Monthly Archives: September 2016

Face It — America Doesn’t ‘Win’ a Lot of War

U.S. Special Operations Command details dismal U.S. military record

by NICK TURSE

Winning. It’s written into the DNA of the USA. After all, what’s more American than football legend Vince Lombardi’s famous, if purloined, maxim — “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”?

Americans expect to be number one. First Lady Michelle Obama recently called the United States the “greatest country on Earth.” Take that, world public opinion, and your choice of Germany!

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went even farther, touting America as “the greatest country that has ever been created.” Her rival, Donald Trump, who for political gain badmouths the country that made him rich and famous, does so in the hope of returning America to supposedly halcyon days of unparalleled greatness.

He’s predicted that his presidency might lead to an actual winning overload. “We’re going to win so much,” he told supporters. “You’re going to get tired of winning. You’re going to say, ‘Please, Mr. President … don’t win so much’ … And I’m going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again … We’re gonna keep winning.’”

As Trump well knows, Americans take winning very seriously. Look no farther than the U.S. gold medal count at the recent Rio Olympics — 46. The next highest total? Great Britain’s 27, almost 20 fewer than those of the country whose upstart rebels bested them in the 18th century, the nation’s ur-victory.

The young United States then beat back the Brits in the early 1800s, and twice bailed them out in victorious world wars during the twentieth century.

In the intervening years, the United States built up a gaudy military record — slaughtering native tribes, punishing Mexico, pummeling Spain — but the best was yet to come. “Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world,” Pres. Barack Obama boasted in this year’s State of the Union address.

In this he echoed his predecessor, George W. Bush, who, in May 2001,declared that “America today has the finest [military] the world has ever seen.”

In the years between those two moments of high-flown rhetoric, the United States military fought in nine conflicts, according to a 2015 briefing produced by U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, the umbrella organization for America’s most elite forces including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets.

The record of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world, according to SOCOM — zero wins, two losses and seven ties.

This dismal record is catalogued in a briefing slide produced by SOCOM’s Intelligence Directorate last September and obtained by TomDispatch via the Freedom of Information Act. “A Century of War and Gray Zone Challenges” — a timeline of conflicts ranked as wins, losses and ties — examines the last 100 years of America’s wars and interventions.

“Gray zone” is an increasingly popular term of the trade for operations conducted somewhere on the continuum between war and peace. “Traditional war is the paradigm,” the briefing slide asserts. “Gray zone conflict is the norm.”

While he finds a great deal to fault in SOCOM’s analysis, retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, believes its assessment of post-9/11 conflicts “is quite accurate.”

Although American politicians such as Clinton regularly insist that the United States possesses “the greatest military” on the planet, they avoid addressing the question of what the country’s armed interventions have actually accomplished when it comes to policy goals — the true measure of success in war. “We have not shown an ability to achieve our stated political aims in a conclusive way at an acceptable cost,” Bacevich says. “That’s simply a fact.”

emergingthreatp10_largeImage @tomdispatch.com

The greatest journeyman military in history?

Twelve wins and nine losses. In baseball, it’s the annual record of a journeyman pitcher like Bill Caudill of the Seattle Mariners in 1982, Dave LaPoint of the Saint Louis Cardinals in 1983 or Norm Charlton of the Cincinnati Reds in 1990, to mention just three examples. It’s certainly not the record of an ace.

Likewise, 12 victories and nine losses is a far-from-dazzling stat when it comes to warfare, especially for a nation that prides itself on its martial prowess. But that was the SOCOM Intelligence Directorate’s assessment of the last century of American war — 12 and nine with a mind-boggling 43 “ties.”

Among those 64 conflicts, the command counts just five full-fledged wars in which the United States has come up with three wins (World War I, World War II, and Desert Storm), one loss (Vietnam) and one tie (Korea). In the gray zone — what SOCOM calls “the norm” when it comes to conflict — the record is far bleaker, the barest of winning percentages at nine victories, eight losses and 42 draws.

“If you accept the terms of analysis, that things can be reduced to win, loss and tie, then this record is not very good,” Bacevich says. “While there aren’t many losses — according to how they code — there’s a hell of a lot of ties, which would beg the question of why, based on these criteria, U.S. policy has seemingly been so ineffective.”

The assessments of, and in some instances the very inclusion of, numerous operations, missions, and interventions by SOCOM are dubious. Bacevich, for example, questions its decision to include pre-World War II U.S. military missions in China — a draw, according to the command.

“I don’t know on what basis one would say ‘China, 1912 to 1941’ qualifies as a tie,” he adds, noting on the other hand that a good case could be made for classifying two of SOCOM’S gray zone “ties” — in Haiti and Nicaragua — during the same era as wins instead of draws based on the achievement of policy aims alone.

It’s even harder to imagine why, for example, limited assistance to Chad in its conflict with Libya and indigenous rebels in 1983 or military assistance in evacuating U.S. personnel from Albania in 1997 should make the list. Meanwhile, America’s so-called longest war, in Afghanistan, inexplicably ends in 2014 on SOCOM’S timeline.

That was, of course, the year that the Obama administration formally ended the “combat mission” in that country, but it would assuredly be news to the8,400 troops, including special operators, still conducting missions there today.

Beyond that, for reasons unexplained, SOCOM doesn’t even classify Afghanistan as a “war.” Instead, it’s considered one of 59 gray-zone challenges, on a par with the 1948-to-1949 Berlin Airlift or small-scale deployments to the restive Congo in the 1960s.

No less bizarre, the command categorizes America’s 2003–2011 occupation of Iraq in a similar fashion. “It deserves to be in the same category as Korea and Vietnam,” says Bacevich, the author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

Killing people and breaking things

Can the post-9/11 U.S. military simultaneously be the finest fighting force in history and unable to win wars or quasi-wars? It may depend on our understanding of what exactly the Department of Defense and its military services are meant to do.

While the 1789 act that established its precursor, the Department of War, is sparse on details about its raison d’être, the very name suggests its purpose — presumably preparing for, fighting, and winning wars. The 1947 legislation creating its successor, the “National Military Establishment” was similarly light on specifics concerning the ultimate aims of the organization, as were the amendments of 1949 that recast it as the Department of Defense.

During a Republican primary debate earlier this year, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee offered his own definition. He asserted that the “purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.”

Some in the armed forces took umbrage at that, though the military has, in fact, done both to great effect in a great many places for a very long time. For its part, the DoD sees its purpose quite differently. “The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.”

If, in SOCOM’s accounting, the United States has engaged in relatively few actual wars, don’t credit “deterrence.” Instead, the command has done its best to simply redefine war out of existence, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, in favor of those “gray zone challenges.”

If one accepts that quasi-wars are actually war, then the Defense Department has done little to deter conflict. The United States has, in fact, been involved in some kind of military action — by SOCOM’s definition — in every year since 1980.

Beyond its single sentence mission statement, a DoD directive delineating the “functions of the Department of Defense and its major components” provides slightly more details. The DoD, it states, “shall maintain and use armed forces to:

a. Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
b. Ensure, by timely and effective military action, the security of the United States, its possessions, and areas vital to its interest.
c. Uphold and advance the national policies and interests of the United States.”

Since the Department of Defense came into existence, the United States has — as the SOCOM briefing slide notes — carried out deployments, interventions, and other undertakings in Lebanon (1958), Congo (1964 and 1967), the Dominican Republic (1965), Cambodia (1975), Iran (1980), El Salvador (1980 to 1992), Grenada (1983), Chad (1983), Libya (1986), the Persian Gulf (1987 to1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1989), Somalia (1992 to 1995), Haiti (1994 to 1995) and Albania (1997), among other countries.

You may have no memory of some, perhaps many, of these interventions, no less a sense of why they occurred or their results — and that might be the most salient take-away from SOCOM’s list. So many of these conflicts have, by now, disappeared into the gray zone of American memory.

Were these operations targeting enemies which actually posed a threat to the U.S. constitution? Did ceaseless operations across the globe actually ensure the safety and security of the United States? Did they truly advance U.S. policy interests and if so, how?

From the above list, according to SOCOM, only El Salvador, Grenada, Libya and Panama were “wins,” but what, exactly, did America win? Did any of these quasi-wars fully meet the Defense Department’s own criteria? What about the Korean War (tie), the Bay of Pigs (loss), the Vietnam War (loss) or the not-so-secret “secret war” in Laos (loss)? And have any of SOCOM’s eight losses or ties in the post-9/11 era accomplished the Defense Department’s stated mission?

“I have killed people and broken things in war, but, as a military officer, that was never the end. There was a purpose, a reason, a goal,” wrote Maj. Matt Cavanaugh, a U.S. Army strategist, in response to Huckabee’s comment. He then drew attention to the fact that Joint Publication 1: Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States asserts that “military power is integrated with other instruments of national power to advance and defend U.S. values, interests and objectives.”

Did the wars in Vietnam or Laos defend those same values? What about the war waged in Iraq by the “finest fighting force” in world history?

In March 2003, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld laid out U.S aims for that conflict. “Our goal is to defend the American people, and to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the Iraqi people,” he said, before offering even more specific objectives, such as having U.S. troops “search for, capture [and] drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq.”

Of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq would turn that country into a terrorist magnet, leading to the ultimate safe harbor — a terror caliphate extending over swaths of that country and neighboring Syria. The elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction would prove impossible for obvious reasons.

The “liberation” of its people would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands; the forced displacement of millions. And a country divided along sectarian lines, where up to 50 percent of its 33 million inhabitants may suffer from the effects of trauma brought on by the last few decades of war.

And what about the defense of the American people? They certainly don’t feel defended. According to recent polling, more Americans fear terrorism today than just after 9/11. And the particular threat Americans fear most? The terror group born and bred in America’s Iraqi prison camps — ISIS.

This record seems to matter little to the presidential candidate who, as a senator, voted for the invasion of Iraq. Regarding that war and other military missions, Clinton, as Bacevich notes, continues to avoid asking the most obvious question — “Is the use of the American military conclusively, and at reasonable costs, achieving our political objectives?”

Trump’s perspective seems to better fit SOCOM’s assessment when it comes to America’s war-fighting prowess in these years. “We don’t win. We can’t beat ISIS. Can you imagine Gen. Douglas MacArthur or Gen. Patton? Can [you] imagine they are spinning in their grave right now when they see the way we fight,” he recently told FOX News’s Bill O’Reilly, invoking the names of those military luminaries who both served in a “draw” in Mexico in the 1910s and U.S. victories in World Wars I and II, and in the case of MacArthur a stalemate in Korea, as well.

Neither the Clinton nor Trump campaigns responded to our requests for comment. SOCOM similarly failed to respond before publication to questions about the conclusions to be drawn from its timeline, but its figures alone — especially regarding post-9/11 conflicts — speak volumes.

“In order to evaluate our recent military history and the gap between the rhetoric and the results,” Bacevich says, “the angle of analysis must be one that acknowledges our capacity to break things and kill people, indeed that acknowledges that U.S. forces have performed brilliantly at breaking things and killing people, whether it be breaking a building — by putting a precision missile through the window — or breaking countries by invading them and producing chaos as a consequence.”

Original post @warisboring.com

****-END-****

HOLD THE CHAMPAGNE: INDIA’S FIGHTER DEAL WITH FRANCE PORTENDS TROUBLE FOR WESTERN DEFENSE COMPANIES

DANIEL YOON SEPTEMBER 30, 2016

India’s recently annoounced blockbuster $8.7 billion Rafale buy could be seen as a dogged, hard-fought victory for Dassault Aviation SA and France’s defense sector. But the deal is less deserving of celebration than it might appear. The challenges that Dassault and other leading aerospace companies faced in the nine-year saga leading up to the sale will become a fixture in the 21st century defense marketplace.

Export deals matter more than ever to Western defense contractors, whose sales at home have come under sustained budgetary pressure going on a decade. But the emergence of non-Western industrial rivals and the proliferation of countries desperate to boost their domestic defense industry have stiffened the competition on doing business abroad. They have also made nearly every international competition a certain occasion for colossal headaches and heartbreak. From Israel to South Korea, and even such countries as Saudi Arabia which has historically been a reliable customer of Western defense firms, more governments are stepping up their efforts to spawn, incubate, and promote indigenous defense production.

Nowhere is this truer than in India, whose defense budget recorded double-digit per annum growth between 2010 and 2015 and will reach $40 billion next year. What should not be lost on foreign executives and defense officials from Friday’s Rafale deal is that it still leaves India with an outstanding requirement for over 100 fourth-generation fighter aircraft that will only likely be realized with foreign assistance. Dassault and other Western suppliers will be tempted to pursue this and other opportunities that address the profound needs of the Indian armed forces. Yet these firms and their supporting governments are certain to encounter an unwillingness to fulfill those requirements without first securing stringent offset conditions from foreign suppliers. In a determined effort to reduce what it views as a dangerous over-dependence on defense imports, India will seek to wring as much as it can from foreign firms agreements on the transfer of technology, license production, and even the re-locations of entire production lines.

Behind the Rafale saga is a complicated but important history that Western defense officials need to understand if they are to succeed in the international marketplace. In 2007, India first released a competitive tender for 126 medium-range air-superiority aircraft as part of the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA) program. A full five years later, on January 31, 2012, New Delhi selected Dassault’s Rafale C/B fighter aircraft as the winner of the competition. The twin-engine Rafale is a nuclear-weapon capable fighter suited for aerial combat and patrol missions. The decision represented a significant coup for Dassault, having defeated rival bids from Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Eurofighter GmbH, Saab AB, and Russian-based RSK MiG, as well as the French company’s first successful export of the platform.

However, contract negotiations between the Indian Air Force and Dassault quickly stalled because of disagreements over total cost, offset requirements, and work-share responsibility. Initial reports suggested that Dassault would produce 18 of the 126 units in Merignac, France and deliver them to the IAF off-the-shelf. The remaining 108 units would be produced by India’s national aerospace sector champion, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), in Bangalore, under Dassault’s close supervision. HAL’s historic inability to deliver previous production orders on time, coupled with a significant backlog of existing orders and issues with quality, caused Dassault initial hesitation.Consistent meddling from Indian politicians and (critically) New Delhi’s insistence on making Dassault fully responsible for the production of the 108 units in the case of delays and other problems, represented a step too far for the French arms manufacturer.

In April 2015, in an attempt to break the three-year deadlock, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced during a state visit to France that his country would purchase 36 fighters in “flyaway” condition in a separate government-to-government deal. This highly public intervention from the two countries’ most senior political figures raised significant concerns about India’s ability to conduct defense deals directly with private defense suppliers. Shortly afterward, on July 30, 2015, the Indian Ministry of Defense formally cancelled the M-MRCA program, citing irreconcilable differences in price and responsibility share and dealing an embarrassing blow to both parties. Negotiations for the 36 government-to-government sales continued distinctly from the fall-out of the M-MRCA, though those, too, encountered numerous delays. The two parties finally appear to have come to a resolution on the deal last week, in which Dassault will deliver the aircraft within 36 months and invest 50 percent of the value of the deal in offsets.

So long as HAL remains uninvolved in the acquisition process, the specified timeline will likely be observed, although it will be a case of too little, too late for the Indian Air Force. Even with last week’s deal, the Indian Air Force retains an unfulfilled requirement for at least 100 medium-range air-superiority aircraft. To effectively fight in a two-front conflict with Pakistan and China, as official Indian military doctrine stipulates, India requires up to 45 squadrons of approximately 18 to 21 combat aircraft each. The current-serving fleet of approximately 30 squadrons includes 20 squadrons of vintage Mig-21, MiG-25, MiG-27, Jaguar, and Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft, which have been in service as early as 1967 and, despite having undergone numerous service life extension programs, are well past their recommended flying age. They will likely be forcibly retired over the next five years. Without immediate replacements, India will watch its fleet size dwindle even further.

The conundrum that India and other nations with aspirations to boost indigenous industrial expertise face involves reconciling those aspirations with the (often critical) operational needs of their armed forces. The other half of Friday’s Rafale deal entails a hefty offset clause, where Dassault is responsible for reinvesting at least 50 percent of the $8.7 billion it receives from the Indian Ministry of Defense back in India. While Dassault repeats its enthusiasm to comply with the requirement, the doomed M-MRCA ordeal (involving these exact two parties) faltered and ultimately collapsed on the nature and extent of these kickbacks. The contract negotiations revealed all too clearly India’s near-obsessive preference for promoting its domestic aerospace industry over all other objectives, including fleet readiness. And this trend will likely only intensify going forward. India (or at least significant elements of its defense policy-making base) appears to accept that fleet readiness may (temporarily) fall while the country reduces its dependence on imports. But it becomes a small price to pay if a national champion like HAL can propel itself to the fore of the global defense industry in the process.

The possibility that the M-MRCA competition (or at least a smaller portion of the outstanding requirement) will be up for bidding by the five losing bidders from 2007 certainly exists. The Indian Air Force appears set to suffer most from the aforementioned trend, which extends beyond fighter aircraft to trainer aircraft and rotorcraft, and are understandably unhappy. The force’s leaders will likely push for an international competition to stem the high level of attrition its combat aircraft fleet will face. And, of course from the suppliers’ perspectives, the Eurofighter Typhoon (the runner-up), F/A-18 Hornet, JAS-39 Gripen, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and MiG-35 have significant stakes in a possible order of this magnitude. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Saab have all even reportedly offered to move production lines for the Fighting FalconHornet, and Gripen, respectively, to India in a bid to prolong those programs by several more years. But doing business in India will become even more contingent on a willingness on the part of foreign suppliers to engage in increasingly costly offset agreements. The likelihood is that India will double down on its commitment to indigenous industry and demand foreign suppliers either transfer critical technologies or enter into joint ventures with local partner firms.

While Dassault may have beaten out the largest defense companies in the world who were vying to be the preferred airpower provider to the world’s biggest democracy, the deal’s circuitous path portends how future transactions will likely go in India and elsewhere. Long gone are the days of the simple defense export, where a customer country conducts an “off-the-shelf” purchase of a required capability from a foreign supplier without any strings attached. More countries will now require their suppliers to guarantee some degree of kickbacks to sweeten the deal. Those companies and supporting governments that seek to succeed in this new international defense market environment will need to adopt a different, more flexible, and increasingly proactive set of tactics than in the past. For starters, Western defense firms will need to develop a more diverse (i.e., global) supply chain, as well as encourage more creativity in structuring future bids. Success will also require a profound understanding of local industrial contexts, particularly where host governments may demand the formation of joint ventures with domestic firms. Finally, foreign defense suppliers will require a healthy dose of patience and persistence, as procurement processes around the world are likely to be even more delayed by this trend.

All this is another way of saying that for Western defense suppliers eyeing deals with such industrially ambitious nations as India, don’t be too quick to put the champagne on ice.

Daniel Yoon is a Senior Market Analyst with Avascent Analytics. The trends mentioned in this analysis of India are further explored in an extensive study of emerging non-Western defense suppliers authored by Yoon and Managing Director of Avascent Analytics, Doug Berenson.

Original post @warontherocks.com

****-END-****

Related post:

After Indian Success, France Targets Malaysia For Rafale Jet Sales

Rafale delivery will start from 2019: Eric Trappier, Dassault Aviation

Pakistan would need two F-16 jets to combat one Rafale jet

Dassault plans to use Rafale sale to leverage position in India – IHS Jane’s

Rafale relief

Lockheed Martin’s F-16: Good Enough for Nations to Fight Over?

Air Force: Solving Tech Transfer Issues Crucial to Potential F-16 Production Line Move to India

US links future of joint jet engine development project to manufacture fighter plan

Rafale deal at final clearance level, may get go ahead soon

India, Russia make progress in talks on Su-30 upgrade

Gripen & F-16 compete in MMRCA re-run

Dassault Rafale: DetailsA French F-2 Rafale flies over Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, Jan. 8, 2016. OIR is the coalition intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Nathan Lipscomb)

Saab Gripen E: DetailsFoto1ArgentinaGripenNG.

Eurofighter Typhoon: Detailsaircraft-airplanes-army-eurofighter-german-jet-military-sky-typhoon-images-216888

MiG-35: DetailsMIG

F-16V Fighter – Upgrade: DetailsSHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (AFIE) – An F-16CJ Fighting Falcon from the 79th Fighter Squadron flies over South Carolina on a routine training mission. In the spring of 1999, during Operation Allied Force, the jets called the "Wild Weasel" flew a variety of missions. Some of the missions included suppression of enemy air defense, offensive counter air, defensive counter air, close air support and forward air control missions. Mission results were outstanding as these fighters destroyed radar sites, vehicles, tanks, MiGs and structures. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Greg L. Davis) (VIRIN: 011005-F-7910D-001)

F-18 Super Hornet: Details183

Pilot succesfully conducts the maiden flight of the Yak-152 aircraft – Video

Russia: Pilot succesfully conducts the maiden flight of the Yak-152 aircraft

Ruptly TV

Published on Sep 29, 2016

The maiden flight of the Yak-152 aircraft was successfully executed by test pilot Vasili Sevastyanov in Irkutsk on Thursday.

The Yak-152 is a new-generation primary trainer aircraft being developed by Yakovlev Design Bureau, part of the Irkut Corporation. The aircraft is being developed for the Russian Ministry of Defence, paramilitary sport organisation Volunteer Society for Cooperation with the Army, Aviation, and Fleet (DOSAAF) among other Russian organisations.

Video ID: 20160929-051
Video on Demand: http://www.ruptly.tv
Contact: cd@ruptly.tv

****-END-****

First prototype flight training aircraft Yak-152 rolled out

New Yak-152 Trainer Will Come With Alternate Powerplants

Russian MoD has ordered 150 Yak-152 basic trainers

p1685990

Denel targets expansion in Saudi Arabia with anti-tank systems

Charles Forrester, London – IHS Jane’s Defence Industry

29 September 2016

South African defence equipment manufacturer Denel Dynamics has reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Saudi Arabian firm ITAEC Group to potentially manufacture anti-tank missiles in the country.

The MoU was reportedly signed at the Africa Aerospace and Defence tradeshow, held in South Africa, on 16 September, but only reported by South African news website Defenceweb on 26 September.

Under the MoU, the Ingwe anti-tank guided missile could be marketed and potentially manufactured in Saudi Arabia. A demonstration firing of the missile, mounted on a vehicle, reportedly took place earlier in 2016.

The Ingwe is an improved variant of the South African-developed ZT3 Swift missile, originally developed in the late 1980s.

Original Post @janes.com

****-END-****

DENEL AND SAUDI COMPANY ITEAC GROUP AGREE TO JOINTLY MARKET INGWE

7a1fcb79ae4b2d5974f9db85f05511b0
Bilal Khan  Sep 26, 2016

ANTI-TANK MISSILE TO SAUDI ARABIA

Denel Dynamics and ITEAC Group, a Saudi company, recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to jointly market Denel’s Ingwe anti-tank missile to the Saudi armed forces.

According to defenceWeb, the MoU was signed on 16 September at the Africa Aerospace and Defence (AAD) air show and exhibition.

By partnering with ITEAC Group, Denel Dynamics is hoping to demonstrate its enthusiasm towards Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 objective of sourcing over 50% of defence acquisitions domestically. Should a sale come to fruition, ITEAC Group will manufacture (at least partly) the Ingwe missiles in Saudi Arabia.

Notes, Comments & Analysis:

The ZT3 Ingwe was developed in the 1980s and brought into South African military service in 1987. It is a laser-guided anti-tank missile (ATGM) capable of being deployed by infantry and usable from helicopters and armoured vehicles. The Ingwe ATGM has a range of 250 metres to 5,000 metres.

If successful, an Ingwe sale would be Denel Group’s first major sale to Saudi Arabia. Like its current deals with the United Arab Emirates, an Ingwe sale would function through a commercial offset and technology transfer agreement.

This would also be the South African defence industry’s second major sale to Saudi Arabia; in April 2016, a local munitions production site at al-Kharj built with the support of Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM) (which is 49% owned by Denel Group) under a $240 million U.S. sale.

Generous commercial offset clauses and flexible transfer-of-technology terms are a critical component of the South African defence industry’s drive to access lucrative overseas markets. Besides Denel Group and RDM, Paramount Group – South Africa’s largest private sector defence vendor – is also entering into very similar sorts of agreements in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Source @quwa.org

Denel ZT3 Ingwe

ingwe

Originally a Kentron product, the Denel ZT3 Ingwe (Afrikaans for “Leopard”) was developed by South Africa’s Project Raleigh, as a complement to the SADF’s ageing MILAN ATGM, and as a successor to that weapon for use on vehicles. It is unmistakably a BGM-71 TOW variant, despite the official claim that it was developed solely in South Africa.

8b2839fb55049c450d9d12924bac3280Image @denel.co.za

   The most interesting twist is that how the technology used in its guidance system could have ended up in the hands of the South African military-industrial complex has never been clarified, but events have shown that it might have been stolen from the US. Soon after the Ingwe was first unveiled in public the US government and defense industry realized it was virtually identical to an experimental variant of the TOW that was undergoing testing in the US at the time — a variant which, at the time, was still a top secret program. How this technology ended up in South Africa is still unexplained by both US and South African authorities, though it is almost certain that espionage was involved.

Image @thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com

The Ingwe employs semi-active laser guidance. The target is illuminated by a spot from a laser designator, which the missile actively seeks. This system has the advantages of being invulnerable to radio jamming and/or interference, none of the flight limitations imposed by wire guidance, and the ability of the launch platform to remain completely behind cover without having to expose itself (i.e., the missile may be guided by a laser designator other than the one on the launch platform, such as by troops, a helicopter, a ground vehicle, etc.). It is also possible to “ripple fire” laser-guided missiles; if several are launched in rapid succession, the second one can be directed to a second target after the impact of the first, and so on, until multiple missiles have destroyed multiple targets in rapid succession. However, the recent advent of laser detectors and dazzlers entails that laser guidance is no longer stealthy or safe from jamming.

   The effective range of the Ingwe is 5 000 m, which is considerably longer than any wire-guided TOW variant; this is likely resulted from a combination of eliminating the guidance cable, and the installation of a more powerful rocket motor (which was also made possible by eliminating the cable as well, as it limited how fast the missile could fly without damaging the guidance system). The minimum effective range is still quite long, at 250 m. The claimed flight speed is 200 m/sec, which is slightly faster than the average speed of a TOW at 187 m/sec.

   Propulsion is by a single-stage, solid fuel rocket motor. The quantity and composition of the fuel is classified, but likely contain organic chemical compounds.

   At least three warheads have been developed for the Ingwe. The original ZT3A missile had a shaped charge warhead rated to penetrate 650 mm or RHA Steel, while the improved ZT-3B has a tandem shaped charge warhead that is rated to penetrate 1 000 mm or RHA Steel, after ERA. A new type of warhead unveiled at the IDEX 2013 exposition, dubbed the MPP (Multi Purpose Penetrator) has been developed for use against light armor and material targets (unarmored vehicles, parked aircraft, structures, trucks, etc.), but the MPP has apparently not yet been adopted.

Source @military-today.com

Technical Data

  • Missile mass : 28.5 kg
  • Missile diameter : 127 mm
  • Missile length : 1 750 mm
  • Penetration : up to 1 000 mm in RHA (with ERA)
  • Range : 250 m to beyond 5 000 m

Source @deneldynamics.co.za

Deftech AV8 Gempita (AFV): Details

img_0291

C-130J Hercules Tactical Transport Aircraft

The Lockheed Martin C-130 is the US Air Force principal tactical cargo and personnel transport aircraft. The C-130J Hercules is the latest model, featuring a glass cockpit, digital avionics and a new propulsion system with a six-bladed propeller.

The C-130 has been in continuous production since 1954 and more than 2,500 Hercules were built for 63 countries.

C-130J transport aircraft upgrade

The improvements built into the C-130J, which entered production in 1997, have enhanced the performance of the aircraft in terms of its range, cruise ceiling time to climb, speed and airfield requirements.

c130jImage @theaviationzone.com

The new C-130J Hercules II incorporates state-of-the-art technology to reduce manpower requirements by 38 percent, lower operating and support costs by 35 percent, and provide life cycle cost savings of 15 percent over earlier C-130 models. The C-130J also climbs faster and higher — 14 minutes to 28,000 feet (8,534m); flies farther at a higher cruise speed — 2,430 nm (4,500km) at 450 mph (724km/h); and can takeoff and land in a shorter distance — 1,950 feet (594m). Source theaviationzone.com

A stretched version, the C-130J-30 has been developed and designated the CC-130J by the USAF. The first C-130J-30 for the UK RAF (the launch customer) was delivered in November 1999.

C-130J-30 of the RAF

7005267399_55806ee2f1_b

The C-130J entered active service with the USAF at Little Rock Air Force Base in April 2004 and was first deployed in December 2004.

The first of five C-130J Super Hercules aircraft intended for deployment at Little Rock left Lockheed Martin’s facility, for delivery to the base, in August 2013.

The first combat airdrop for the USAF was in July 2005. The US Air Mobility Command declared initial operating capability for the C-130J in October 2006.

The US Air Force awarded a $167m block upgrade contract to Lockheed Martin in December 2011 to overhaul the C-130J Hercules with Block 8.1 configuration.

Lockheed Martin chooses AVIATOR 700D SATCOM avionics for block 8.1 upgrade to C-130J military turboprop aircraft

swiftbroadband

The C-130J avionics upgrade will use the AVIATOR 700D SwiftBroadband and classic aero service satellite communications system from Thrane & Thrane that can be tailored to any airframe, company officials say. The deal is worth $24.8 million.

The AVIATOR 700D is a compact SATCOM design that combines high gain antenna (HGA) that offers voice dialling from the cockpit multifunction control display units, with Level D software and hardware.

The system complies to the Future Air Navigation System (FANS) 1/A, controller pilot data link communications (CPDLC), and voice safety service operations via the system’s cockpit data and voice channels.

The AVIATOR 700D provides access to six separate channels for voice and data service, simultaneous voice calling, and secure data transfer. The system will enable C-130J crews to make voice calls, send e-mail, browse the internet, and stream video with several different users simultaneously.

The SATCOM system also has built-in wireless capability to create an aircraft Wi-Fi hotspot for in-flight use of smart phones, personal tablets, and laptop computers. Crew members can access video conferencing and seamless VPN access over Wi-Fi.

The Lockheed Martin block 8.1 upgrade involves more than 200 aircraft that will be rolled out between 2014 to 2018. The SATCOM system will support the air traffic management data link component of the Block 8.1 upgrade. Source militaryaerospace.com

The Block 8.1 configuration contains software and hardware capability expansion such as modernised identification friend or foe (IFF), automatic dependent surveillance broadcast, communication, navigation and air traffic management datalink.

C-130J Block 9.0

Scheduled for FY09, includes full Civil Required Navigation Compliance (RNP), Joint Tactical Radio System and Advanced Situation Awareness and Countermeasure System Phase II. Customer options include AN/ALR-56M RWR, AN/AAR-47 MWS, AN/ALE-47 CMDS and AN/AAQ-22 Star Safire FLIR system. Source scramble.nl

Cockpit of the C-130J Hercules transport aircraft

c130j-cockpit_lC-130J cockpit @sps-aviation.com19915526663_dba9832fe0_cImage @fightercontrol.co.uk

The C-130J is crewed by two pilots and a loadmaster. The new glass cockpit features four L-3 display systems multifunction liquid crystal displays for flight control and navigation systems.

Each pilot has a Flight Dynamics head-up display (HUD). The dual mission computers, supplied by BAE Systems IEWS, operate and monitor the aircraft systems and advise the crew of status.

0904385Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules (L-382) – Italy – Air Force | Aviation Photo #0904385 | Airliners @airliners.netc130-3

The HUD and the navigation mode can project flight parameters related to the navigation, such as checkpoints, time them and even indicate whether there is a deviation from the course that can be verified in a cartographic presenter with a digital map. This facilitates tactical navigation, especially at low altitude and maintains permanently the view of both crew out of the instrument panel to increase external monitoring. Source taringa.net

c130-4

The C-130J pilots for tactical flight at low altitude have several aid to improve the safety of the operation, particularly the TAWS system (terrain awareness warning system) or warning system and “conscience” of the land that is in similar to the proximity indicators of land (EGPWS) equipment but including a database of terrain and obstacles around the world, allowing for safe navigation and unobtrusive when not to use the radar. The data are projected onto the flight path and intensity of the color indicates different levels of terrain altitude as flight altitude of C-130J. Source taringa.net

The cockpit is fitted with the Northrop Grumman low-power colour radar display. The map display shows digitally stored map image data.

c130jc_zps7416a94dImage @captainsim.org

c130j-1

7592952094_6132bc1121 c130j-3c130j-2

The C-130J is equipped with a Honeywell dual embedded global positioning system / inertial navigation system (GPS/INS), an enhanced traffic alerting and collision avoidance system (E-TCAS), a ground collision avoidance system, SKE2000 station keeping system, and an instrument landing system (ILS).

AN/APN-243 Stationkeeping Equipment 2000 (SKE-2000)

ske

Allow up to 36 aircraft on 4 different frequency channels to fly instrumented formation in zero visibility.

With the help of the AN/APN-243, aircraft can operate within a 10 nm radius of a selected participating master system on the same frequency, allowing for close contact between aircraft. The system is also designed for easy, accessible upgrade, with reduced weight, size and cost.

The AN/APN-243 upgrades earlier versions of SKE or fully integrates with new or existing mission computers and flight management systems, maintaining complete interoperability with more than 800 installed systems of Air Forces worldwide. Source drs.com

system-components-control-module-cm

SYSTEM COMPONENTS CONTROL MODULE (CM)

Weight 24 lbs. (10.9 kg)

Dimensions 7.0 H x 11.9 W x 15.0 D inches (17.8 H x 30.2 W x 38.1 cm)

Power 24 VDC @ 4 amps

Cooling Natural convection

Mounting Sheet metal tray, no isolators

transmit-receive-module-trm

TRANSMIT/RECEIVE MODULE (TRM)

Weight 8.6 lbs. (3.9 kg)

Dimensions 6.9 H x 5.6 W x 10.8 D inches (17.5 H x 14.2 W x 27.4 D cm)

Power From the CM input power +140 VDC +/- 5% @ 1/3 amp

Cooling Natural convection

Mounting Sheet metal mount, no isolators

Source drsdev.azurewebsites.net

In July 2008, Lockheed Martin announced the following would be included in the baseline configuration of new C-130Js: Elbit Systems global digital map unit and the TacView portable mission display and InegrFlight commercial GPS landing system sensor unit, supplied by CMC of Canada.

Elbit Systems global digital map unit

global-digital-mapping-unit-data-sheet-elbit-systems-of-america

Source yumpu.com

TacView portable mission display

c-130j-super-hercules-inside-the-1280x768Image @aiirsource.com

The TacView® Portable Mission Display (PMD) is a compact, self-contained mission computer designed specifically to enhance situational awareness for military, paramilitary, law enforcement, and civil aircrews. TacView provides mission enhancing functionality at the flight crew’s fingertips, with a data interface no other airborne portable computer can provide.

tacview_keyboardout

TacView® PMD Applications

Situational awareness only happens with the right tools. TacView® is the portable mission tool that links the crew to the networked battlefield and facilitates mission planning in a paperless cockpit.

tacview-pmd-applications-txt

Application Flexibility

The TacView® PMD software environment is supported by a Windows 7 operating system. This allows greater application flexibility and empowers the air crew to select applications best suited to their conditions. Types of applications supported on TacView® include:

  • Mission planning and on-the-fly mission re-planning 
    Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS)

    • FalconView® mapping system
    • Combat Flight Planning Software (CFPS)
    • Combat Weapon Delivery Software (CWDS)
    • Combat Air Drop Planning Software (CAPS)
  • Link16 Tactical Datalink display and management
    • 9-line/15-line text messages
    • Target imagery data
    • Two channels of digital voice
    • Live feed video
  • Blue Force tracking
  • Situation Awareness Data Link
  • Radar / Targeting Pod Video Display
  • Smart Display Repeater
  • Paperless Cockpit Applications
  • Linked Electronic Checklists
  • Real-Time weather mapping

Additional applications are available that enable note-taking, image sharing, post-flight maintenance debrief, mission rehearsal/review, charting and embedded training.

When coupled with optical or infrared video sources such as CMC’s SureSight® I-Series™ Enhanced Vision System (EVS), the combined TacView/EVS system improves flight crew situational awareness by helping them see through fog, haze, precipitation and at night for increased mission effectiveness.

Source esterline.com

Cargo systems

1104946222_ff5f2e1b0d_z

The cargo bay of the C-130J has a total usable volume of more than 4,500ft³ and can accommodate loads up to 37,216lb. For example, three armoured personnel carriers, five pallets, 74 litters (stretchers), 92 equipped combat troops or 64 paratroops. The bay is equipped with cargo handling rollers, tie-down rings, stowage containers and stowage for troop seats.

Countermeasures

air_c130j-30_australian_flares_lgImage @defenceindustrydaily.com

The ATK AN/AAR-47 missile warning system uses electro-optic sensors to detect missile exhaust and advanced signal processing algorithms and spectral selection to analyse and prioritise threats. Sensors are mounted near the nose just below the second cockpit window and in the tail cone.

ATK AN/AAR-47 missile warning system

images (1)

The AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System is a Missile Approach Warning system used on slow moving aircraft such as helicopters and military transport aircraft to notify the pilot of threats and to trigger the aircraft’s countermeasures systems. Its main users are the U.S Army, Navy and Air Force, but is also operated by other countries. Originally developed by Loral (now part of BAE Systems), it has been solely a product of Alliant Techsystems (ATK) since 2002.

a6

Method of Operation

The AN/AAR-47 passively detects missiles by their Ultraviolet signature, and uses algorithms to differentiate between incoming missiles and false alarms. Newer versions also have laser warning sensors and are capable of detecting a wider range of threats. After processing the nature of the threat, the system gives the pilot an audio and visual warning, and indicates the direction of the incoming threat. It also sends a signal to the aircraft’s infrared countermeasures system, which can then for example deploy flares.

Components

The AAR-47 missile warning system consists of 4 Optical Sensor Converters (OSC), a Computer Processor and a Control Indicator. The system is relatively light at a total weight of approximately 32 pounds.

There is one optical sensor converter for each side of the aircraft. They have an infrared camera for detecting incoming missiles. The Optical modules since version AAR-47(V)2 include a laser warning sensor, and versions since AAR-47A(V)2 further incorporate an ultraviolet sensor for improved dynamic blanking laser warning detection.

The computer processor evaluates the data from the OSC:s and analyzes whether a detected event is an incoming missile. If a threat is detected, it sends a signal to the control indicator which informs the crew, and the aircraft’s infrared countermeasures system. Source revolvy.com

The BAE Systems AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver is a superheterodyne receiver operating in the 2GHz to 20GHz bands. A low-band antenna and four high-band quadrant antennae are installed near the nose section below the second window of the cockpit and in the tail cone.

BAE Systems AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver

air_alr-56m_components_lg

AN/ALR-56M

Advanced Radar Warning Receiver System

 – U.S. Air Force standard advanced RWR

 – Unambiguous threat detection/ identification

– Advanced architecture for high-density environment

– C-J band coverage — growth to MMW and other bands

 – Designed for easy RF compatibility/ interoperability with a wide range of aircraft and EW avionics

– User/flightline reprogrammable

– Demonstrated high operational MTBF and low MTTR

 – Two-level maintenance assures low lifecycle cost

 – Over 1000 systems; baseline equipment on F-16, B-1B, C-130J and UK RMPA aircraft

System features

– Modern RISC -computer controlled, wideband, agile, superheterodyne receiver architecture

– Automatically adapts selectivity and sensitivity to the threat environment

– Reliable detection and digital preprocessing eliminates non-threat RF signals

 – Adaptive high-speed digital signal processing

– Adaptive real-time filtering provides protection against high-rate emitters and CW signals

– Continuous built-in test and calibration with in-cockpit reporting

– Capability growth (e.g., dual pole, mmW, precision location, identification)

 – Detects and identifies all modern search, acquisition and tracking radars of groundbased and aircraft weapons systems

Source baesystems.com

The BAE Systems Integrated Defence Solutions (formerly Tracor) AN/ALE-47 countermeasures system is capable of dispensing chaff and infra-red flares in addition to the POET and GEN-X active expendable decoys.

AN/ALE-47 countermeasures system

AN/ALE-47 dispenser and associated equipment

In response to automated warnings of radar, infrared, laser and other threats against aircraft, the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) both assists the crew in staying aware of the threats, and managing the deployment of electronic warfare devices that operate externally to the vehicle. “Electronic”, in this context, covers enemy sensors across the electromagnetic spectrum. Electronic defense includes, as well as receivers and computers that detect and analyze threats, both countermeasures that are part of the aircraft, but also expendables that are released from it.

In other words, it both acts as an electronics countermeasures suite controller and as an electronic warfare expendables dispenser. It replaces the AN/ALE-39. Alternatively, it can be controlled by other control systems, such as the AN/ALQ-213.  Source citizendium.org

The Lockheed Martin AN/ALQ-157 infra-red countermeasures system generates a varying frequency-agile infrared jamming signal. The infrared transmitter is surface mounted at the aft end of the main undercarriage bay fairing.

96935Photo taken on 2010-7-21 by Steve Morris – Image @airplane-pictures.net

AN/ALQ-157 infra-red countermeasures system1434573468722

The AN/ALQ-157 Infrared Countermeasures (IRCM) system offers continuous, multi-threat jamming for helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft protection.

usmc_kc-130jqd-7982_alq-157_infrared_countermeasures_ircm_system_in_iwakuni_air_base_20140914AN/ALQ-157 IRCM System – Image @kilopops.livejournal.com

The AN/ALQ-157 IRCM System protects large, heavy-lift helicopters and medium-sized, fixed-wing aircraft from Band I, II infrared threats, including first-generation surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. It can defeat multiple threats simultaneously and employ “jam-in-tube” capability for certain threats. With continuous active jamming and extreme adaptability features, the AN/ALQ-157 system provides constant protection.

BATTLE-PROVEN

  • Modular design
  • Reduced down time
  • Advanced reliability
  • Operator jamming code selection

Source baesystems.com

The USAF has selected the Northrop Grumman Large Aircraft Infra-red Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system to equip its C-130 aircraft. LAIRCM is based on the AN/AAQ-24(V) NEMESIS.

LAIRCM is based on the AN/AAQ-24(V) NEMESIS

1z5uk47

The AN/AAQ-24(V) Directional Infrared Countermeasure (DIRCM) system is the only DIRCM system in production today that will protect aircraft from today’s infrared guided missiles.

AN/AAQ-24(V) DIRCM

Traditional IR countermeasures are not effective against the modern IR missiles that are growing in popularity among terrorist groups and in thirdworld countries. A Directional Infrared Countermeasures (DIRCM) system is required to defeat the latest and future advanced IR threats, and has a lower life cycle cost compared to other IR countermeasure approaches.

  • Simultaneously tracks and defeats threats in clutter environments
  • Fast, accurate threat detection and simultaneous jamming in all current IR threat Bands (I, II and IV)
  • Counters all fielded IR missile threats using a single generic jam waveform
  • Complete end-to-end self-testing features reduce life-cycle maintenance
  • Compatible with existing support facilities

Customized installation

The AAQ-24(V) is available in a laser-based configuration. Northrop Grumman then selects from a modular family of transmitters, jammers and missile warning systems to provide a customized installation best able to meet your specific platform, mission and budget requirements. Upgrades to existing systems are easy to install without further airframe modifications.

Source northropgrumman.com

c130-8Image @taringa.net

It entered low-rate initial production in August 2002 and completed initial operational test and evaluation in July 2004.

A five-year delivery order for the system was placed by the USAF in July 2006. Australia requested the sale of LAIRCM to equip its fleet of 12 C-130J in May 2008.

Radar

c-130j-3171Image @prometheus.med.utah.edu

The Northrop Grumman MODAR 4,000-colour weather and navigation radar is installed in the upward-hinged dielectric radome in the nose of the aircraft. The weather radar has a range of 250nm.

The radar C-130J Initially the Super Hercules had a navigation radar and weather MODAR 4000 Northrop-Grummam with a detection range of 460 km, which was quickly replaced by the multimode AN / APN-241 radar derived from the APG-66 F-16 offers different modes meteorology and navigation with a range of close to 600 km detection and also provides mapping, air- to -ground, air- to -air marking and SAR high resolution mode. in the mode of high resolution mapping can be coupled to the navigation system inertial and thus provide a navigation precision in addition with overprint of weather information and the C-130J defense system. Source taringa.net

AN / APN-241 radar

33adcb_2289dda557034e0c8130726755ede467-mv2

The only radar in the transport class with a high resolution SAR mapping mode

The AN/APN-241’s capability remains unmatched by the competition as the only radar in the transport class with a high resolution SAR mapping mode. In addition to meeting needs for precision navigation, this unparalleled mapping capability enables operators to execute landing missions with confidence on unimproved runways without aid from ground-based landing systems.

No other radar in the industry can compete with the range and accuracy of the AN/APN-241. It is the only radar with a 10nm range Windshear mode and its unique two-bar can technology eliminates false alarms. And, unlike other systems, the AN/APN-241 windshear mode is not restricted by altitude. At 20 nautical miles, the AN/APN-241 provides the longest range air-to-air situational awareness mode of any transport radar. The Skin Paint mode also features computer generated target-sizing, a clutter-free display, and hands-free operation to the crew.

246Simultaneous multifunction capability

The AN/APN-241 is designed to allow pilots to focus on the mission rather than “working” the radar. Automatic tilt and gain adjustments reduce operator tasking, and with simultaneous mode interleaving, crews can select independent radar modes according to mission requirements. The AN/APN-241 provides overlays of flight plan or TCAS information on weather or ground maps for greater situational awareness. Operators may also ‘freeze’ the AN/APN-241 into a non-emitting mode to gain a tactical advantage.

The AN/APN-241 was built with growth in mind. Modifications to current modes and technologies will provide a maritime patrol capability suitable for fisheries protection, smuggling interdiction, and Search and Rescue missions. With the development of ‘Ballistic Wind’ mode, a modification which will measure drop zone winds, the AN/APN-241 provides a unique air drop capability to support both military and humanitarian missions.

Proven versatility

The highly adaptable AN/APN-241 is currently fielded on four aircraft: C-130H, C-130J, C-27J and C-295. Northrop Grumman has integrated the AN/APN-241 with five different avionics architectures and two antenna systems. As the baseline radar for the LMCO C-130J and Alenia C-27J, it has a solid, long-term production base with logistics and maintenance support through 2030 and beyond.

Source northropgrumman.com

air_c-130j_uk_underside_bank_lgImage @defenceindustrydaily.com

Turboprop engines of C-130J

c-130-epcs-30-july-2015Image @militaryaerospace.com

The C-130J is equipped with four Allison AE2100D3 turboprop engines, each rated at 4,591 shaft horsepower (3,425kW). The all-composite six-blade R391 propeller system was developed by Dowty Aerospace.

Four Allison AE2100D3 turboprop engines

rolls-royce-ae2100-736x

*Note table below shows that the AE 2100D3 with 4,637shp whereas the AE2100J with 4,591shp

Specification AE 2100D2 AE 2100D3 AE 2100J AE 2100P
Power shp (kW) 4,637 (3,410) 4,637 (3,410) 4,591 (3,376) 4,152 (3,054)
Dry weight lb (Kg) 1,776 (806) 1,740 (789) 1,666 (756) 1,627 (738)
Length in (m) 117.0 (2.97) 124.1 (3.15) 118.1 (3.00) 118.1 (3.00)
Height in (m) 52.5 (1.33) 46.3 (1.18) 52.9 (1.34) 52.9 (1.34)
Width in (m) 31.8 (0.81) 28.7 (0.73) 32.8 (0.83) 32.8 (0.83)
Pressure ratio 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6
Compressor 14 HP 14 HP 14 HP 14 HP
Turbine 2HP, 2PT 2HP, 2PT 2HP, 2PT 2HP, 2PT
Applications Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, Alenia C-27J Spartan, Saab 2000 AEW&C, ShinMaywa US-2 Kai  

*Technical data (ISA SLS)

Source rolls-royce.com

All-composite six-blade R391 propeller system

fan_1Image @theaviationzone.com

The engines are equipped with full-authority digital electronic control (FADEC) by Lucas Aerospace. An automatic thrust control system (ATCS) optimises the balance of power on the engines, allowing lower values of minimum control speeds and superior short-airfield performance.

The aircraft can carry a maximum internal fuel load of 45,900lb. An additional 18,700lb of fuel can be carried in external underwing fuel tanks. The refuelling probe installed on the centre of the fuselage has been relocated on the C-130J to the port side, over the cockpit.

Stretched C-130J-30

air_c-130j_vs_c-130j-30_lg

The C-130J-30 is the stretched version of the C-130J. The cargo floor length of the stretched version is increased from 40ft to 55ft which gives a significant increase in the aircraft’s airlift capability.

The stretched C-130J-30 can carry eight 463L pallets, 97 litters, 24 CDS (US Container Delivery System) bundles, 128 equipped combat troops or 92 paratroopers.

The first C-130J-30 for the UK RAF was delivered in November 1999 and deliveries of all 15 aircraft ordered were completed in June 2001.

The aircraft is in production for the US Air Force (39 aircraft, the first of which was delivered to the Air National Guard in December 2001), the Royal Australian Air Force (12), the Italian Air Force (ten) and are ordered by the Kuwaiti Air Force (four) and the Danish Air Force (three).

lockheed-c-130-hercules-airborne-troops

General Characteristics
Primary Function:
Global airlift

Contractor: Lockheed-Martin Aeronautics Company
Power Plant:
C-130E: Four Allison T56-A-7 turboprops; 4,200 prop shaft horsepower

C-130H: Four Allison T56-A-15 turboprops; 4,591prop shaft horsepower
C-130J: Four Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprops; 4,700 horsepower
Length: C-130E/H/J: 97 feet, 9 inches (29.3 meters)
C-130J-30: 112 feet, 9 inches (34.69 meters)
Height: 38 feet, 10 inches (11. 9 meters)
Wingspan: 132 feet, 7 inches (39.7 meters)
Cargo Compartment:
C-130E/H/J: length, 40 feet (12.31 meters); width, 119 inches (3.Remove 12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
C-130J-30: length, 55 feet (16.9 meters); width, 119 inches (3.12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
Speed:
C-130E: 345 mph/300 ktas (Mach 0.49) at 20,000 feet (6,060 meters)

C-130H: 366 mph/318 ktas (Mach 0.52) at 20,000 feet (6,060 meters)
C-130J: 417 mph/362 ktas (Mach 0.59) at 22,000 feet (6,706 meters)
C-130J-30: 410 mph/356 ktas (Mach 0.58) at 22,000 feet (6,706 meters)
Ceiling:
C-130J: 28,000 feet (8,615 meters) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload

C-130J-30: 26,000 feet (8,000 meters) with 44,500 pounds (20,227 kilograms) payload.
C-130H: 23,000 feet (7,077 meters) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload.
C-130E: 19,000 feet (5,846 meters) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
C-130E/H/J: 155,000 pounds (69,750 kilograms)

C-130J-30: 164,000 pounds (74,393 kilograms)
Maximum Allowable Payload:
C-130E, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)

C-130H, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
C-130J, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
C-130J-30, 44,000 (19,958 kilograms)
Maximum Normal Payload:
C-130E, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)

C-130H, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
C-130J, 34,000 pounds (15,422 kilograms)
C-130J-30, 36,000 pounds (16,329 kilograms)
Range at Maximum Normal Payload:
C-130E, 1,150 miles (1,000 nautical miles)

C-130H, 1,208 miles (1,050 nautical miles)
C-130J, 2,071 miles (1,800 nautical miles)
C-130J-30, 1,956 miles (1,700 nautical miles)
Range with 35,000 pounds of Payload:
C-130E, 1,438 miles (1,250 nautical miles)

C-130H, 1,496 miles (1,300 nautical miles)
C-130J, 1,841 miles (1,600 nautical miles)
C-130J-30, 2,417 miles (2,100 nautical miles)
Maximum Load:
C-130E/H/J: 6 pallets or 74 litters or 16 CDS bundles or 92 combat troops or 64 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.

C-130J-30: 8 pallets or 97 litters or 24 CDS bundles or 128 combat troops or 92 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.
Crew: C-130E/H: Five (two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)
C-130J/J-30: Three (two pilots and loadmaster)
Aeromedical Evacuation Role: A basic crew of five (two flight nurses and three medical technicians) is added for aeromedical evacuation missions. Medical crew may be decreased or increased as required by the needs of patients.
Unit Cost: C-130E, $11.9, C-130H, $30.1, C-130J, $48.5 (FY 1998 constant dollars in millions)
Date Deployed: C-130A, Dec 1956; C-130B, May 1959; C-130E, Aug 1962; C-130H, Jun 1974; C-130J, Feb 1999
Inventory: Active force, 145; Air National Guard, 181; Air Force Reserve, 102

Source af.mil

C-130J international orders

Comparison of price and cargo capacity @forum.keypublishing.com

1186 C-130J and C-130J-30 aircraft were ordered and more than 150 delivered. Orders are: US Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps and Coastguard (89 C-130J and C-130J-30 and 20 KC-130J tankers), UK (10 C-130J, 15 C-130J-30 all delivered), Italian Air Force (12 C-130J and 10 C-130J-30 all delivered), Royal Australian Air Force (12 C-130J, all delivered), Kuwaiti Air Force (four C-130J-30) and the Danish Air Force (four C-130J-30 all delivered).

11407137884_1150b4575b_h

In April 2004, the US Marine Corps formally accepted the first KC-130J tanker / transport into service. The aircraft was first deployed in combat in April 2005 in Iraq. In December 2006, an additional order was placed for three C-130J-30 for the USAF and one KC-130J for the USMC. The KC-130J was delivered to the USMC in October 2010.

mm62183-aeronautica-militare-italian-air-force-lockheed-martin-c-130j-super-hercules_planespottersnet_287636MM62183 Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules – Image @planespotters.net

In May 2007, India requested the foreign military sale (FMS) of six C-130J aircraft. The $1.2bn FMS contract was placed in February 2008. The first C-130J was delivered to the Indian Air Force (IAF) in December 2010 and entered into service in February 2011. The third and fourth C-130Js were delivered in June 2011. The fifth aircraft was delivered in September 2011. Deliveries were concluded in December 2011.

iaf1400IAF – Image @jpaviography.com

In November 2007, Norway placed an order for the purchase of four C-130J Super Hercules aircraft under a $519m FMS agreement. One aircraft was delivered in November 2008 and the second in April 2009. Deliveries concluded in May 2010 with the handing over of the fourth C-130J aircraft. In September 2012, Lockheed Martin delivered an additional C-130J Super Hercules aircraft to the Norwegian Air Force as Norway lost one of its four aircraft in March 2012.

In January 2008, Canada placed a C$1.4bn order for 17 C-130J aircraft. The first delivery took place in June 2010 at the Canadian Forces Base Trenton. Deliveries were completed by April 2012.

130603-canadian-armed-forces-lockheed-martin-cc-130j-super-hercules-c-130j-30_planespottersnet_175117Canadian C-130J – Image @planespotters.net

In June 2008, the USAF ordered six HC/MC-130J special operations variants of the C-130J. The first MC-130J was delivered in March 2011.

In April 2010, the government of Israel ordered nine C-130J-30 aircraft. Lockheed Martin delivered the first C-130J Super Hercules aircraft to Israeli Air Force (IAF) in June 2013.

Israeli Air Force (IAF) – Image @lockheedmartin.com

Under an undefinitised contract action (UCA) signed with the US Government in April 2011, Lockheed Martin will supply an additional C-130J to Israel.

Qatar ordered four C-130J-30 aircraft. The production of the first C-130J-30 aircraft was completed in May 2011. Lockheed Martin delivered four C-130J-30 aircraft to the Qatar Armed Forces in September 2011. In August 2008, Iraq requested the sale of six C-130J-30 aircraft. The first aircraft completed its maiden flight in September 2012.

iraqi-c-130j-takeoffIraqi Air Force C-130J – Image @htka.hu

The Sultanate of Oman ordered one C-130J-30 long-configuration aircraft in July 2009 for delivery in 2012. In August 2010, Oman ordered two additional C-130J aircraft. The first aircraft was delivered in September 2012.

Lockheed Martin signed a contract with Tunisia in March 2010 to supply two C-130J Super Hercules airlifters. Lockheed Martin delivered the first C-130J to Tunisia in April 2013. The second aircraft was delivered in December 2014.

tunisian-air-force-receives-2nd-c-130j-super-herculesTunisian Air Force Receives 2nd C-130J Super Hercules – Image @defaiya.com

The US Government awarded a $245m FMS contract to Lockheed Martin on 27 May 2010 for supplying three KC-130J refuelling aircraft to Kuwait Air Force. The contract was managed by the US Navy. The first aircraft was delivered in August 2014.

The Republic of Korean Air Force (ROKAF) ordered four C-130J Super Hercules aircraft in December 2010. Lockheed Martin delivered the first two C-130Js to the ROKAF in March 2014. It will also provide aircrew and maintenance training for two years.

Lockheed Martin was awarded a $270m contract by the USAF in February 2011 to supply C-130 Aircrew Training Systems (ATS). The contract includes provision of training and instruction services, site management, engineering support and operation and maintenance for aircrew training devices.

In September 2011, CAE was awarded a contract by the US Air Force to design, build and supply four additional full flight simulators for C-130J transport aircraft.

The first MC-130J Shadow II aircraft was delivered to the United States Air Force Special Operations Command by Lockheed Martin in September 2011. Lockheed Martin delivered the first HC-130J Combat King II aircraft to the US’ Air Education and Training Command (AETC) in the same month.

MC-130J Shadow II aircraft (MC-130J Commando II)

mc130commandoiimp141505575901_lockheedmartinMC-130J Commando II – Image @airheadsfly.com

Mission 
The Commando II flies clandestine, or low visibility, single or multiship, low-level air refueling missions for special operations helicopters and tiltrotor aircraft, and infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special operations forces (SOF) by airdrop or airland intruding politically sensitive or hostile territories. The MC-130J primarily flies missions at night to reduce probability of visual acquisition and intercept by airborne threats. Its secondary mission includes the airdrop of leaflets. 

General Characteristics 
Primary Function: Air refueling of SOF helicopter/tilt rotor aircraft, infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of SOF by airdrop or airland 
Builder: Lockheed Martin 
Power Plant: Four Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 Turboprops 
Thrust: 4,591 shaft horsepower 
Wingspan: 132 feet, 7 inches (39.7 meters) 
Length: 97 feet 9 inches (29.3 meters) 
Height: 38 feet 10 inches (11.9 meters) 
Speed: 362 knots at 22,000 feet 
Ceiling: 28,000 feet with 42,000 lb payload 
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 164,000 lbs 
Range: 3,000 miles 
Crew: Two pilots, one Combat Systems Officer (officers), and two Loadmasters (enlisted) 
Date Deployed: 2011 
Unit Cost: $67 million (fiscal 2010 dollars) 
Inventory: Active duty, 37 by fiscal 2017 

Source af.mil

HC-130J Combat King II aircraft

4l-image HC-130J Combat King II aircraft – Image @airforce-technology.com

Mission 
The HC-130J replaces HC-130P/Ns as the only dedicated fixed-wing Personnel Recovery platform in the Air Force inventory. It is an extended-range version of the C-130J Hercules transport. Its mission is to rapidly deploy to execute combatant commander directed recovery operations to austere airfields and denied territory for expeditionary, all weather personnel recovery operations to include airdrop, airland, helicopter air-to-air refueling, and forward area ground refueling missions. When tasked, the aircraft also conducts humanitarian assistance operations, disaster response, security cooperation/aviation advisory, emergency aeromedical evacuation, and noncombatant evacuation operations.

General Characteristics 
Primary function:
 Fixed-wing Personnel Recovery platform

Contractor: Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 
Power Plant: Four Rolls Royce AE2100D3 turboprop engines 
Thrust: 4,591 Propeller Shaft Horsepower, each engine 
Wingspan: 132 feet, 7 inches (40.4 meters) 
Length: 97 feet, 9 inches (29.57 meters) 
Height: 38 feet, 9 inches (11.58 meters) 
Operating Weight: 89,000 pounds (40,369 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 164,000 pounds (74,389 kilograms) 
Fuel Capacity: 61,360 pounds (9,024 gallons)
Payload: 35,000 pounds (15,875 kilograms)
Speed: 316 knots indicated air speed at sea level 
Range: beyond 4,000 miles (3,478 nautical miles) 
Ceiling: 33,000 feet (10,000 meters) 
Armament: countermeasures/flares, chaff
Basic Crew: Three officers (pilot, co-pilot, combat system officer) and two enlisted loadmasters 
Unit Cost: $66 million (fiscal 2010 replacement cost) 
Initial operating capability: 2013

Source af.mil

Lockheed Martin was awarded an $84.3m contract by the US Air Force on 12 September 2011 for the first phase of the C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) II programme. The company will supply four weapon system trainers (WST) to the Air Mobility Command, Air Combat Command and Air Force Special Operations Command for aircrew instruction, and renders programme management and engineering services as part of the contract.

The contract had included an option to procure two more WSTs, in addition to other types of trainers, including a fuselage trainer. The USAF exercised one option to procure an additional WST. CAE will design and manufacture the WST under a subcontract received from Lockheed Martin in March 2013.

In October 2011, India exercised an option to purchase six additional C-130Js from Lockheed Martin under an estimated $1.2bn foreign military sale. The US Air Force (USAF) baseline instruments, six Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 additional engines, eight AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems, and eight AN/ALR-56M advanced radar warning receivers will also be delivered under the military sale.

In October 2012, the US Coast Guard placed a $218m order with Lockheed Martin for three additional HC-130J aircraft.

Lockheed Martin delivered two additional C-130Js to Little Rock Air Force Base in December 2015. The US Government awarded a Multiyear II contract to Lockheed Martin in December 2015 for 78 C-130J aircraft.

In December 2015, the Royal Air Force awarded a £369m contract to Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, Lockheed Martin and Rolls-Royce to receive Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS) for the C-130J fleet until 2022.

Main material source airforce-technology.com

sp-avia-lockheed-martin-c-130j-hercules-white-grid-blue-ink-17-inches_1024x1024Image @shopify.comc-130j_super_hercules_military_transport_aircraft_united_states_us_american_air_force_line_drawing_blueprint_001Image @airrecognition.com

Lockheed Martin’s Sniper® Advanced Targeting Pod Continues Platform Expansion with Eurofighter Typhoon

ORLANDO, Fla., Sept. 28, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has received a direct commercial sale contract for the integration of Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATP) onto the Eurofighter Typhoon swing-role fighter.

The contract, signed with Eurofighter partner company Leonardo Aircraft, includes 18 pods, integration and logistics support for the Kuwait Air Force’s Eurofighter Typhoon. The Eurofighter Typhoon is the ninth aircraft platform to be equipped with Sniper ATP, joining variants of the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, B-1, B-52, F-2 and Harrier.

“This contract marks the start of a successful relationship with the Eurofighter consortium to provide critical targeting capability worldwide,” said Ken Fuhr, fixed-wing program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “As a new Sniper ATP user, the Kuwait Air Force will see significant targeting benefits, including high-resolution imagery, advanced targeting modes, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.”

Pod deliveries will begin in 2017 to support integration efforts.

Sniper ATP detects, identifies, automatically tracks and laser-designates small tactical targets at long ranges. It also supports employment of all laser- and GPS-guided weapons against multiple fixed and moving targets.

For additional information, visit our website: www.lockheedmartin.com.

Original post @prnewswire.com

****-END-****

Sniper XR targeting pod

Sniper-ATP.jpg

It is safe to say that the AN/AAQ-33 Sniper XR (manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation) is the most advanced targeting pod in service in the world today. Based on its predecessor, the LANTIRN targeting pod, it is far superior in range (3-5 times the range of LANTIRN), resolution, stability and in many other parameters. The first time in the history of targeting pods, it allows pilots to pick out even individual enemy soldiers on the ground from outside jet noise ranges. It is highly reliable, having anMTBF value (mean time between failures) of over 600 (!) hours. Its hardware and software configuration featuring “plug-and-play” flexibility across services and multiple platforms, SniperXRcan be used on A-10, B-1, B-52, F-15E, F-16 and F-18 aircraft. Source @f-15e.info

Eurofighter Typhoon: Details8998-eurofighter-typhoon-1920x1080-aircraft-wallpaper

Canada looking at data in fighter jet purchase: Boeing executive

Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:47pm EDT

By Leah Schnurr

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canada is assessing data from bidders to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, a Boeing Co executive said on Monday.

The country’s Liberal government promised during last year’s election that it would launch an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18 fighter aircraft.

It pledged not to buy Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 jets, as the previous Conservative government had planned to do, calling them expensive and unnecessary.

While the government has yet to release details on such a competition, it requested data this summer from five companies that have fighter aircraft in production or planned production, including Lockheed and Boeing, which wants Canada to buy its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

The government sought up-to-date information on areas including capabilities and economic benefits.

“The focus on data was very clear, very strong,” said Marc Allen, president of Boeing International, the unit which handles Boeing’s strategy and operations outside the United States. “It gave all of the suppliers a chance to set down in black and white what it is their platform does.”

Since then, Boeing has been engaged in a “ping-pong” set of questions and answers with the government, said Allen.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said the government foresees a growing capability gap in the 2020s and that there is an urgent need to replace the CF-18s.

“They know it’s imperative to solve that capability gap,” said Allen. “They are moving in a way that says they understand that.”

Allen said ordinarily it can take multiple years from when an order is placed to when jets are delivered.

The other potential fighter jet suppliers are Saab AB, Dassault Aviation SA, and the Eurofighter consortium , which includes Airbus Group.

As Boeing campaigns to win the contract, it is citing the work opportunities that would be available to Canadian firms across the country if the federal government were to purchase the Super Hornet.

Allen did not rule out giving work to struggling planemaker Bombardier Inc, noting that Boeing always works with its competitors.

“We’re not going to rule out anybody from the perspective of who would be a good partner,” he said.

Boeing earlier this month formally challenged a decision by the Danish government to pick the F-35 fighter jet over the Super Hornet, citing a flawed evaluation process.

Allen said that was a very particular circumstance and that Canada’s process was calibrated to ensure an accurate analysis.

(Reporting by Leah Schnurr; Editing by Bill Rigby)

Latest related post:

Trudeau’s Vow to Ditch the F-35 Could be Tough

F-35 exit strategy: Canada could pay about $313M to pull out of jet program, defence documents show

Canada may become the first country to ditch the F-35 fighter jet

Foto1ArgentinaGripenNG.