhi’s most unforgivable, and inexplicable, blunders was to abjure the use of air power. This time around, as evident from the rapid creation of IAF infrastructure along the China border, India’s first response will be with air strikes.
Given these requirements, it is evident that the IAF needs powerful ground strike capabilities. But the fighter pilots who dominate the pinnacle of the IAF (and every other air force) have a special fascination for “air supremacy fighters”, those glamorous machines that incestuously dogfight with enemy fighters during war and mesmerise air-show audiences with aerobatics during peace. The IAF has traditionally focused less on enemy ground troops and more on that fighter-jock ambition, shooting down enemy fighters in air-to-air duels. The Indian Army has long remonstrated with the IAF over the latter’s airy neglect (pun unintentional) of the crucial ground war.
The MMRCA procurement reflects this bias: the IAF’s tender emphasises air-to-air combat capabilities — speed, rate of climb, turn rate, etc. — with ground strike capability a mere side benefit. Already deficient in air-to-ground strike power, the IAF’s two major fighters under development — the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) — are primarily air supremacy fighters. The third fighter in the pipeline, the MMRCA, cannot share the same bloodline. Instead, procuring a top-notch strike aircraft — and the F-35 is the undisputed king of this realm — will equip the IAF to contribute to the war effort where it matters the most.
To mask its ideological proclivity for air superiority fighters, the IAF argues that the “multi-role” MMRCA can also strike enemy ground forces. Strike it can, but nowhere as effectively as the F-35, which is designed ground-up for this role. To use an athletics analogy, decathletes hurl the discus, throw the javelin, and also sprint 100 metres. None of them, however, achieve world standards in each of these events.
The army has not forgotten the IAF’s irrelevance during the Kargil conflict. When IAF fighters should have been supporting assaulting infantry by hammering Pakistani positions with air strikes, fire support came almost exclusively from the army’s own guns. Meanwhile, the IAF was searching for a way to equip its Mirage-2000s (an MMRCA!) to deliver bombs accurately onto mountaintops. Without a world-class, customised strike fighter like the F-35, this sorry saga could be replayed some day on the Sino-Indian border.
Another argument fallaciously made, against the F-35, is that its design — optimised for ground strike — renders it vulnerable to predatory enemy fighters. In fact, owing to its stealth capabilities, US Air Force combat simulations have found the F-35 the equal in air-to-air combat of four fighters of the 4th Generation, which the IAF is now procuring.
Finally, New Delhi must be clearer about its threats and opportunities. The US sale of F-35s to Israel, and its willingness to condone the retro-fitment of Israeli avionics and weaponry illustrate Washington’s strategy of building up clearly friendly countries against clear long-term threats. Just as it is supporting the creation of capabilities against Iran’s nuclear programme, the US will equally facilitate capabilities against China’s growing militarism. Furthermore, an F-35 procurement by India would dramatically dissipate the suspicions that currently dog US-India defence relations.
But the basic argument for the F-35 remains Indian self-interest. Tomorrow’s IAF must be a comprehensively 5th Generation force, using custom-designed aircraft for specific operational tasks. In the US Air Force, the F-22 Raptor obtains air superiority; meanwhile, US ground forces are supported by the F-35 joint strike fighter. The IAF cannot fall short on either of these counts. With the 5th Generation FGFA, an air superiority fighter, perhaps a decade away, the IAF must obtain a war-winning advantage from a matching strike fighter: the F-35.
BANGALORE: Hampered by the lack of spare parts and serviceability issues, India is increasingly looking West for its military transport aircraft fleet, even as it beefs up its presence along its borders.
The military is currently served by two squadrons of the IL-76, its flagship transport aircraft, and little over a 100 medium-range airlifters, the AN-32. Even as its northern neighbours, China and Pakistan, step up their aggressive posturing, the country is facing a serious shortfall of airlifters.
“We need to have more aircraft, considering the amount of troop movement that is happening, and more importantly, those expected to take place at our borders. While we do have the IL-76 and the AN-32, it may not be enough,” air marshal (retd) BU Chengappa pointed out.
The serviceability of the IL-76 has also been called into question. Since the aircraft is manufactured in Uzbekistan , there is a constant lack of spare parts, adding to IAF woes. “The spares availability of the IL-76 is not good. We have to get them from Russia , and that takes a lot of time, and additionally, they are not easily available. Secondly, it is not economically viable to set up an overhauling facility for the IL-76 in India. So, it is not the best situation to be in,” Mr Chengappa said.
Over the last two years, New Delhi has been increasing its military presence along its borders with China and Pakistan, with several underutilised airfields in the process of being upgraded.
“The Rs 1,000-crore Modernisation of Airfield Infrastructure plan has been formulated to ensure that a huge number of IAF bases are equipped to handle not just the Sukhoi-30 MKI combat aircraft, but also our transport aircraft,” said air commodore (retd) Jasjit Singh, who heads the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Studies, a major think tank for the IAF.
Since 2001, the Chinese have been putting finishing touches on their version of the Lockheed Martin C-130 J, the Shaanxi Y-9, while rumour also abound that it plans to start manufacturing a 200-tonne airlifter, based on the IL-76 design.
India’s refusal to sign three strategic agreements with the United States could see it receiving its muchrequired military transport aircraft from the US, shorn of critical electronic systems, a situation that could hamper its border defences. The six Lockheed Martin C-130 J Super Hercules aircraft purchased by the country in 2008, and to be delivered in January 2011, will be delivered without, roughly, five communication interfaces, due to the country refusing to sign the agreements.
New Delhi’s position, shaped largely by the hardball stand adopted by the IAF, has found a great deal of support amongst the country’s defence personnel and analysts, who argue that the strategic agreements, Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Logistics Supply Agreement (LSA), infringe on its military sovereignty.
