Израиль на авиасалоне в Ле-Бурже
- Автор темы farman
- Дата начала
Vadim
Лучезарный колёс
Israeli avionics for India's Dhruv
By Craig Hoyle, Craig Hoyle, JDW Aviation Editor, Paris
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has announced the signature of a partnering agreement with Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) that will see the companies jointly market India's Advanced Light Helicopter, or Dhruv.
Two of the aircraft made the type's European debut at the Paris air show this week, although HAL Chairman N R Mohanty told Jane's Defence Weekly that the design is initially being promoted for the Latin American, African and Southeast Asian markets. The Malaysian military is among those to have shown some interest in the aircraft to date, he said.
Under the terms of the recently concluded agreement, potential new operators of the aircraft will be able to buy aircraft equipped with new avionics equipment to be supplied by IAI. These will also have the option of acquiring platforms powered by the Turbomeca TM333 2B2 or the more powerful developmental Shakti powerplant, a further development of the former design. To be built under licence in India by HAL, the latter offers a 12% increase in power output for high altitude operations, and will be ready in 2005, he said.
HAL has so far delivered 18 Dhruvs to India's air force, army, navy and coast guard. "The response from the customer [about the TM333 2B2-powered aircraft] so far has been very positive," said Mohanty.
The Dhruv goes through its paces at Le Bourget
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) now renamed the Dhruv.
By Craig Hoyle, Craig Hoyle, JDW Aviation Editor, Paris
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has announced the signature of a partnering agreement with Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) that will see the companies jointly market India's Advanced Light Helicopter, or Dhruv.
Two of the aircraft made the type's European debut at the Paris air show this week, although HAL Chairman N R Mohanty told Jane's Defence Weekly that the design is initially being promoted for the Latin American, African and Southeast Asian markets. The Malaysian military is among those to have shown some interest in the aircraft to date, he said.
Under the terms of the recently concluded agreement, potential new operators of the aircraft will be able to buy aircraft equipped with new avionics equipment to be supplied by IAI. These will also have the option of acquiring platforms powered by the Turbomeca TM333 2B2 or the more powerful developmental Shakti powerplant, a further development of the former design. To be built under licence in India by HAL, the latter offers a 12% increase in power output for high altitude operations, and will be ready in 2005, he said.
HAL has so far delivered 18 Dhruvs to India's air force, army, navy and coast guard. "The response from the customer [about the TM333 2B2-powered aircraft] so far has been very positive," said Mohanty.
The Dhruv goes through its paces at Le Bourget
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) now renamed the Dhruv.
А вот БПЛА "Спарроу":
Vadim
Лучезарный колёс
Countermeasures for airliners: not as simple as it seems
By Edward Downs, Editor, Jane's Avionics
In the aftermath of 9/11, the missile attack on a Israeli Arkiav flight in Mombassa during November 2002 and a number of terrorist alerts around the world's airports, manufacturers of missile countermeasures systems are ramping up their efforts in anticipation of large orders for the world's airline fleets. Systems fall into two broad categories: dispenser-based systems (flares) and directed energy systems (lamps or lasers). The former category includes the Elta/IMI Flight Guard and the latter the Northrop Grumman/BAE Systems Directional Infra Red Counter Measures (DIRCM) system.
While military aircraft almost exclusively employ countermeasures dispenser systems (CMDS), deploying chaff and/or flares to counter attacking missiles, this traditional solution is fraught with problems in the transition to the civilian environment. Expendables, by their very definition, are ejected from the aircraft, which raises a few points. Larger aircraft with widely spread engines, for example, can appear as multiple targets, requiring any flare 'shroud' to cover a large volume behind the aircraft that would potentially require a large number of flares to be deployed against any attack. Also, depending on the height of the aircraft at flare ejection, there would be a risk of burning flares hitting the ground around the airport; noting the position of many of the world's airports, this could pose a significant risk to the civilian population. This problem would not necessarily be solved by short-burn flares; with a screen height of 35/15ft during the critical take-off phase, airliners are at their most vulnerable when extremely close to the ground. Further, flares are most effective when the aircraft also manoeuvres to move out of the incoming missile's field of view (FoV), which is not feasible with respect to a heavily laden airliner. However, flares have a proven track record against the type of shoulder-launched missile currently favoured by the world's terrorists and such systems are cheaper to buy than the latest directed-energy systems and would present a lesser drag (and therefore range) penalty to a civil airliner.
The latest laser-based DIRCM systems, which seem to be the favoured solution for the majority of manufacturers, including Rafael (Britening) and Elbit (MUSIC), employ no expendables, so are a 'cleaner' solution for the civil world but are not without their own limitations. They are more expensive and would require multiple turrets to protect the largest Boeing and Airbus ultra long-range types. There are also some questions regarding the effectiveness of these systems against multiple incoming missiles. Furthermore, the increase in drag on a large airliner resulting from two or more DIRCM turrets protruding into the air stream would be costly to operators in terms of fuel burn and thus maximum range. When modern airliners are designed and acquired with particular ATS routes in mind, this effect should not be disregarded.
As a final point in considering the fitment of countermeasures systems on airliners, integration and operation issues should be carefully considered. While no-one would dispute the requirement for a fully automatic system with no requirement for reaction (and thus delay) by the crew, should another aircraft fall under the control of terrorists, the job of fighter combat air patrols around major cities might be undermined by the rogue aircraft's inherent defensive capability.
The Elta/IMI FlightGuard is based on Elta's Missile Warning System (MWS) and IMI's Counter Measures Dispenser System (CMDS)
By Edward Downs, Editor, Jane's Avionics
In the aftermath of 9/11, the missile attack on a Israeli Arkiav flight in Mombassa during November 2002 and a number of terrorist alerts around the world's airports, manufacturers of missile countermeasures systems are ramping up their efforts in anticipation of large orders for the world's airline fleets. Systems fall into two broad categories: dispenser-based systems (flares) and directed energy systems (lamps or lasers). The former category includes the Elta/IMI Flight Guard and the latter the Northrop Grumman/BAE Systems Directional Infra Red Counter Measures (DIRCM) system.
While military aircraft almost exclusively employ countermeasures dispenser systems (CMDS), deploying chaff and/or flares to counter attacking missiles, this traditional solution is fraught with problems in the transition to the civilian environment. Expendables, by their very definition, are ejected from the aircraft, which raises a few points. Larger aircraft with widely spread engines, for example, can appear as multiple targets, requiring any flare 'shroud' to cover a large volume behind the aircraft that would potentially require a large number of flares to be deployed against any attack. Also, depending on the height of the aircraft at flare ejection, there would be a risk of burning flares hitting the ground around the airport; noting the position of many of the world's airports, this could pose a significant risk to the civilian population. This problem would not necessarily be solved by short-burn flares; with a screen height of 35/15ft during the critical take-off phase, airliners are at their most vulnerable when extremely close to the ground. Further, flares are most effective when the aircraft also manoeuvres to move out of the incoming missile's field of view (FoV), which is not feasible with respect to a heavily laden airliner. However, flares have a proven track record against the type of shoulder-launched missile currently favoured by the world's terrorists and such systems are cheaper to buy than the latest directed-energy systems and would present a lesser drag (and therefore range) penalty to a civil airliner.
The latest laser-based DIRCM systems, which seem to be the favoured solution for the majority of manufacturers, including Rafael (Britening) and Elbit (MUSIC), employ no expendables, so are a 'cleaner' solution for the civil world but are not without their own limitations. They are more expensive and would require multiple turrets to protect the largest Boeing and Airbus ultra long-range types. There are also some questions regarding the effectiveness of these systems against multiple incoming missiles. Furthermore, the increase in drag on a large airliner resulting from two or more DIRCM turrets protruding into the air stream would be costly to operators in terms of fuel burn and thus maximum range. When modern airliners are designed and acquired with particular ATS routes in mind, this effect should not be disregarded.
As a final point in considering the fitment of countermeasures systems on airliners, integration and operation issues should be carefully considered. While no-one would dispute the requirement for a fully automatic system with no requirement for reaction (and thus delay) by the crew, should another aircraft fall under the control of terrorists, the job of fighter combat air patrols around major cities might be undermined by the rogue aircraft's inherent defensive capability.
The Elta/IMI FlightGuard is based on Elta's Missile Warning System (MWS) and IMI's Counter Measures Dispenser System (CMDS)
Vadim
Лучезарный колёс
Elbit Systems Lizard-4 GPS aided bomb guidance system.
E.M.I.T. Aviation Consult Limited from Israel displayed Blue Horizon Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).
Ebits Silver Arrow 'Skylark' close range surveillance and reconnaissance tacticalunmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Aeronautics Defence Systems showed a new version of their Aerostar tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) equipped with a dual sensor and Rafael's Top-scan ESM payload.
Vadim
Лучезарный колёс
24 June 2003
Elta test aircraft shows off FlightGuard
By Edward Downs, Editor, Jane's Avionics
Part of a strong Israeli presence at this year's Paris Air Show included the Elta/IMI FlightGuard civil aviation protection system, displayed fitted to the IAI/Elta test aircraft.
FlightGuard is a development of the EL/M-2160 military countermeasures system, which is in service and has been installed on over 150 aircraft to date. The system employs a lightweight pulse-doppler (PD) radar system with six antennas to provide full 360° coverage. Elta claims the employment of PD radar, as opposed to either UV or IR detectors, provides a near zero false alarm rate: an important point considering the necessary fully autonomous operation of civilian protection systems.
In contrast to the current trend towards laser-based active countermeasures for large aircraft, typified by Rafael's Britening directional infra-red countermeasures (DIRCM) system, FlightGuard employs an IMI countermeasures dispenser system (CMDS) that consists, in the case of the display aircraft, of two CMDS positioned on either side of the rear portion of the aircraft fuselage, firing behind the podded engines. Flare ejection speed can be varied to provide adjustable coverage depending on span-wise engine position along the wing. The flares themselves are described by the company as 'environmentally friendly', featuring rapid burn-out to permit low-altitude ejection during the critical take-off and landing phases of flight.
While the deployment of expendable flares from civilian aircraft may prove problematic around some of the world's busy metropolitan airports, Elta claims far greater effectiveness for its system compared to DIRCM-based offerings, particularly against multiple attacking missiles. Furthermore, with an estimated fly-away cost of around US$ 500,000 per aircraft, FlightGuard is claimed to be approximately half the cost of its competitors. This fact may prove more telling than perhaps it should, since while it may sound rather cynical to suggest that selection of a civilian large aircraft protection system will be influenced by acquisition cost rather than solely on performance, if governments are not willing to fund such projects for their fleets, the currently cash-strapped airlines of the world will surely struggle in the face of any future mandate.
The IAI/Elta test aircraft tail section, fitted with two FlightGuard pulse doppler (PD) antennas, each covering a 60° sector (for a total of 120°) of the stern area of the aircraft (Photo: P Allen/Jane's)
Elta test aircraft shows off FlightGuard
By Edward Downs, Editor, Jane's Avionics
Part of a strong Israeli presence at this year's Paris Air Show included the Elta/IMI FlightGuard civil aviation protection system, displayed fitted to the IAI/Elta test aircraft.
FlightGuard is a development of the EL/M-2160 military countermeasures system, which is in service and has been installed on over 150 aircraft to date. The system employs a lightweight pulse-doppler (PD) radar system with six antennas to provide full 360° coverage. Elta claims the employment of PD radar, as opposed to either UV or IR detectors, provides a near zero false alarm rate: an important point considering the necessary fully autonomous operation of civilian protection systems.
In contrast to the current trend towards laser-based active countermeasures for large aircraft, typified by Rafael's Britening directional infra-red countermeasures (DIRCM) system, FlightGuard employs an IMI countermeasures dispenser system (CMDS) that consists, in the case of the display aircraft, of two CMDS positioned on either side of the rear portion of the aircraft fuselage, firing behind the podded engines. Flare ejection speed can be varied to provide adjustable coverage depending on span-wise engine position along the wing. The flares themselves are described by the company as 'environmentally friendly', featuring rapid burn-out to permit low-altitude ejection during the critical take-off and landing phases of flight.
While the deployment of expendable flares from civilian aircraft may prove problematic around some of the world's busy metropolitan airports, Elta claims far greater effectiveness for its system compared to DIRCM-based offerings, particularly against multiple attacking missiles. Furthermore, with an estimated fly-away cost of around US$ 500,000 per aircraft, FlightGuard is claimed to be approximately half the cost of its competitors. This fact may prove more telling than perhaps it should, since while it may sound rather cynical to suggest that selection of a civilian large aircraft protection system will be influenced by acquisition cost rather than solely on performance, if governments are not willing to fund such projects for their fleets, the currently cash-strapped airlines of the world will surely struggle in the face of any future mandate.
The IAI/Elta test aircraft tail section, fitted with two FlightGuard pulse doppler (PD) antennas, each covering a 60° sector (for a total of 120°) of the stern area of the aircraft (Photo: P Allen/Jane's)