Now Embraer has released an image of a Predator class medium-altitude UAV, under development by the recently established Harpia Sistemas. The aircraft is distinguished by a twin-boomed tailed, aft end fuselage propeller and dolphin-shaped nose to potentially house a beyond line-of-sight antenna. No information on data or capabilities was provided, however the aircraft is likely to be one step above the performance of the Hermes 450, already in service with the Brazilian Air Force.

Embraer is rapidly expanding  its defense division and joint-ventures like Harpia are key factors to develop the necessary future defense technologies in today’s highly competitive defense market. Embraer’s main priority is to equip and support the Brazilian UAV market, but it is clear that Embraer has its eyes in dominating the Latin American market by following the steps of the successful EMB-314 Super Tucano primary trainer and the highly anticipated KC-390 cargo aircraft.

It is time to bring back Vietnam War era CAS/COIN tactics and merge them with 21^st century weapons, technology and platform. LAAR’s winner will not bring the glamor of the F-16C/D, F/A-18E/F or F-15E; nevertheless, it will perform many of legacy aircraft CAS missions for about one $1 thousand per flight hour.

For the first time since the Vietnam War, the U.S. military is set to make a decision to acquire between 55-100 CAS/COIN aircrafts from two finalists: Hawker Beachcraft, teaming up with Lockheed Martin to provide the AT-6B and Brazilian aircraft manufacture Embraer, teaming up with U.S. based company Sierra Nevada to provide the A-29B Super Tucano.

LAAR’s winner will be capable of flying at altitudes up to 30,000 ft. above sea level, with a range up to 900 nautical miles, competently able to perform 6 hours missions. The aircraft will be fitted with fuel tanks, multi-function display (MFD) and fully compatible head up display (HUD) with night vision goggle (NVG). It will also be able to perform a numerous of missions such as streaming video, forwarding air control, escort missions, CAS, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). At the same time using a wide-range of equipped such as electro-optical, infrared and laser sensors. LAAR will be armed with .50 caliber machine guns pods, 2.75 inch rocket pods, air-to-ground missiles like the Hellfire or Maverick, AIM-9 air-to-air missiles, laser guided bombs including Paveway II and Paveway IV, joint attack munitions (JDAM) and small diameter bombs. The future CAS/COIN aircraft will roar like a cat, but most definitely will bite like a lion.

To those who oppose adopting such “retro” aircraft, two factors to take into consideration: 1) there isn’t many aircraft capable of performing such wide missions, with these many weapons, at such low  operating cost, and 2) the massive defense cuts just announced by the Obama administration should serve as incentives to look for cost-effective alternative solutions.

Many have favored the AT-6B arguing that is a proven platform, already adopted by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy as the T-6A Texan II for primary training. Favoritism towards the American defense establishment over foreign aircrafts, concerns about spare parts for the A-29B Super Tucano and the already known arguments about keeping jobs in the United States. However, many of these arguments have little substance. Unlike the A-29B Super Tucano, the AT-6B was not originally developed for CAS/COIN missions. Consequently, Hawker Beachcraft had to scramble to beef up the AT-6B to meet LAAR requirements with a more powerful engine, strengthen airframe, wing redesign to fit hardpoints, cockpit and engine armor. Contrary to popular believe, the AT-6B, is not a U.S. design; it is based on the Pilatus PC-9M from Switzerland, constructed by Hawker Beachcraft since 1998.

The A-29B Super Tucano will be made by U.S. based company Sierra Nevada in Jacksonville, Florida. The A-29B is combat proven, build from the ground up for CAS/COIN missions, therefore requiring no modifications and has outsold the T-6A Texan II in the international market. It will be a mistake to underestimate the A-29B Super Tucano as a formidable opponent, already tested by the U.S. Navy to take part in an evaluation phase known as Imminent Fury program to develop CAS/COIN platform for special operations personnel. The AT-6B was unavailable to be evaluated by Imminent Fury, because it was still under development.

The U.S. Air Force cannot afford another disastrous and controversial acquisition program like those of the future tanker KC-X and the combat search and rescue-x (CSAR-X) competition. The U.S. military needs the 55-100 aircraft already planned for LAAR and more. The new CAS/COIN aircraft should be operated from both U.S. Air Force airbases and the U.S. Navy carriers as a cost-effective solution to the many Pentagon budget challenges ahead.

References

Fogleman, Ronald. “Making the Right Choice for a LAAR”. Lexington Institutes, June 29, 2011, <http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/making-the-right-choice-for-a-laar?a=1&c=1171>

George, Fred. “Pilot Report: Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B”. Aviation Week, July 30, 2011,<http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/07/30/awx_07_30_2010_p0-244911.xml>

Warwick, Graham. “U.S. Wants COIN Aircraft for Foreign”. Aviation Week, May 19, 2011, <http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2011/04/01/DT_04_01_2011_p38-297236.xml&headline=null&next=10>

Features
The Raven back-packable system which features two air vehicles or AVs, a ground control unit, remote video terminal, transit cases and support equipment. Two specially trained Airmen operate the Raven AV. The AV can be controlled manually or can autonomously navigate a preplanned route.

The Raven includes a color electro-optical camera and an infrared camera for night operations. The air vehicle is hand-launched, weighs less than 5 pounds and an endurance of up to 80 minutes.

History
The Raven UAS has proven itself in combat supporting U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other areas of conflict. The Raven is now used by all of the military services. The Air Force purchased the Raven UAS to replace the Desert Hawk UAS.

UAV RQ-11B Raven Technical Specifications

Design Features

The helicopter features a state-of-the-art ballistic tolerant composite high efficiency fully articulated five-blade main rotor and a four-bladed tail rotor granting smooth riding together with high speed and low vibration and noise signature. The roomy unobstructed cabin, capable of hosting up to 18 troops, has large sliding doors allowing easy and quick access and egress for troops and the loading of bulky equipment.

With a fully digitised avionics with open architecture and fully integrated mission equipment, a modern glass cockpit and a 4-axis auto-pilot reducing pilot workload and helping the crew concentrate on the mission, the TUHP 149 is specifically designed for the modern battlefield with redundant critical systems.

The helicopter is characterised by a rugged construction incorporating crashworthy features, armoured pilot seats, crashworthy troop seats, and self sealing fuel tanks to maximise survivability.

Easy ground handling and taxiing as well as operation from unprepared terrain is made possible by the heavy-duty nose-wheel high energy absorbing, semi-retractable landing gear for higher speed.

Two 2,000 sph GE CT7-2E1 turboshafts engines with FADEC deliver high performance in hot and high conditions with outstanding one engine inoperative capabilities.

The TUHP 149 is endowed with the latest all weather day-night operational capabilities, dedicated avionics and a NVG-compatible cockpit while icing protection will be available as an option.

The TUHP 149, by its open architecture design, would be fitted with role kit equipment and systems according to customer demand to fulfil the existing as well as prospective new roles undertaken by the final operator.

The TUHP 149 features low signatures (acoustic, IR and radar) and an advanced integrated self-protection suite. Advanced sensors, communication and data sharing systems provide the crew with high situational awareness and enable the TUHP 149 to perform the mission in the today and tomorrow network-centric environments.

Role Capabilities

The aircraft can be configured to carry a variety of multiply combined stores, comprising external auxiliary tanks and weapon systems, on external pylons including rocket launchers, air-to-surface and machine-guns. Pintle-mounted machine-guns can be fitted on fixed frame windows or in relation to the doors. Structural provisions for the installation of external cargo hook, heavy duty rescue hoist and all the other mission dependent equipments are provided.

The TUHP 149, thanks to the modular concept design for rapid role re-configuration, is perfectly suited to perform an impressive number of duties such as troop transport, battlefield and logistic operations, fire support, SAR and combat SAR, special forces operations, reconnaissance, surveillance, CASEVAC, command control & communication, external load lifting as well as VIP military transport.

The TUHP 149 has been conceived to ease support services and reduce cost of ownership optimizing aircraft effectiveness and minimizing maintenance requirements within the whole helicopter life-cycle and dedicated support and training services package can be provided on a cost effective through life support basis. A full “Level D” flight simulator is also envisaged.

Turkish Utility Helicopter TUHP 149

With a maximum takeoff gross weight of 114,000 pounds, the FB-111A was 75.5 feet long, 17 feet high, and had a wing span of 34 feet with the wings fully swept or 70 feet with the wings forward. The bomber version had a 3.5 foot extension on each wingtip for range improvement, additional avionics equipment, new engines, and a reinforced landing gear and fuselage to accommodate a heavier gross weight. The FB-111A was a two-engine jet bomber with afterburner. The engines ware integral to the fuselage. The variable geometry wings were attached high on the fuselage and can be swept back from 16 to 72.5. The crew consists of a pilot and a navigator sitting side by side in a cockpit that is designed as an emergency escape module.

The initial flight of FB-111A took the sky in July 1967 with the first production aircraft delivered in August 1968. The F-111 had cost overrun problems and bad publicity; so only 76 were built. It was later labeled as an interim bomber to provide a better, low-level penetration capability until a B-52 replacement was built.

Although the range of the FB-111A is better than the fighter version, it is still only a medium-range bomber that requires both additional tanker support and preferential basing. Due to its small size, there is little space for modification, thereby limiting adaptability and flexibility. For example, it is impossible to expand its ECM capability to counter new threats or to enhance its offensive avionics by adding new technology electronics. There are, however, some advantages to the FB-111A over previous medium-range bombers. Its design is optimized for performance both at high and low altitude. It has a smaller RCS with a terrain following capability, making it a very effective low altitude penetrator. It also has an improved survivability due to its ability to get airborne quickly and away from its ground alert location. The two engines of the FB-111A can be started quickly, and it has a shorter takeoff roll than its predecessors. Further, the payload is not as limited as the B-58 since the FB-111A can carry up to 24 conventional bombs. However, this requires external carriage which restricts the wing sweep and degrades the range. The nuclear payload is two internal SRAM/gravity bombs and up to four external pylon-mounted weapons.

The cost overruns, bad publicity and range limitation stacked poorly in comparison to the B-52 and the new B-1 on the drawing board resulted in the FB-111 program being scaled back. The FB-111 however could adapt to different roles because mission flexibility was designed in, but its very size limited its range, modification space available, and payload. To overcome some of these drawbacks, SAC initiated several studies to stretch the FB-111A to improve its capabilities, but none resulted in a modification program. The modified design would have lengthened the existing FB-111A so as to increase fuel load capacity, space available for electronics, and internal and external weapons payload. The more powerful F-101 engine would have replaced the existing engines. It was estimated that the FB-111' s range would have been increased by about 1,200 nm by this modification and that the aircraft's total payload would have been increased to 15 nuclear weapons.

Interest for the aircraft developed again in 1980 with the Long Range Combat Aircraft (LRCA) studies. FBl-111A and F-111D aircraft were examined for conversion to an FB-11lB/C version. Again, the fuselage was to be lengthened to allow fuel, payload, electronics, and engine thrust enhancement. This proposal was dropped when the Air Force chose a modified B-l for the LRCA over the FB-111B/C design. But it should be pointed out that even with these improvements, the FB-111 could not match the range or payload of the long-range B-52 or the B-1.

The Australian government ordered 24 F-111C aircraft in 1963 to replace the RAAF's English Electric Canberra. The British government ordered 50 F-111K aircraft in 1967. The F-111K was based on the F-111A, modified for British equipment and weapons. This included weapons bay changes, compatibility with the Martel anti-shipping missile, and the addition of a retractable refueling probe and the use of FB-111A landing gear for a higher gross take off weight. Prototypes of both the strike and TF-111K trainer aircraft were started and were in the final stages of build when the order was cancelled just over a year later. Updated estimates of performance indicated that range and speed at altitude would be worse than expected and fall short of the specification. Cost increase together with devaluation of the pound meant that the cost would be around £3 million each and this was the reason cited for cancellation.

In a nutshell, The F-111 was in service with the USAF from 1967 through 1998. It entered active service with the Royal Australian Air Force in 1973 and is currently scheduled to remain with the RAAF until 2010.

F-111F Technical Specifications

The XB-70A program came out from the Boeing Aircraft Corporation's MX-2145 Project after Boeing along with the Band Corporation conducted studies relating to the type of weapon system required to deliver high-yield special weapons. The study included intercontinental bombers, delivering both gravity bombs and pilot-less parasite bombers; manned bombers, air-refueled by tankers to attend their ranges and cover round-trip intercontinental distances; manned aircraft and drone bomber combinations; and unmanned bombers. During the study, the Air Force requested to further include possible trade-off information on weight for speed, weight for range and speed for range. Boeing managed to present the requested information on 22 January 1954, pointing out the possibilities of a bomber aircraft powered by chemically augmented nuclear power plants. It was B-70.

In May 1946, the Army Air Forces signed a treaty with the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, conferring on the highly classified

The aircraft was designed for all weathers at speeds above Mach one.

The crew of the aircraft was designed to seat at a pressurized compartment, cooled with refrigeration at Mach speeds. The features of the aircraft included boundary-layer diverter, windshield defogging, detachable aerial refueling probe, single-point ground refueling, integral fuel tanks, rotary bomb bay door serving as weapon carrier combination, tip ailerons and short cord spars, dive brakes, liquid oxygen system, variable horizontal tail and two deceleration chutes. 

The design immediately ran into serious difficulties over the inertial guidance bombing and navigation system, which, had the bomber been approved for production, would have pushed deployment back to at least 1963.

None of the XB-68 prototypes were built after recognizing the fact that the medium tactical bomber design was still years away. 

Existing B-36s were swept-wing, all-jet aircrafts. Earlier, a letter issued by the Air Force supplemented the basic B-36 contract and authorized Convair to convert two B-36Fs into prototype B-36Gs, entirely outfitted with turbojets but capable of accommodating turboprop engines.

The proposed B-36G however had very little in common with the B-36F, forcing the Air Force to determined that the B-60 level would be assigned to the aircraft, because of the striking change in physical appearance and upgrading in performance over that of the conventional B-36 aircraft. 

In August 1951, confusion about the configuration of the B-60 prototypes obliged the manufacturer to recommend that at first only two stripped aircrafts will be developed. Accepting responsibility for the error, the manufacturer also proposed that the second YB-60 later be completed as a full tactical model. This meant that separate specifications would have to be developed for each prototype aircraft. The Air Force agreed to this proposal. 

The B-60 prototype differed significantly from the B-36 by featuring swept-back wings and swept-back tail surfaces, a new needle-nose radome, a new type of support power system, and 8 Pratt & Whitney J57-P-3 jet engines, fit in pairs inside pods suspended below and forward of the leading edge of the wings. Another special feature of the YB-60 was that its extended tail, which enabled the aircraft to remain in a level position for a considerable period of time during takeoff, with a gross weight of 280,000 pounds, after only 4,000 feet of ground roll.

Convair was able to use the J57-P-3 Boeing designed nacelles and engine pods, which seemed to be a distinct advantage over other aircrafts of the time. This was particularly true, since the J57 engine was itself the product of an intensive effort to develop a high-thrust turbojet with low fuel consumption. In 1952, production of the aircraft started but the engines were in short supply. The prototype's eighth J57-P-3 engine finally arrived at the Convair's Fort Worth plant in April 1952. 

On 18 April 1952, B-60 first flew from the Convair's Fort Worth plant. The 66 minute flight was hampered by bad weather, but two subsequent flights proved successful. The B-60 displayed excellent handling characteristics. Convair test-flew the first YB-60 for 66 hours, accumulated in 20 flights; the Air Force, some 15 hours, in 4 flights. This encouraging start however, did not prevail in the long run. Flight testing of the aircraft ended on 20 January in the following year as the second YB-60, although 93 percent complete, was not flown at all. This was due to worrisome test results and a number of deficiencies including engine surge, control system buffet, rudder flutter, and problems with the electrical engine-control system.

The US Air Force canceled the B-60 program as it could not compete with similar aircrafts of the same time. The project's sole purpose was to be a B-36 successor. The YB-52 demonstrated better performance and greater improvement potential than the YB-60. The YB-52's first flight on 15 April 1952; 3 days ahead of the YB-60's; was an impressive success and generated great enthusiasm. The Convair prototype's stability was unsatisfactory because of the high aerodynamic forces acting upon the control surfaces and the low aileron effectiveness of the plane.

The B-60 program was canceled in 1952, and testing of the stripped prototype ended in January 1953. Convair even though tried to convince the Air Force, that the YB-60s should be used as experimental test-beds for turbo propeller engines. Budget constrains and the YB-60's several unsafe characteristics forced the Air Force to turn down Convair's tempting proposal.

The cost of the two B-60 prototypes was set at $14,366,022. This figure, included Convair's fee, the contract termination cost, and the amount spent on the necessary minimum of spare parts.

The Air Force destroyed the two YB-60s in June 1954.