Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

Aerospace and Ordnance discussion/news.

Recommended Posts

Speaking of KC-46, the first USAF KC-46 has been delivered. Is there a catch? Well, yes...

 

Quote

The agreement, finalized after months of sometimes public and contentious discussions, allows McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas to receive the KC-46 as early as this month, with more set to follow, said Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Hope Cronin. However, the new tankers will arrive with several outstanding category-1 deficiencies, the term used by the military to describe the most serious level of technical problems.

That may sound like a blow to the Air Force, whose leaders had previously implied that all category-1 deficiencies must be fixed before the service begins accepting the tankers.

However, service leaders believe the Air Force retains significant financial leverage, even as Boeing delivers the KC-46 aircraft, and the service sees it as vital that Air Mobility Command be able to begin training pilots and boom operators to use the tankers even as technical problems are being corrected.

Quote

Perhaps more importantly, the Air Force holds a significant trump card in its hand. According to the terms of its fixed-price contract with Boeing, the service can withhold up to $28 million per aircraft upon delivery — and the Air Force official said the service intends to keep that amount until it sees a good faith effort by Boeing to fix deficiencies.

That means Boeing could miss out on $1.5 billion if the maximum withholding is applied to all 52 aircraft on contract.

“That is not something that legitimately can be contested by Boeing. That is purely a government decision until the airplane is brought up to specification,” the official said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25989/intel-report-confirms-china-developing-stealthy-regional-bomber-in-addition-to-strategic-bomber

 

 

"An arm of the U.S. Intelligence Community has publicly confirmed the existence of not one, but two Chinese stealth bomber development programs for the first time in a new report. In addition to the much-reported H-20 stealth heavy bomber program, China is also working on a smaller, regionally-focused stealthy bomber, commonly referred to as JH-XX. 

This new information was contained in the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) latest China Military Power report, which the Agency released on Jan. 15, 2019. DIA restarted issuing its "Military Power" unclassified public reviews, which trace their origins to the Cold War-era Soviet Military Power reports, in 2017. This new examination of China's capabilities says the information it contains is up to date as of November 2018."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Belesarius said:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25989/intel-report-confirms-china-developing-stealthy-regional-bomber-in-addition-to-strategic-bomber

 

 

"An arm of the U.S. Intelligence Community has publicly confirmed the existence of not one, but two Chinese stealth bomber development programs for the first time in a new report. In addition to the much-reported H-20 stealth heavy bomber program, China is also working on a smaller, regionally-focused stealthy bomber, commonly referred to as JH-XX. 

This new information was contained in the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) latest China Military Power report, which the Agency released on Jan. 15, 2019. DIA restarted issuing its "Military Power" unclassified public reviews, which trace their origins to the Cold War-era Soviet Military Power reports, in 2017. This new examination of China's capabilities says the information it contains is up to date as of November 2018."

 

Looking through that report linked, I'm pretty sure they've used a photoshopped image. Check out page 81 - the amphib vehicles in the background look awfully similar. Reverse image searching it shows up the same 'shopped image all over the place, so I think it got attached to an AFP news item. Here's an example of a typical report using it:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1996073/china-russia-hold-joint-naval-drill-south-china-sea

 

This is very off topic, I know

 

ETA: I just noticed that that AFP news item credited the image to Xinhua news agency.

Edited by Xlucine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

 

Looking through that report linked, I'm pretty sure they've used a photoshopped image. Check out page 81 - the amphib vehicles in the background look awfully similar. Reverse image searching it shows up the same 'shopped image all over the place, so I think it got attached to an AFP news item. Here's an example of a typical report using it:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1996073/china-russia-hold-joint-naval-drill-south-china-sea

 

This is very off topic, I know

 

ETA: I just noticed that that AFP news item credited the image to Xinhua news agency.

Pretty sure most of the images have been shared here on SH before.  More interested in the idea of a theatre-range plane in development. We shall see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Krieger22 said:

Su-34 midair collision during training over Sea of Japan. The crews ejected safely, and rescue efforts are underway.

 

https://ria.ru/20190118/1549543529.html

Not safely, 2 dead.

 

https://news.mail.ru/incident/36027850/?frommail=1

Quote

Rescuers discovered the body of the third Su-34 pilot
MOSCOW, January 18 - RIA News. The body of the second dead Su-34 pilot without signs of life was found in the area of the search in the Sea of Japan, the Russian Defense Ministry reports.

/.../

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird, reports here (admittedly in not brilliant sources, but allegedly quoting Interfax) are claiming one of the Su-34s managed to land after the collision:

 

“One Su-34 fell after the collision, and the other managed to land with a defunct engine,” a source said.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/two-russian-su-34-fighter-13875952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   MOSCOW, January 22. / TASS /. A Tu-22M3 bomber crashed while landing at a military airfield in the Murmansk region.

/.../
“The Tu-22M3 bomber crashed while landing at the airfield of the long-range aviation regiment in Olenegorsk (Murmansk region).

3 out of 4 are dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaah.....Now I understand why the Kirovets drawing was in the other thread.  ;)

 

10 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Video of Tu-22M3 crash appeared

 

He seemed to be coming in very fast, but the bounce on landing is strange, did it hit something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That approach speed was super fast. The flex when the fuselage came apart was pretty brutal. :(

 

Edit: I wonder if the wing sweep mechanism failed?  I couldn't tell if the wings were fully deflected forward.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At approximately 1:22 the starboard undercarriage bogey deflects upward, this appears (to me) to happen just before the aircraft commences the fatal 'bounce'.....Not sure if it's the cause or just a symptom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

That approach speed was super fast. The flex when the fuselage came apart was pretty brutal. :(

 

Edit: I wonder if the wing sweep mechanism failed?  I couldn't tell if the wings were fully deflected forward.

 

 

 

It looks like the wings are fully swept forwoards, but the its hard to tell.

Are there already some official explanations of what exactly caused this fatal crash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a very high sink rate. The aircraft is fully flared on landing, so either the approach angle was too steep or the plane thought it was several hundred meters higher up than it really was. The bounce is characeristic of extremely heavy landings- the undercarriage can't damp it all out, and the pneumatic springs shove the airframe right back into the air. It looks like the impact may have been violent enough to fully compress the springs to their mechanical stops, at which point the shock gets transferred directly to the aircraft. The shock bending loads on the structure trying to accelerate the heavy nose cantilever from "steep descent" to "rebound" exceeded the load limit and the airframe broke where the bending moment causes maximal stress- at the base of the cantilever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...