HMAS Armidale

Dimensions

The Armidale Class patrol Boat (Armidale Class) design is 56.8 m long overall with full load the vessel displaces 270 t.

Construction

The vessels are to be built using conventional welded aluminium alloy construction.

The Armidale Class will be classified under Det Norska Veritas (DNV) Rules for High Speed Light Craft. They are also to be certified against Navy Maritime Materiel Requirements. Navy policy is to voluntarily meet international civil safety and pollution regulations where applicable, such as using low environmental impact anti-fouling coatings for the hulls as an alternative to tributyl tin (TBT) and ensuring the pollution control equipment on the new boats complies with International Maritime Organisation (IMO) pollution emission control specifications.

Accommodation

The vessel is to be crewed by a complement of 21 personnel. Habitability is substantially improved compared with the current Fremantle force, for greater crew comfort and effectiveness. A separate space provides additional accommodation for up to 20 people for military and civil surveillance tasks.

Speed and Endurance

The Armidale Class boats can sustain a continuous speed of 25 knots in sea state 4 (significant wave heights up to 2.5 m) for 24 hours. It has a continuous cruising speed of 12 kts, giving her a range of 3000 nautical miles with a 20% fuel reserve. The vessels will be capable of being deployed for up to 42 days.

Seakeeping

The Armidale Class may be operated far offshore, demanding excellent seakeeping performance to handle rough open ocean conditions. The Navy requires full operability to the top of sea state 4 (significant wave heights up to 2.5 m) and key surveillance tasks to sea state 5 (significant wave heights up to 4 m).

Seakeeping performance has been central to the evolution of the Armidale Class. The platform is 33% longer than the existing Fremantle class, while the hull is a semi-displacement vee form optimised for seakeeping. The design includes an active ride control system to reduce motions. This includes hydraulic stabiliser fins and stern trim tabs integrated in an automatic motion control system supplied by Seastate, a Western Australian company. The seakeeping performance is expected to provide a substantial increase in operability and effectiveness over the current Fremantle Class Patrol Boats.

Surveillance Systems

To meet the role of peacetime patrol and law enforcement tasks, the Armidale Class will carry a package of sophisticated surveillance systems, including low light surveillance system, radars and communication direction finding system, to ensure that the crew can easily search for and track a target.

Communications

The Armidale Class is equipped with a modular, flexible communications suite. The design allows integrated use of military and commercial communications equipment and is integrated with the ship?s computer network

The internal communications system includes intercom, main broadcast, alarm control, and entertainment.

Enforcement

The Armidale Class is equipped with a Raphael Typhoon 25 mm naval stabilised deck gun as the primary weapon. This lightweight, modular design has an effective range of 1500 metres. The vessels also have 12.7mm machine guns mounted at the bridge wings for light defence.

The Armidale Class carries two Zodiac ZH 733 7.2 m seaboats, powered by a Volvo Penta AD41P 6 cylinder diesel driving a Hamilton HJ241 waterjet unit. The seaboats are deployed by VESTDAVIT hydraulic single arm A-frame davits.

Propulsion Equipment

Two independent propulsion trains will drive the Armidale Class. Prime movers are MTU 16V 4000 M70 turbocharged marine diesel engines, each developing 2320 kW maximum continuous rating at 2000 rpm. Each engine drives a ZF 7550 V reversible transmission with a 3.27:1 reduction, through a Geislinger Gesilco fibre composite membrane flexible coupling. Veem 5.5 inch shafts run through EKK Eagle seals and drive 1.45 m 5 bladed propellers.

Auxiliary Equipment

Machinery and electrical equipment will be monitored and controlled using Austal?s comprehensive Marinelink Integrated Monitoring And Control System. Machinery spaces are to be certified to class society requirements for Unmanned Machinery Spaces, including remote monitoring by digital CCTV.

Power generation is by two MTU 6R183 TE52 generator sets, each generating up to 220 kW. The sets are mounted on isolated sub-bases and are controlled by Woodward digital governors, sychronisers and load controls.

Source: Australian DoD

Source: Gallery Kapal Perang

A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Robert Wieland)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Robert Wieland)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Jonathan Snyder)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Jonathan Snyder)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Alesia Goosic)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Jonathan Snyder)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Joshua Strang)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/1st Lt. Jeff Ballenski)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Joseph Kapinos)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Robert Wieland)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Robert Wieland)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Maj. David Kurle)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Bill Huntington)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Bill Gomez)

(Photo: U.S Air Force/Master Sgt. Lance Cheung)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Kenny Holston)

(Photo: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon)

Source: af.mil

Source: Gallery Pesawat Tempur

While the October 1 parade for celebrating 60th anniversary of the People?s Republic of China (PRC) saw the People?s Liberation Army?s (PLA) 2nd Artillery Corps publicly showcasing for the first time its 2,500-km range DF-21C road-mobile ?cannistered? medium-range ballistic missile and the road-mobile ChangJiang-10Zai (Long Sword) 2,200km-range land-attack cruise missile (LACM), what was not revealed was how exactly would these missiles be guided to their intended targets. For strategic targetting of both land-based and sea-based targets, the 2nd Artillery Corps has been, since the late 1990s, deployed a mix of overhead recce satellites equipped with both optronic sensors as well as synthetic aperture radars (SAR). Belonging to the ?Yaogan? or ?JianBing? family, the constellation presently comprises the Yaogan-1 Yaogan-3 and Yaogan-5 satellites equipped with SAR antennae (supplied off-the-shelf by Russia?s NPO Mashinostroneyie), and the Yaogan-2, Yoagan-4 and Yaogan-6 satellites equipped with optronic sensors. All these satellites were designed by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp?s (CASC) No5 Research Institute and No8 Research Institute, with final fabrication and systems integration taking place at the CASC?s Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology.

To date, the 2nd Artillery Corps has already implemented the launch-control protocols and ultra-secure SATCOMS-based communications networks required for employing both the land-launched and air-launched variants of the CJ-10A cruise missile against both land-based and seaborne targets. Development of the CJ-10A and its launch platforms (including the Hong 6K bomber) was led by the Hubei-based 9th Academy of the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp (CASIC), which is also known as the Sanjiang Aerospace Group, or 066 Base. Series-production is now underway at the Beijing-based 3rd Academy, also belonging to CASIC. The navigational and fire-control components of the CJ-10 are produced at the Shanghai-based Xinxin Factory, which was set up in the late 1990s with the help of military-technical assistance from Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. The CJ-10?s maiden test-flight took place on August 10, 2004. It is widely believed that the CJ-10 is an exact clone of the Korshun LACM (developed in Ukraine) and weighs 1,090kg, has a wingspan of 3.1 metres and diameter of 0.514 metres, and a length of 6.3 metres, 0.26 metres longer than the Kh-55. This slight difference in length comes from placing the Korshun?s R95-300 turbofan within the rear of the missile?s fuselage, with an air intake underneath. The Kh-55?s engine, in contrast, pops out of the rear section after launch, and hangs beneath the missile?s fuselage during cruise flight. By making the Korshun (and the CJ-10) more streamlined, like the Tomahawk cruise missile, Ukrainian designers succeeded in reducing the missile?s overall radar cross-section by eliminating the unwanted right angles of the exposed engine, which reflect telltale radar energy.

Another new-generation nuclear-armed missile deployed since 2007 by the 2nd Artillery Corps is the Dong Feng 21C (NATO reporting name: CSS-5 Mod-3) MBRM, which has a range of 1,700km when carrying a 2,000kg payload. The fully cannistered ballistic missile is carried on a 10 x 10 wheeled WS-2500 transporter-erector-launcher vehicle, which has a maximum load capacity of 28 tonnes. According to the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the DF-21C can be armed with fuel air explosive-based (FAE) and electromagnetic pulse-based (EMP) warheads, which could typically be employed against high-value strategic land-based targets, or against aircraft carrier-led battle groups. When used as part of a coordinated strike package, both the CJ-10 and DF-21C could significantly up the ante (as force multipliers with strategic reach) against any adversary, while keeping the threshold of hostilities limited to the conventional level. In India?s case, the widespread deployment of these two missile systems by the PLA in either the Tibet Autonomous Region or the Chengdu Military Region could in one stroke neutralise the operational advantages of offensive airpower projection now enjoyed by the Indian Air Force (IAF) in northeastern and northern India, unless India begins a large-scale deployment of theatre-based ballistic missile/cruise missile defence networks that are backed up by a robust constellation of overhead recce satellites for strategic reconnaissance-cum-targetting purposes.

To this end, India?s satellite-based overhead reconnaissance and related strategic targetting capabilities were significantly boosted when the state-owned Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) launched India?s second dedicated, military-specific, operational recce satellite?RISAT-2?on board the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C12) from the Sriharikota-based Satish Dhawan Space Centre on April 20 this year. The RISAT-2 was bought off-the-shelf from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for India?s Dehra Dun-based National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) as part of the fast-tracking of procurements of critical hardware required for strategic deterrence, along with related ground receiving stations and imagery interpretation systems. It is virtually identical to the 300kg TecSAR/Polaris synthetic aperture radar-equipped satellite that was launched by ISRO?s subsidiary Antrix Corp for Israel on board the PSLV-C10 rocket launcher on January 21, 2008. Following RISAT-2 by the year?s end will be the ISRO-built RISAT-1, 1,780kg overhead recce satellite equipped with a C-band active phased-array synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and developed at a cost of Rs4 billion (see: http://directory.eoportal.org/get_announce.php?an_id=12429).

India?s first dedicated operational military reconnaissance satellite was CARTOSAT-2A (see http://directory.eoportal.org/get_announce.php?an_id=10000443), which was launched on board the PSLV-C9 on April 28, 2008. This was preceded on January 21 by the launching of the TecSAR/Polaris at a cost of Rs550 million. Weighing 300kg, both the TecSAR/Polaris and RISAT-2 can take pictures of the earth through cloud and rain, 24 hours of the day utilising electronic beam-steering techniques. The IAI-produced satellite features mesh antennae panels which, once opened, provide high-fidelity reflections of the Earth?s surface. Aside from IAI-subsidiary ELTA Systems, producers of the 100kg SAR payload, program subcontractors include Tadiran Spectralink and RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems, producers of hydrazine thrusters and other propulsion components. TecSAR was placed into its intended orbit with a perigee (nearest point to earth) of 450km and apogee (farthest point to earth) of 580km with an orbital inclination of 41 degrees with respect to the equator. As the Polaris? manufacturer?the MBT Space Division of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)--wanted a ?core-alone? configuration of the PSLV-C10 to put Polaris in orbit, the four-stage rocket launcher did away with the six strap-on booster motors, and weighed only 230 tonnes at liftoff. The Antrix Corp subsidiary of ISRO is now hopeful that it will also bag the follow-on contracts from Israel to launch another two recce satellites of the Polaris family in future.

By February 3 last year, initial streams of TecSAR/Polaris-generated SAR imagery had reached Israel?s highly-secure ground station on the Tel Aviv-based campus of IAI. Once initial imagery was analysed and the satellite?s various operational modes were determined to meet user requirements, the TecSAR/Polaris was certified as operational. Until then, IAI and Israeli Military Intelligence (AMAN) technicians proceeded through an extensive intialisation and calibration testing regime that began about an hour after launch, with first receipt of the satellite?s signals. TecSAR/Polaris and RISAT-2 promise a qualitative upgrade in strategic intelligence not only because of the all-weather, photographic quality imagery they generate, but by their ability to linger longer over targeted areas of interest. Both satellites feature a unique combination of in-orbit agility and electronically-steered beams that allow operators to capture more images over a wider area in each rotational pass. Agility is provided by high-powered, yet low-weight reaction wheels that allow the satellite to alter its orbiting attitude as it travels some 7.5 kilometres per second. In parallel, electronic switching of the radar beam allows operators to back-scan critical target areas and utilise multiple modes of image collection, thereby maximising every second of the typical 8.5-minute overpass of a given area. Both satellites can operate in any inclination and at a wide range of altitudes. The payload is designed to collect imagery in three distinct operating modes: Spot mode for collecting a large number of high-resolution images per orbit; strip mode for capturing many hundreds of medium-resolution imaging swaths; and beam-scanning mosaic mode for very wide coverage at lower, yet ?extremely valuable? resolution. The satellites are also inherently capable of detecting and tracking moving targets. During a single pass, due to extraordinary flexibility of the beam and the agility of the satellite itself, the TecSAR/Polaris or RISAT-2 can capture widely spread targets at the same time. The estimated footprint, or area of image collection, is more than 500 square kilometres. If a normal satellite provides a 25km footprint, one can multiply by 20 or even 30 to get the coverage provided by these two satellites in mosaic mode. By activating the reaction wheels, they make a back-scan that allows them to linger more time in a certain area. Their added value thus lies in this unique combination of electronic switching of the beam and the mechanical agility of the satellites that allows one to achieve a phenomenal capability for high-resolution imaging over very large areas. But beyond expected imaging improvements, TecSAR/Polaris and RISAT-2 will provide significantly enhanced revisit time for monitoring ballistic missile launching sites, seaport activities, weapons production facilities, troop movements and other militarily-significant changes. Both these satellites can circle the Earth every 90 minutes.

Almost as anxious as its Israeli counterpart for the TechSAR/Polaris? success is Northrop Grumman Corp, which hopes to parlay the lightweight, high-resolution SAR-equipped satellite into a new, US niche market for operationally responsive space systems. An exclusive teaming agreement with IAI now allows Northrop Grumman to co-produce slightly-modified TecSAR clones--dubbed Trinidad--to be held in storage for launch by US users at a mere 30-day notice. When the two companies announced their agreement in April 2007, they stressed that implementation of the prospective launch-on-demand initiative was contingent upon the successful launch and operational performance of the Israeli spacecraft. Each Trinidad satellite could be manufactured in about 28 months at a very small fraction of the cost of other US SAR-equipped satellites. Within two years, this satellite will be ready for launch by a very low cost launcher like the Minotaur four-stage Space Launch Vehicle of the Orbital Sciences Corp. The commercial partners still need to wait for IAI to complete all testing, certification and other activities demanded by its Israeli government customer. But following full validation and initial operation of TecSAR/Polaris? multi-mode, X-band radar-imaging collection capabilities, Northrop Grumman has received the data it needs to convince potential US users of the benefits to be had from the system. According to Northrop Grumman, preliminary plans call for the US firm to invest in a mobile ground station modified to capture, receive, store and process TecSAR/Polaris imagery provided by the IAI ground station. The plan is to actually demonstrate the satellite?s capabilities to prospective customers.

India?s CARTOSAT-2A, which has a spatial resolution of 0.7 metres, will be followed in future by the 2B, 2C and 2D, with these having high-resolution cameras capable of supplying imagery with 0.5-metre spatial resolution. India currently has in orbit four dual-purpose satellites that can be used for military overhead reconnaissance. CARTOSAT-1 (see http://directory.eoportal.org/get_announce.php?an_id=7389) or IRS P5 (Indian Remote Sensing Satellite) was launched on May 5, 2005 into a 618km-high polar sun synchronous orbit by the PSLV-C6 rocket. It carries two panchromatic (PAN) cameras with 2.5-metre resolution that take black-and-white stereoscopic pictures of the earth in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The swath covered by these PAN cameras is 30km, and they are mounted in such a way that near-simultaneous imaging of the same area from two different angles is possible. This facilitates the generation of accurate three-dimensional maps. The cameras operate in the 500-750nm wavelength and are tilted +26 degrees and -5 degrees along the track. CARTOSAT-1, weighing 1,560kg, also carries a solid-state recorder with a capacity of 120 Giga Bits to store the images taken by its cameras. The stored images can be transmitted when the satellite comes within the visibility zone of an Earth-based ground station. The 680kg CARTOSAT-2 (see http://directory.eoportal.org/get_announce.php?an_id=13733), designed for supplying scene-specific spot imagery, was launched into the intended 639km polar orbit by the PSLV-C7 rocket on January 10m 2007. CARTOSAT-2 has a single PAN camera capable of providing scene-specific spot imageries for cartographic applications. The camera is designed to provide imageries with 1-metre spatial resolution and a swath of 10km. The satellite can steer along and across its track up to 45 degrees. It has been placed in a sun-synchronous polar orbit at an altitude of 630km and has a revisit period of four days, but this can be improved to one day with suitable orbit manoeuvres. Several new technologies like two-mirror-on-axis single camera, carbon fabric reinforced plastic-based electro-optic structure, large size mirrors, JPEG-like data compression, solid-state recorder, high-torque reaction wheels and high-performance star sensors are employed on board CARTOSAT-2. The satellite has a revisit interval of four days.

The third overhead recce satellite currently in orbit is the Technology Experiment Satellite or TES (see http://directory.eoportal.org/get_announce.php?an_id=15557), which weighs 1,108kg and was successfully placed in 568km sun synchronous orbit on October 22, 2001 using the PSLV-C3 rocket. The technologies demonstrated thus far on board TES are attitude and orbit control systems, high-torque reaction wheels, new reaction control systems with optimised thrusters and a single propellant tank, lightweight spacecraft structure, solid-state recorder, X-band active phased-array antenna, improved satellite positioning system, miniaturised power system, and two-mirror-on-axis camera optics. The TES has a PAN camera capable of producing images of 1-metre resolution. In attention to these and the CARTOSAT-2 family of satellites, India will later this year launch the RISAT-1, which will carry a C-band (5.35 GHz) SAR with a spatial resolution of 3 metres to 50 metres and a swath of 10km to 240km. The Earth-facing side of the AESA-SAR antenna is a broadband dual polarised microstrip radiating aperture. The antenna will comprise three deployable panels, each of 2-metre x 2-metre size. Each of the panels is sub-divided into four tiles of size 1-metre x 1-metre, each consisting of 24 x 24 radiating elements. In each tile, all the 24 x 24 radiating elements are grouped into 24 groups, with each group comprising 24 elements spread along azimuth directions, which are fed by two stripline distribution networks feeding for V and H polarisation. Each of these groups of 24 radiating elements is catered to by two separate T/R modules feeding two separate distribution networks for V and H operation with the same radiating patches. Present plans call for deploying up to seven RISAT-type recce satellites by 2015.

Another reconnaissance satellite that was launched on September 23 this year by ISRO was OCEANSAT-2 (see http://directory.eoportal.org/get_announce.php?an_id=14267), which would study the oceans and the wind surface of oceans. It is more powerful than the OCEANSAT-1 (launched in May 1999), which was nearing the end of its life cycle. The OCEANSAT-2, placed into a near-polar sun synchronous orbit of 720km, carries an ocean-colour monitor and a Ku-band pencil beam scatterometer, which is an active microwave radar and operates at 13.515GHz providing a good resolution cell-size swathe of 50km x 50km. It also carries a radio occulation sounder for atmospheric studies. The ocean colour monitor payload is an eight-band multi-spectral camera operating in the visible-near infra-red spectral range. This camera provides an instantaneous geometric field-of-view of 360 metres covering a swath of 1,420km. The back-scattered beams from the ocean surface are measured to derive the wind vector. OCEANSAT-2 will be used for sea state forecasting, coastal zone studies, and also provide inputs for weather forecasting and climatic studies of consequence to the movements of both naval surface combatants and submarines. Its orbital path, combined with the wide swathe of both payloads, will provide an observational repetity of two days. For providing the high-accuracy navigation inputs for precision-guided munitions as well as for long-range navigation over land, sea and air, ISRO last year initiated the Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS) project, which calls for the deployment of a constellation of seven low-cost, GPS satellites in geo-stationary orbit over the next five years. Its footprint will be regional, and will include the Indian subcontinent, the Tibetan plateau, Central Asia and Southeast Asia.?Prasun K. Sengupta

Source: Trishul Group

Quotes from one of my favorite American President and greatest patriot.

I Stole these from Right mind, But given the times and situation, We all need to reflect on those who came before us and made this nation what it is....



* Thomas Jefferson: When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
*
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
*
Thomas Jefferson: It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
*
Thomas Jefferson: I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
*
Thomas Jefferson: My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
*
Thomas Jefferson: No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
*
Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
*
Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
*
Thomas Jefferson: To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
*
Thomas Jefferson: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Source: Make Your Depth

Court-martial delayed for sgt. in Iraq deaths

FORT STEWART, Ga. — The court-martial of an Army soldier charged with the 2008 killings of a superior and a fellow soldier in Iraq has been postponed until next year.
Source: Army Times

For the second consecutive year, a team of Army wrestlers smoked the other services at the Armed Forces Wrestling Championship hosted by the Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C., from March 18 through 22.

The winners will represent the U.S. at the 27th World Military Wrestling Championship in August in Lahti, Finland.

The All Army Wrestling team of 14 wrestlers won 13 of 14 gold medals. The Marines came in second and third. The Navy placed fourth.

It was a two-day competition. The first day consisted of three rounds of Greco-Roman style, and day two was made up of three rounds of freestyle wrestling.

Wrestlers from Fort Carson, Colo., headquarters for the Army World Class Athlete program, dominated the event, taking 11 of the Army’s medals.

In Greco-Roman wrestling, Army gold medalists were:

• Spc. Jermaine Hodge, 121-pound class.

• Spc. Jeremiah Davis, 132-pound class.

• Spc. Faruk Sahin, 145-pound class.

• Sgt. 1st Class James Johnson, 162.8-pound class.

• Spc. Peter Hicks, 184.8-pound class.

• Spc. Justin Millard, 211.2-pound class.

• Sgt. 1st Class Dremiel Byers, 264-pound class. Byers is the reigning world champion; he was a member of the U.S. team at the Olympics in Beijing.

In the Freestyle competition, Army gold medalists were:

• Hodge, 121-pound class.

• Spc. Mark Bradley, 132-pound class.

• Pvt. Angel Cejudo, 145-pound class.

• Capt. Patrick Simpson, 162.8-pound class.

• Capt. Philip Simpson, 184.8-pound class.

• Spc. Timothy Taylor, 264-pound class.

All of the wrestlers are from Fort Carson except Johnson, who is from Fort Jackson, S.C., and Capt. Patrick Simpson, who is from Fort Campbell, Ky.

The Army team’s coach is Staff Sgt. Shon Lewis, the former U.S. Olympic Greco-Roman coach.

Source: Army Times

Here?s what we know so far by visually observing the crash of the Ecuadorian Air Force-owned Dhruv ALH at Quito on October 27: of the three Dhruv ALHs flying over an air base during celebrations to mark the 89th anniversary of the air force, one of them apparently swung 90 degrees and started losing altitude. As the video clip of the incident shows, the two-man aircrew who are in all probability highly experienced aviators, instinctively resorted to the autorotation technique (the only available option) to regain control and to their credit it must be said that they did succeed in slowing the rate of descent, although within the available 8 seconds, they could not stabilise the helicopter, which in turn led to a half-controlled descent and touchdown, with the stricken Dhruv ALH coming to rest on its portside, with the two-man aircrew managing to leave the helicopter by themselves after the crash before being taken to Quito's Military Hospital. The video clipping also showed the Dhruv ALH?s main rotor blades and tail rotor blades functioning, but not enough to indicate if the tail-rotor hub and tail-rotor shaft were in a fully functional state. Based purely on the available video clipping, it would seem that:

? The ill-fated Dhruv PROBABLY suffered from a sudden loss of power in either one of its twin Ardiden-1H (Shakti) engines, jointly built by HAL and Turbomeca. But catastrophic failure of both engines or failure of both the LH and RH sides of the main gearbox (MGB) can be ruled out. It is also PROBABLE that either one of the two fuel supply tanks (which supply fuel independently to the two engines) was starved of fuel-flow from the the Dhruv ALH?s three main fuel tanks, which house the pumps required for ensuring the fuel-flow to the fuel supply tanks.

? The above two probabilities PROBABLY contributed to the sudden reduction of supply of power to the tail-rotor gearbox via the tail-rotor drive shaft, resulting in the helicopter veering off to the left while losing altitude at the same time.

The only saving grace then, and the only available option for the aircrew then was to resort to the autorotation technique, which they did and that is probably the only reason they were fortunate enough to survive to fly again in future. Full marks to them!?Prasun K. Sengupta

I am enclosing below all the FAR Part 29standards that the Dhruv ALH complies with. FAR Part 29: Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft

Federal Aviation Regulations Subpart A - General

o Sec. 29.1 - Applicability.

o Sec. 29.2 - Special retroactive requirements.Subpart B - Flight

o Sec. 29.21 - Proof of compliance.

o Sec. 29.25 - Weight limits.

o Sec. 29.27 - Center of gravity limits.

o Sec. 29.29 - Empty weight and corresponding center of gravity.

o Sec. 29.31 - Removable ballast.

o Sec. 29.33 - Main rotor speed and pitch limits.

o Sec. 29.45 - General.

o Sec. 29.49 - Performance at minimum operating speed.

o Sec. 29.51 - Takeoff data: general.

o Sec. 29.53 - Takeoff: Category A.

o Sec. 29.55 - Takeoff decision point (TDP): Category A.

o Sec. 29.59 - Takeoff path: Category A.

o Sec. 29.60 - Elevated heliport takeoff path: Category A.

o Sec. 29.61 - Takeoff distance: Category A.

o Sec. 29.62 - Rejected takeoff: Category A.

o Sec. 29.63 - Takeoff: Category B.

o Sec. 29.64 - Climb: General.

o Sec. 29.65 - Climb: All engines operating.

o Sec. 29.67 - Climb: One engine inoperative (OEI).

o Sec. 29.71 - Helicopter angle of glide: Category B.

o Sec. 29.75 - Landing: General.

o Sec. 29.77 - Landing Decision Point (LDP): Category A.

o Sec. 29.79 - Landing: Category A.

o Sec. 29.81 - Landing distance: Category A.

o Sec. 29.83 - Landing: Category B.

o Sec. 29.85 - Balked landing: Category A.

o Sec. 29.87 - Height-velocity envelope.

o Sec. 29.141 - General.

o Sec. 29.143 - Controllability and maneuverability.

o Sec. 29.151 - Flight controls.

o Sec. 29.161 - Trim control.

o Sec. 29.171 - Stability: general.

o Sec. 29.173 - Static longitudinal stability.

o Sec. 29.175 - Demonstration of static longitudinal stability.

o Sec. 29.177 - Static directional stability.

o Sec. 29.181 - Dynamic stability: Category A rotorcraft.

o Sec. 29.231 - General. o Sec. 29.235 - Taxiing condition.

o Sec. 29.239 - Spray characteristics.

o Sec. 29.241 - Ground resonance.

o Sec. 29.251 - Vibration.Subpart C - Strength Requirements

o Sec. 29.301 - Loads.

o Sec. 29.303 - Factor of safety.

o Sec. 29.305 - Strength and deformation.

o Sec. 29.307 - Proof of structure.

o Sec. 29.309 - Design limitations.

o Sec. 29.321 - General.

o Sec. 29.337 - Limit maneuvering load factor.

o Sec. 29.339 - Resultant limit maneuvering loads.

o Sec. 29.341 - Gust loads.

o Sec. 29.351 - Yawing conditions.

o Sec. 29.361 - Engine torque.

o Sec. 29.391 - General.

o Sec. 29.395 - Control system.

o Sec. 29.397 - Limit pilot forces and torques.

o Sec. 29.399 - Dual control system.

o Sec. 29.411 - Ground clearance: tail rotor guard.

o Sec. 29.427 - Unsymmetrical loads.

o Sec. 29.471 - General.

o Sec. 29.473 - Ground loading conditions and assumptions.

o Sec. 29.475 - Tires and shock absorbers.

o Sec. 29.477 - Landing gear arrangement.

o Sec. 29.479 - Level landing conditions.

o Sec. 29.481 - Tail-down landing conditions.

o Sec. 29.483 - One-wheel landing conditions.

o Sec. 29.485 - Lateral drift landing conditions.

o Sec. 29.493 - Braked roll conditions.

o Sec. 29.497 - Ground loading conditions: landing gear with tail wheels.

o Sec. 29.501 - Ground loading conditions: landing gear with skids.

o Sec. 29.505 - Ski landing conditions.

o Sec. 29.511 - Ground load: unsymmetrical loads on multiple-wheel units.

o Sec. 29.519 - Hull type rotorcraft: Water-based and amphibian.

o Sec. 29.521 - Float landing conditions.

o Sec. 29.547 - Main and tail rotor structure.

o Sec. 29.549 - Fuselage and rotor pylon structures.

o Sec. 29.551 - Auxiliary lifting surfaces.

o Sec. 29.561 - General.

o Sec. 29.562 - Emergency landing dynamic conditions.

o Sec. 29.563 - Structural ditching provisions.

o Sec. 29.571 - Fatigue evaluation of structure.Subpart D - Design and Construction

o Sec. 29.601 - Design.

o Sec. 29.602 - Critical parts.

o Sec. 29.603 - Materials.

o Sec. 29.605 - Fabrication methods.

o Sec. 29.607 - Fasteners.

o Sec. 29.609 - Protection of structure.

o Sec. 29.610 - Lightning and static electricity protection.

o Sec. 29.611 - Inspection provisions.

o Sec. 29.613 - Material strength properties and design values.

o Sec. 29.619 - Special factors.

o Sec. 29.621 - Casting factors.

o Sec. 29.623 - Bearing factors.

o Sec. 29.625 - Fitting factors.

o Sec. 29.629 - Flutter and divergence.

o Sec. 29.631 - Bird strike.

o Sec. 29.653 - Pressure venting and drainage of rotor blades.

o Sec. 29.659 - Mass balance.

o Sec. 29.661 - Rotor blade clearance.

o Sec. 29.663 - Ground resonance prevention means.

o Sec. 29.671 - General.

o Sec. 29.672 - Stability augmentation, automatic, and power-operated systems.

o Sec. 29.673 - Primary flight controls.

o Sec. 29.674 - Interconnected controls.

o Sec. 29.675 - Stops.

o Sec. 29.679 - Control system locks.

o Sec. 29.681 - Limit load static tests.

o Sec. 29.683 - Operation tests.

o Sec. 29.685 - Control system details.

o Sec. 29.687 - Spring devices.

o Sec. 29.691 - Autorotation control mechanism.

o Sec. 29.695 - Power boost and power-operated control system.

o Sec. 29.723 - Shock absorption tests.

o Sec. 29.725 - Limit drop test.

o Sec. 29.727 - Reserve energy absorption drop test.

o Sec. 29.729 - Retracting mechanism.

o Sec. 29.731 - Wheels.

o Sec. 29.733 - Tires.

o Sec. 29.735 - Brakes.

o Sec. 29.737 - Skis.

o Sec. 29.751 - Main float buoyancy.

o Sec. 29.753 - Main float design.

o Sec. 29.755 - Hull buoyancy.

o Sec. 29.757 - Hull and auxiliary float strength.

o Sec. 29.771 - Pilot compartment.

o Sec. 29.773 - Pilot compartment view.

o Sec. 29.775 - Windshields and windows.

o Sec. 29.777 - Cockpit controls.

o Sec. 29.779 - Motion and effect of cockpit controls.

o Sec. 29.783 - Doors.

o Sec. 29.785 - Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and harnesses.

o Sec. 29.787 - Cargo and baggage compartments.

o Sec. 29.801 - Ditching.

o Sec. 29.803 - Emergency evacuation.

o Sec. 29.805 - Flight crew emergency exits.

o Sec. 29.807 - Passenger emergency exits.

o Sec. 29.809 - Emergency exit arrangement.

o Sec. 29.811 - Emergency exit marking.

o Sec. 29.812 - Emergency lighting.

o Sec. 29.813 - Emergency exit access.

o Sec. 29.815 - Main aisle width.

o Sec. 29.831 - Ventilation.

o Sec. 29.833 - Heaters.

o Sec. 29.851 - Fire extinguishers.

o Sec. 29.853 - Compartment interiors.

o Sec. 29.855 - Cargo and baggage compartments.

o Sec. 29.859 - Combustion heater fire protection.

o Sec. 29.861 - Fire protection of structure, controls, and other parts.

o Sec. 29.863 - Flammable fluid fire protection.

o Sec. 29.865 - External loads.

o Sec. 29.871 - Leveling marks.

o Sec. 29.873 - Ballast provisions.Subpart E - Powerplant

o Sec. 29.901 - Installation.

o Sec. 29.903 - Engines.

o Sec. 29.907 - Engine vibration.

o Sec. 29.908 - Cooling fans.

o Sec. 29.917 - Design.

o Sec. 29.921 - Rotor brake.

o Sec. 29.923 - Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests.

o Sec. 29.927 - Additional tests.

o Sec. 29.931 - Shafting critical speed.

o Sec. 29.935 - Shafting joints.

o Sec. 29.939 - Turbine engine operating characteristics.

o Sec. 29.951 - General.

o Sec. 29.952 - Fuel system crash resistance.

o Sec. 29.953 - Fuel system independence.

o Sec. 29.954 - Fuel system lightning protection.

o Sec. 29.955 - Fuel flow.

o Sec. 29.957 - Flow between interconnected tanks.

o Sec. 29.959 - Unusable fuel supply.

o Sec. 29.961 - Fuel system hot weather operation.

o Sec. 29.963 - Fuel tanks: general.

o Sec. 29.965 - Fuel tank tests.

o Sec. 29.967 - Fuel tank installation.

o Sec. 29.969 - Fuel tank expansion space.

o Sec. 29.971 - Fuel tank sump.

o Sec. 29.973 - Fuel tank filler connection.

o Sec. 29.975 - Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents.

o Sec. 29.977 - Fuel tank outlet.

o Sec. 29.979 - Pressure refueling and fueling provisions below fuel level.

o Sec. 29.991 - Fuel pumps.

o Sec. 29.993 - Fuel system lines and fittings.

o Sec. 29.995 - Fuel valves.

o Sec. 29.997 - Fuel strainer or filter.

o Sec. 29.999 - Fuel system drains.

o Sec. 29.1001 - Fuel jettisoning.

o Sec. 29.1011 - Engines: general.

o Sec. 29.1013 - Oil tanks.

o Sec. 29.1015 - Oil tank tests.

o Sec. 29.1017 - Oil lines and fittings.

o Sec. 29.1019 - Oil strainer or filter.

o Sec. 29.1021 - Oil system drains.

o Sec. 29.1023 - Oil radiators.

o Sec. 29.1025 - Oil valves.

o Sec. 29.1027 - Transmission and gearboxes: general.

o Sec. 29.1041 - General.

o Sec. 29.1043 - Cooling tests.

o Sec. 29.1045 - Climb cooling test procedures.

o Sec. 29.1047 - Takeoff cooling test procedures.

o Sec. 29.1049 - Hovering cooling test procedures.

o Sec. 29.1091 - Air induction.

o Sec. 29.1093 - Induction system icing protection.

o Sec. 29.1101 - Carburetor air preheater design.

o Sec. 29.1103 - Induction systems ducts and air duct systems.

o Sec. 29.1105 - Induction system screens.

o Sec. 29.1107 - Inter-coolers and after-coolers.

o Sec. 29.1109 - Carburetor air cooling.

o Sec. 29.1121 - General.

o Sec. 29.1123 - Exhaust piping.

o Sec. 29.1125 - Exhaust heat exchangers.

o Sec. 29.1141 - Powerplant controls: general.

o Sec. 29.1142 - Auxiliary power unit controls.

o Sec. 29.1143 - Engine controls.

o Sec. 29.1145 - Ignition switches.

o Sec. 29.1147 - Mixture controls.

o Sec. 29.1151 - Rotor brake controls.

o Sec. 29.1157 - Carburetor air temperature controls.

o Sec. 29.1159 - Supercharger controls.

o Sec. 29.1163 - Powerplant accessories.

o Sec. 29.1165 - Engine ignition systems.

o Sec. 29.1181 - Designated fire zones: regions included.

o Sec. 29.1183 - Lines, fittings, and components.

o Sec. 29.1185 - Flammable fluids.

o Sec. 29.1187 - Drainage and ventilation of fire zones.

o Sec. 29.1189 - Shutoff means.

o Sec. 29.1191 - Firewalls.

o Sec. 29.1193 - Cowling and engine compartment covering.

o Sec. 29.1194 - Other surfaces.

o Sec. 29.1195 - Fire extinguishing systems.

o Sec. 29.1197 - Fire extinguishing agents.

o Sec. 29.1199 - Extinguishing agent containers.

o Sec. 29.1201 - Fire extinguishing system materials.

o Sec. 29.1203 - Fire detector systems.Subpart F - Equipment

o Sec. 29.1301 - Function and installation.

o Sec. 29.1303 - Flight and navigation instruments.

o Sec. 29.1305 - Powerplant instruments.

o Sec. 29.1307 - Miscellaneous equipment.

o Sec. 29.1309 - Equipment, systems, and installations.

o Sec. 29.1321 - Arrangement and visibility.

o Sec. 29.1322 - Warning, caution, and advisory lights.

o Sec. 29.1323 - Airspeed indicating system.

o Sec. 29.1325 - Static pressure and pressure altimeter systems.

o Sec. 29.1327 - Magnetic direction indicator.

o Sec. 29.1329 - Automatic pilot system.

o Sec. 29.1331 - Instruments using a power supply.

o Sec. 29.1333 - Instrument systems.

o Sec. 29.1335 - Flight director systems.

o Sec. 29.1337 - Powerplant instruments.

o Sec. 29.1351 - General.

o Sec. 29.1353 - Electrical equipment and installations.

o Sec. 29.1355 - Distribution system.

o Sec. 29.1357 - Circuit protective devices.

o Sec. 29.1359 - Electrical system fire and smoke protection.

o Sec. 29.1363 - Electrical system tests.

o Sec. 29.1381 - Instrument lights.

o Sec. 29.1383 - Landing lights.

o Sec. 29.1385 - Position light system installation.

o Sec. 29.1387 - Position light system dihedral angles.

o Sec. 29.1389 - Position light distribution and intensities.

o Sec. 29.1391 - Minimum intensities in the horizontal plane of forward and rear position lights.

o Sec. 29.1393 - Minimum intensities in any vertical plane of forward and rear position lights.

o Sec. 29.1395 - Maximum intensities in overlapping beams of forward and rear position lights.

o Sec. 29.1397 - Color specifications.

o Sec. 29.1399 - Riding light.

o Sec. 29.1401 - Anticollision light system.

o Sec. 29.1411 - General.

o Sec. 29.1413 - Safety belts: passenger warning device.

o Sec. 29.1415 - Ditching equipment.

o Sec. 29.1419 - Ice protection.

o Sec. 29.1431 - Electronic equipment.

o Sec. 29.1433 - Vacuum systems.

o Sec. 29.1435 - Hydraulic systems.

o Sec. 29.1439 - Protective breathing equipment.

o Sec. 29.1457 - Cockpit voice recorders.

o Sec. 29.1459 - Flight recorders.

o Sec. 29.1461 - Equipment containing high energy rotors.Subpart G-Operating Limitations and Information

o Sec. 29.1501 - General.

o Sec. 29.1503 - Airspeed limitations: general.

o Sec. 29.1505 - Never-exceed speed.

o Sec. 29.1509 - Rotor speed.

o Sec. 29.1517 - Limiting height-speed envelope.

o Sec. 29.1519 - Weight and center of gravity.

o Sec. 29.1521 - Powerplant limitations.

o Sec. 29.1522 - Auxiliary power unit limitations.

o Sec. 29.1523 - Minimum flight crew.

o Sec. 29.1525 - Kinds of operations.

o Sec. 29.1527 - Maximum operating altitude.

o Sec. 29.1529 - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

o Sec. 29.1541 - General.

o Sec. 29.1543 - Instrument markings: general.

o Sec. 29.1545 - Airspeed indicator.

o Sec. 29.1547 - Magnetic direction indicator.

o Sec. 29.1549 - Powerplant instruments.

o Sec. 29.1551 - Oil quantity indicator.

o Sec. 29.1553 - Fuel quantity indicator. o Sec. 29.1555 - Control markings.

o Sec. 29.1557 - Miscellaneous markings and placards.

o Sec. 29.1559 - Limitations placard.

o Sec. 29.1561 - Safety equipment.

o Sec. 29.1565 - Tail rotor.

o Sec. 29.1581 - General.

o Sec. 29.1583 - Operating limitations.

o Sec. 29.1585 - Operating procedures. o Sec. 29.1587 - Performance information.

o Sec. 29.1589 - Loading information.Appendices? Appendix A to Part 29 - Instructions for Continued Airworthiness ? Appendix B to Part 29 - Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight ? Appendix C to Part 29 - Icing Certification ? Appendix D to Part 29 - Criteria for Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures Under §29.803

The military variants of the Dhruv ALH adhere to the following FAR/MILSPEC standards:

US Army Aeronautical Design Standard-33E (ADS-33E)Flaw-Tolerant Rotor System: FAR/JAR 29.571,

AM 29-28Crashworthy Fuel System: FAR/JAR 29.952,

AM 29-35Flaw-Tolerant Drive Train with Over Torque Certification: FAR/JAR 29.952, AM 29-28

Turbine Burst Protection: FAR/JAR 29.901, AM 29-36

Composite Spar Main & Tail Rotor Blades with Lightning Strike Protection: FAR/JAR 1309(h), AM 29-40

Engine Compartment Fire Protection: FAR/JAR 29.1193

Redundant Hydraulics & Flaw Tolerant Flight Controls: FAR/JAR 29.571, AM 29-28

Aircraft-Wide Bird Strike Protection: FAR/JAR 29.631, AM 29-40

Crashworthiness Standard: FAR/JAR 29.561, AM 29-38

Crashworthy Seats Conforming to MIL-STD-1472B

Cockpit Instrumentation Lighting Conforming to MIL-STD-85762A

Avionics Databus: MIL-STD-1553B or ARINC-429

Autopilot Accuracy: MIL-F-9490D

Embedded MIL-STD-188-141B ALE Link Protection

Embedded MIL-STD-188-110B data modem

Source: Trishul Group

WASHINGTON — If gay service members are allowed to serve openly, the military will face another tough question: Should gay partners be entitled to military benefits?

Momentum appears to be building for ending the ban on gays in the military. New rules ordered Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates make it harder to discharge men and women under the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." His decision is intended as a stopgap measure as Congress weighs whether to go along with President Barack Obama's request to repeal the law.

Since the draft ended in 1973, spousal benefits have increasingly been used as an incentive to recruit and retain an effective force. Today, more than half of all troops sport a wedding ring.

Benefits for married service members include college tuition for a spouse and the right of a spouse to be at a wounded service member's bedside. Spouses also have access to military health care and commissaries worldwide, and married service members receive better housing and even extra pay when they go to war.

The ticket to qualifying for those benefits is a marriage certificate. Heterosexual couples have a choice whether to marry, but same-sex marriages are legal in only five states and Washington, D.C. Whether same-sex partnerships would be recognized by the military and what benefits might be afforded gay couples would become issues if the ban were lifted.

"It will be a whole complex row of dominoes that will fall as a result of this," said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

Already, Gates has included the issue of benefits in a review of how to lift the repeal, which is due Dec. 1.

Repealing the ban without offering same-sex partner benefits would be like telling gay service members they are equal but not giving them all the advantages of service, said Tiffany Belle, 33, of Long Beach, Calif., a lesbian and former sailor. "You're basically letting us be free being ourselves in the military, but then you're not letting us reap the benefits."

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it's unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners.

"They don't do it for straight people, and they're very unlikely to do it for gay people," Frank said.

But, in addition to repealing "don't ask, don't tell," Obama has called for getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act and has moved to extend some federal benefits to same-sex partners.

Obama has approved small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples who work for the federal government, such as visitation and dependent-care rights. The State Department extended benefits to gay diplomats, such as the right for their domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports and for paid travel to and from foreign posts.

Larry Korb, a senior fellow at the Democratic-led Center for American Progress, who served as an assistant secretary of defense in the early 1980s, said what the military would have to work through is similar to what the State Department and some federal agencies have done.

"My own personal view is that if they want to make it happen, they can," Korb said.

U.S. military officials are concerned that recruitment might suffer if they open the door to gay service members and their families. They worry that the Southern, Christian base from which the military relies heavily to fill its ranks will resist the change.

But if they don't adequately address the benefits issue, it could lead to gay service members leaving the military because there's no provision for caring for their families, said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for the veterans group AMVETS.

"They won't be on equal footing as their heterosexual counterparts," Gallucci said.

Some repeal proponents say that lifting the ban should be the focus, not the what ifs related to benefits. They say discussions about whether the Pentagon would recognize gay troops' partners aren't relevant now.

"Let's get rid of the ban first and then look at those issues," said Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which seeks to repeal the law.

Frank, who has written a book about the policy, said opponents of repeal use a "thorny questions" strategy to make the process of lifting the ban seem far more complicated than it is by bringing up issues like benefits.

One former service member who is watching the debate is Melanie Costa, 34, of Franklin, Mass. The Iraq veteran said she left the military after four years in the Marines and six in the Army Reserves so she could marry a woman in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. She said if the repeal is dropped she'll re-enlist — if her wife gets benefits.

"If I got deployed, and she wasn't able to get all the benefits as another married couple, there's not really a point," Costa said.

___

Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.

Source: Army Times

Hawk Mk-53 : Analysis of Potential Replacement Aircraft

18 Januari 2010

Hawk Mk-53 (photo : Kaskus Militer)

Indonesia Looking for Trainer/Attack Aircraft

In August 2007, ?Indonesia?s Air Force Adds More Flankers? chronicled its purchase of Russian SU-27SK and SU-30MKK fighters. The Flankers would supplement and/or replace fleets of F-16A/B and F-5E/F Tiger II fighters, whose condition was harmed by a long arms embargo imposed in response to widespread repression and genocide in East Timor.

East Timor became independent in 2002, and the American embargo on military supplies to Indonesia was lifted in 2005. Nevertheless, the effects of foregone maintenance can be lasting, and the experience was firmly etched into Indonesia?s military consciousness. Subsequent incidents, such as the UK?s injunctions against using British-made Scorpion light tanks against Aceh?s separatist revolt, only deepened the determination of Indonesia?s military and political leaders to deal with a different set of military suppliers.

In fall 2007, ?Indonesia Signs B+ Defense Credit Agreement With Russia? chronicled the next step under that policy. Now Indonesia is looking to replace its fleets of BAE Hawk Mk.53 trainer jets, and OV-10 Bronco forward air control/ counterinsurgency aircraft. The Air Force must first secure the budget to do so, and the nature of those replacements is shaping up as a competition?

Potential Replacements

In January 2010, Indonesian air force commander Air Marshal Imam Sufaat identified 5 contenders for these roles: Aero Vodochody?s L-159B, Alenia Aermacchi?s M-346 Master, Chengdu?s FTC-2000, the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-50 family, and the Yakovlev Yak-130.
See ?Czech L-159s: Cheap to Good Home? for coverage of the L-159, and the Czech Republic?s attempts to sell up to 47 of these light attack aircraft on the global market.

See ?Korea?s T-50 Spreads Its Wings? for in-depth coverage of South Korea?s T-50/ TA-50/ F/A-50 family of supersonic trainers and lightweight fighters. Indonesia?s 16 F-5 lightweight fighters have been out of operation since 2005, and some members of this family could effectively succeed those lightweight fighters for air policing as well.

The Yak-130 was developed as a joint project by Alenia Aermacchi, and Russia?s Yakolev Design Bureau. The partners ended up going their separate ways, fielding 2-seat aircraft with similar lines but different internal equipment. By 2006 the aircraft had beaten the MiG-AT and Sukhoi?s S-54 to be selected as Russia?s next advanced jet trainer, and has also been sold to Algeria. There are also reports that Libya has 6 on order.

While Alenia?s M-346 Master emphasizes its role as an advanced trainer and aerobatic jet, the similar Yak-130 can also be heavily armed for air policing patrol, or counter-insurgency/ ground attack missions. Its NIIP Zhukovsky Osa radar offers adequate performance, and its 8 hardpoints can carry up to 3,000 kg/ 6,600 pounds of weapons. These reportedly include Western equipment like AIM-9L/Magic 2 short-range air-air missiles (SRAAM) and AGM-65 Maverick precision strike missiles; as well as Russian weapons like the advanced R-73/ AA-11 Archer SRAAM, a Platan targeting pod, the Vhikr and KH-25ML laser guided missiles, the KAB-500Kr guided bomb, 23mm or 30mm gun pods, or rockets and unguided bombs. The Yak-130 is powered by a pair of AI-222-25 or Povazske Strojarne DV-2SM (export option) turbofans.

The Yak-130 offers similar capabilities to Indonesia?s 8 existing Hawk 109 trainers, and may be actually more comparable to its 29 single-seat Hawk 209 light attack aircraft. Unlike the Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Udara?s (TNI?AU, Indonesia?s air force) 20 Hawk Mk.53 trainers, which were ordered in 1980-81 and reportedly have few operational planes left, these 1990s-era Hawk attack fleets remain operational, and are expected to remain in service with the TNI-AU.

China National Guizhou Aviation Industry?s JiaoLian-9, known as FTC-2000 Shanying (Mountain Eagle) when exported, is derived from China?s JJ-7 trainer. Which was, in turn, derived from Russian 2-seat MiG-21s. Visible enhancements include a raised cockpit that greatly improves visibility for both pilots, a correspondingly larger dorsal ?spine?, a cranked delta wing to improve handling characteristics, and moving the engine intake from the plane?s nose to a pair of small side intakes.

The JL-9 uses a Chinese WP-13 or WP-14 turbojet engine, and carries Chinese electronics, and weapons. It reportedly packs an internal 23mm cannon, and has 5 stores stations that can carry up to 2,000 kg/ 4,400 pounds of fuel tanks, short-range air-air missiles, or rocket launders and unguided bombs. Its derivation from the MiG-21 gives it questionable suitability as a ground attack aircraft, but they could be used effectively for secondary air policing, especially if equipped with SELEX Galileo?s Grifo S7 radar.

Contracts and Key Events

Jan 14/10: Flight International reports that Indonesia?s military is about to renew a request for funds to finance its purchase of trainer and attack aircraft. The service submitted requests to replace its OV-10s in 2008, and 20 Hawks in 2009, but the government did not approve the budgets. A faster-than-expected economic recovery may offer a new opportunity, and Indonesian air force commander Air Marshal Imam Sufaat has reportedly said that the OV-10 replacement has been approved, while the Hawk replacement remains under discussion.

Nov 13/09: The Jakarta Post quotes newly sworn-in Indonesian Air Force chief of staff Vice Marshal Imam Safaat, who says that Russian Yak-130s and Chinese FTC-2000s would replace Indonesia?s 20 remaining British Hawk Mk.53 trainer jets (2 reportedly operational), and remaining American OV-10 Bronco turboprops (0-8 operational).

At this point, this is pre-budget intent, and not a contract. The age of Indonesia?s Hawk and Bronco fleets, and the importance of training, will add urgency to this request. Imam said that these aircraft are ?expensive? and would be bought with the help of foreign aid.

The new TNI-AU chief added that the service also plans to replace its 16 F-5E/Fs (4 reportedly operational) by 2013.

Indonesia?s economy has performed well in recent years, and the TNI-AU budget is expected to increase by 25%-75% over the next year, adding 5-320 million. Nevertheless, a verdict that even the Yak-130 and FTC-2000 are expensive could suggest these very aircraft for the F-5?s roles. Both designs are capable of handling those roles at comparable performance levels, and the shrinkage of Indonesia?s front-line combat fleet makes a large array of single-focus trainers a dubious proposition, unless ample money is available for more front-line fighters as well. The flip side of that choice is that beyond the Yak-130?s strong close air support capabilities, these 2 choices would not be competitive with modern fighters.

Alternatively, Indonesia could cast a wider net, and look to purchase both replacement trainers, and low-budget dedicated fighters like the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17 Thunder, India?s Tejas, or South Korea?s TA-50 Golden Eagle to replace its F-5s. A more ambitious effort might even examine higher-end lightweight fighters like the Russian MiG-29/35, Chinese J-10, or the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen flown by nearby Thailand. Of these lightweight fighter choices, the Russian MiG-29/35 and Chinese JF-17 or J-10 are the only options that would be immune to future western military sanctions. All of the other choices currently fly with General Electric turbofan engines, and are slated to continue using western designs.

(Defense Industry Daily)

Source: Defense Studies