全防：颶風戰機的RBE-2雷達裝備有主動電子掃描天線.......

尖端：拜兩具總推力達18,XXXkg的M88-3引擎之賜，在會場上空表演的颶風戰機靠著先進的氣動外型設計與1.4以上的推重比，做出一連串超低空高機動不掉速特技飛行，狠狠地羞辱了各國現役第四代戰機（這應該是俄式戰機分代法）一番.........

雖然勝負早已分出, 不過一些形式上的儀式動作還是得完成; 南韓國防部將於本週五舉行完高層會議之後, 對外正式發佈F-X戰機競標案的最終勝出者...............

（在俺25大壽的前兩天發佈這種噩耗, 簡直是觸俺的霉頭....@!#$%^*~&?）

看完之後發現先潛看到的令一篇文章講到：美國一些主動陣列的雷達其實可以直接以現有的系統將天線換掉之後，更換一些硬體就是新系統了。APG-80是以APG-68換主動天線之後的產品，南韓的APG-63（V）1也可以換成主動天線。

Program Office Helps Make B-2 Stealthier

(Source : US Department of Defense ; issued Apr. 15, 2002)

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, Okla. -- Air Force B-2 Spirit bombers will soon get a more precise radar-absorbing materials coating and have it done 80 percent faster. Radar-absorbing materials and how they are applied play a major factor in being undetected by enemy radar, officials said.

The amount of reduced energy, which returns to an enemy's radar, is directly proportional to the increase in stealth effectiveness, officials said.

"When applying magnetic radar absorbing material, it's critical to make sure the coatings' thickness and location are controlled, so we transitioned from a manual application technique to a robotics system to make sure we met tolerances and achieved the added benefit of reducing labor costs," said Brian Kilburn, B-2 system program office low observable integrated product team deputy director.

He said the joint government and industry team will use robots from a worldwide manufacturer of automotive robotics.

"We integrated four of them together and are choreographing applications of radar absorbing materials onto the B-2," Kilburn said. "This is in support of the alternate high frequency material low observable maintainability modification, a major stealth modification planned for the B-2."

The newly configured B-2 will improve mission capable rates by more than 8 percent and reduce maintenance man-hours per flying hour by 50 percent, a significant cost savings to the program, he said.

The robotic system was installed in the production depot maintenance facilities at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif., and experts are validating the robot's performance on a full sized mock-up of the B-2, Kilburn said. The first application on an operational jet will be this fall.

"We're going to train a minimum of 12 people and operate with four to six people per shift," he said. "This will save 10,000 labor hours per aircraft install."

http://news.yam.com/cna/international/news/200204/200204191250126.html
韓國選定美製F-15K為國防新一代戰機

(中央社記者姜遠珍漢城十九日專電) 韓國政府已決定將美國波音公司生產的F-15K戰機，遴選為韓國國防新一代戰機，將至二○○九年為止，共計投資四十四億六千六百八十八萬美元，採購並實戰部署四十架F-15K戰機。

韓國「聯合新聞通訊社」今天報導指出，韓國國防部次官權永孝今天在國防部影像會議室主持了由外交通商部、產業資源部等有關部會司長級官員參加的跨會部擴大 (武器) 獲得會議中，作出了前述決定，並計畫於下午舉行記者會正式宣布此項決定。

據瞭解，韓國政府在選定新一代戰機機種時，是透過「空軍次期戰鬥機事業評價團」、「國防研究院」、「國防科學研究所」及「國防調達 (招商) 本部」四個評估單位，對於美國波音公司生產的F-15K、法國達梭公司生產的Rafale (狂風) 、俄羅斯蘇愷公司生產的SU-35，以及英德諸國聯合生產的European FighterTyphoon 2000等四種機種進行評估。

韓國國防部所設計的評價基準為：壽命週期費用 (佔35.33%) 、任務執行能力 (34.55%) 、軍運用適合性(18.13%) 、技術轉移及契約條件 (11.99%) ，於前述四個機種進行評估角逐後，已將選購機種範圍縮小到F-15K與Rafale之間，由於兩者之評估差距小於百分之三，而進入了第二階段的評估。

國防部高級官員透露，第二階段的評估，則以韓國政府與有關戰機的生產國家之間，在安保、外交及經貿層次的關係為考量，即，決定選購機種後，對韓國的國家安保、對外關係以及拓展海外市場等將會帶來何等影響與作用，尤其，當考慮到韓美同盟關係及協防體制等政治因素，而決定選擇美國波音公司生產的F-15K戰機。

據悉，當韓國國防部與美國波音公司就銷售金額方面完成議價，將於五月間經由金大中總統裁示後，雙方才能正式簽署F-15K戰機的採購契約。

在今年二、三月之間，以老美為首的西方聯軍對阿富汗塔利班政權所採取的一連串軍事行動之中，老法海軍最引以為豪的新銳航空母艦：目前配備十八架各式機種，四萬餘噸級的查理斯．戴高樂號中型核動力空母也正好躬逢其盛，於距離巴基斯坦八十多公里的阿曼灣海域上展開部署，成為西方反恐行動整體戰力中的一環。

然而除了支援響應老美的反恐行動外，查理斯．戴高樂號還另有要事在身，那就是利用這個難得的機會，對其艦上新近服役的七架新銳戰機：RAFALE M F-1進行實戰操作與多國海軍聯合作戰訓練。

目前配備於戴高樂號艦上的七架RAFALE M均屬F-1純空優構型，標準武裝配備為四枚MICA ER雷達導引中程AAM與兩枚魔法二型全向位短程AAM；由於老法國防預算吃緊造成RAFALE的服役時程延後，而法國海軍航空隊先前的防空主力機種，F-8P十字軍式戰機又於1998年全數退役完畢，因此造成在1999至2001年整整三年之間，法國海軍航艦上無長程區域防空能力可言的窘境，是故今年RAFALE M的正式服役對法國海軍而言，不啻是久旱逢甘霖，足以喜極而泣的喜訊；由於阿富汗塔利班政權沒有值得一提的空軍戰力，因此目前僅具備空戰能力的F1構型機在整個任務期間英雄無用武之地，並未正式介入這場行動，而僅是繼續進行自身的例行換裝訓練工作而已，不過艦上人員表示，目前配備於艦上的七架RAFALE M F-1已經具備完善空戰能力，如有必要的話，隨時可加入艦隊防空任務。

自1998年正式交機以來至今，已有八架RAFALE M F-1進入法國海軍航空隊服役，然而由於法國海軍將初號機暫借給達騷集團供研發F2構型之用，因此目前在戴高樂號上服役操作的實際數量為七架；其中二號機與三號機是在去年年底登艦，四、五、六號機則於今年二月登艦服役，而七號與八號機則是在今年三月十日，歷經四次空中加油，不著陸飛行約5500km之後，直接從法國南部飛至在阿曼灣海域服勤的戴高樂號上正式登艦服勤。預定在今年夏天之前，九號機與十號機也將登艦服勤，屆時第一個RAFALE艦載型戰機中隊（12F中隊）的換裝訓練工作也將告一段落，正式進入服勤操作階段。

目前正在如火如荼進行研發的F.2構型可望在2004年年底開始交機，因此預定於2007年正式進入服勤操作階段的第二個RAFALE艦載型戰機中隊（11F中隊）將使用此構型機種；和只能擔任空優作戰的F1構型相較，F.2構型增添了能使用SCALP-EG等對地攻擊武器的對地打擊戰力；至於具備完整區域空優、對地攻擊、反艦作戰、電子偵查和核子打擊能力的完整版F.3構型則將在明年進入研究發展階段，如果一切順利的話，將於2007年起開始交機；若一切均按照計畫的話，到2012年年底前，法國海軍所訂購的60架RAFALE艦載機型將全數交貨完畢，並於2014年之前全數達到服勤操作階段，在法國海軍航艦上服勤直到至少2027年以後；在最大搭載狀況下，戴高樂號核動力空母將可攜帶操作32架RAFALE，其餘未登艦戰機則將安放在Landivisiau後勤基地中。

法國海軍航空隊過去從未有操作過雙座戰機的經驗，然而受到1999年期間，西方聯軍南斯拉夫作戰經驗的影響：在低空、惡劣天候、高強度戰場執行對地打擊作戰任務時，無論是任務執行效率與安全性，雙座機型均比單座機型擁有顯著優勢。因此在去年，法國國防部長遂決定將海軍原先所訂購的60架單座RAFALE M更改為25架單座RAFALE M與35架雙座RAFALE N；雙座型RAFALE N的原型機於2005年出廠進行飛試工作，至於正式量產型RAFALE N的交機工作預定則將於2007年展開，從發展時程上來看，大概所有的F3構型機種均屬於雙座型RAFALE N。由於艦載機獨特的著艦衝擊與彈射起飛等問題，RAFALE N的設計工作無法直接照抄空軍型的RAFALE C（單座空軍型，空重約10000kg）--> RAFALE B（雙座空軍型，空重約10350kg），為了承受著艦衝擊與彈射起飛衝力，相較於單座型的RAFALE M（其空重已經比RAFALE C重上500至600kg），雙座型的RAFALE N的部份機體結構必須進行增加額外重量的強化處理，為了使RAFALE N的空重維持在合理範圍內以利艦上操作與維持飛行性能，RAFALE N將取消30mm固定機炮設計（連同彈藥重量，此舉將可以減省200至250公斤左右的機身重量。），此外其內載燃料箱也將比單座型略小些，使其作戰航程比單座型短上5%左右。目前法國海軍航空隊對於RAFALE N戰機上的後座飛官要如何“使用”仍有兩派不同的意見：單純的武器系統操作官（WSO），或是成為第二飛行員，能在緊急狀況下取代前座飛行員，直接操控整架戰機。

RAFALE 艦載型換裝時程表：

2002年：
＃第一RAFALE艦載型戰機中隊（12F中隊）正式進入服勤階段，配備十架單座防空F1構型。

2003年：
＃全功能F3構型進入研發階段。

2004年：
＃首架防空＋對地攻擊雙功能F2構型於年底之前交機。

2005年：
＃F2構型機在法國海空軍陸續交機。
＃第二RAFALE艦載型戰機中隊（11F中隊）陸續接受配備單座F2構型機。
＃雙座型RAFALE N的原型機正式出廠，進行飛試。

2006年：
＃艦載型RAFALE的交機速率將固定在每年六架，直到2012年為止
（2006~2007年：雙功能F2構型，2007~2012年：全功能F3構型）

2007年：
＃第二RAFALE艦載型戰機中隊（11F中隊）正式進入服勤階段。
＃第一RAFALE艦載型戰機中隊（12F中隊）所配備的戰機接受構型升級（升級為F2構型？）
＃首架正式量產雙座型RAFALE N交機。
＃首架F3構型量產型交機。
（RAFALE N＝RAFALE F3構型艦載型？？）

2012年：
＃法國海軍航空隊所訂購的60架艦載型於年底前全數交貨完畢。

雖然該篇文章並未明言，不過個人猜測，在2012年以後，法國海軍航空隊的疾風戰機中隊之構型編制應為：

1. 25架F2構型單座Ｍ型機，主司艦隊防空，必要時可使用SCALP-EG與LGB兼差對地攻擊，配屬於12F中隊（過去使用F8十字軍式戰機，專司防空任務）與11F中隊（目前使用超級軍旗式戰機，負責反艦／打擊／核攻任務）。

2. 35架F3構型雙座多功能Ｎ型機，主司對地攻擊（SCALP-EG, NSSM）、反艦作戰（空射型飛魚, ANF）、電子偵查和核子打擊（ASMP-A），必要狀況下亦可分擔艦隊防空任務，主要配屬於14F中隊（目前使用超級軍旗式戰機，負責反艦／打擊／核攻任務）與16F中隊（目前使用軍旗IVP式戰機，主司偵察任務），至於11F中隊在正式配備疾風戰機服勤的時程、作戰任務導向、Ｍ型機與Ｎ型機的相對數量等諸多因素影響下，說不定會混編使用Ｍ型機與Ｎ型機。

Eurofighter Program Officials Look Ahead To Future Developments

WARTON, Lancashire - With the four-nation Eurofighter program gaining momentum from the initial flights this month of the first production aircraft in Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, and from the first service deliveries slated for this fall, plans for further development of this ambitious European program already are taking shape.

Leon Skorczewski, BAE Systems' director of product development and strategy, said in an interview last week that the company is seeking to further extend Eurofighter's operational capabilities, using the massive baseline European investment which already has been made.

"With a potential service life between 2003 and 2043, the Eurofighter is likely to be flown by three generations of pilots, about half of whom have not yet been born," he said. "Current production commitments [for 620 aircraft] are due to end in around 2015, but the Eurofighter has been designed with an enormous growth potential. Joint development would also be facilitated by the European partners from shared enhancement costs."

In May 2001, the program's European partners and industry groups endorsed a one-year Industrial Concept Definition Study (ICDS) to assess operational goals, future roles, engineering options, development routes and provision needs. Its four-phase program began with concept options, followed by concept solutions in 2-3 packages, for a mid-term review in October 2001. The next phase, to January 2002, was allocated to concept consolidation, to define the changes required in Tranche 2 Eurofighter production for each package. A costed plan for Tranche 3 alternative development packages emerged in the final phase, which was due to end last week.

The first enhancement concept was agreed to at a Madrid meeting last September. It involves equipment and systems upgrades, in several areas, including range extension; precision attack; weapons; survivability, deployability and affordability; interoperability; and air superiority improvements.

Initial production

Other enhancements considered included further development of the current Eurofighter design and build standard through architecture changes with the same external profile; external configuration changes to maximize air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities; and a completely new aircraft.

Some technology enhancements already are programmed in the initial 620 aircraft four-country Eurofighter commitment, which is being ordered in three discrete five-year tranches. Tranche 1 involves an initial production of 148 baseline Eurofighters, for four-country delivery in several batches between 2002 and late 2005. These aircraft are optimized for air-to-air roles, using MBDA ASRAAMs, Raytheon AIM-9Ls, and Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs, with helmet-mounted sight/displays.

By 2004-05, Tranche 1 Eurofighters will incorporate Have Quick hopsets, an integrated approach and landing aid, and provision for delivering independently designated Paveway II or GBU-16 laser-guided bombs. They also will have an enhanced air defense capability with the addition of full direct-voice control and preliminary defensive aids (DASS).

Batch 2 contracts in Tranche 1 will be signed in early 2004, followed shortly afterwards by delivery of the first Batch 2 single-seat version (BS004) to the Royal Air Force.

Batch 1 RAF Eurofighters are expected to achieve full operational capability (FOC) standards in late 2004. Eurofighter's first real swing-role air-to-surface mission systems and sensor capability, however, is planned for the 236 aircraft of Tranche 2, for scheduled delivery between 2005 and 2010.

With new mission computer standards; updated radar processors; MIDS data-links; identification friend or foe; Global Positioning System and DASS upgrades; and forward-looking infrared/infrared search and track with laser designation and sensor fusion, Tranche 2 Eurofighters will be cleared to operate with such additional weapons as the IRIS-T, AIM-120C-5 and later MBDA Meteor air-to-air missiles.

Their air-to-surface armory will be expanded to include MBDA Storm Shadow or Taurus KEPD 350 long-range cruise missiles, plus laser- and GPS/INS-guided weapons.

These enhancements will be introduced progressively, resulting in block numbers within each of the three production tranches as an indication of their standard. Blocks 1,2 and 5 will be in Tranche 1; Blocks 8,10 and 15 will be in Tranche 2, and Blocks 20 and 25 will be in Tranche 3.

With additional four-nation options for another 90, Tranche 3 will comprise the final 236 Eurofighters from the initial 620-aircraft contract, due for manufacture between 2009 and 2015, a lead time that would allow the Eurofighter program to implement some of the options emerging from the recent ICDS. Further enhanced operational capabilities will allow such role extensions as extended air defense, against cruise missiles; suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD); and reconnaissance.

Although Euroradar's ECR 90 Captor multimode pulse-Doppler radar has an unrivalled performance for a mechanically scanned system, access to adaptive active phased-array technology is available with the European AMSAR program. A government-funded technology demonstrator is being integrated into Eurofighter, in accordance with Tranche 3 production program planning, said Achim Aehlig, the product development manager of Eurofighter GmbH.

Tranche 3 options

Other Tranche 3 options under consideration include Link 22 and Satcom communications for improved interoperability; conformal fuel tanks, in conjunction with inboard pylon wet stations and double capacity (528 USG) drop tanks; covert terrain following; advanced EW decoys beyond the current wingtip towed systems; lower radar cross section and IRS; plus two- or three-dimensional thrust-vectoring for Eurofighter's EJ200 turbofans, which are being developed in Germany and Spain.

Full care free handling clearance

Interest also has been reported from Germany and Italy in possible aerodynamic improvements by adding small inner-wing leading-edge strakes, in conjunction with flight-control system software integration, for improved directional and lateral stability in the high alpha regime. On the engine side for Tranche 3, Eurojet is looking at a larger compressor for the EJ200 for power or life cycle cost enhancements, plus a substantial increase in the initial 1,600-hour overhaul life.

BAE Systems' chief test pilot Paul Hopkins said the increased test sortie availability of instrumented initial production aircraft in three of the consortium countries, plus recent clearances for air-to-air refueling, have helped attain full carefree handling clearance of the Eurofighter.

2. 目前預定之交機時間與批次：
Tranch1：2002~2005, 計148架, 分為Block1, 3, 5三階段生產標準交機
Tranch2：2005~2010, 計236架, 分為Block8, 10, 15三階段生產標準交機
Tranch3：2010~2015, 計236架, 分為Block20, 255三階段生產標準交機

3. Tranch1以防空任務為主要工作, 主戰裝備為AIM-120 + AIM-9或ASRAAM + HMD; 不過在2004~2005交機服役的中後期生產標準型在略作修改之後, 將具有投射Paveway II或GBU-16等LGB的部份對地打擊功能, 另外DASS系統與DVI的所有功能也將於此時開發完成.

4. Tranch2可說是EF-2000大成階段, 在完成任務電腦, 雷達處理器, MIDS資料鏈, GPS導航系統, DASS電戰系統的升級工作與被動式偵搜系統的整合工作之後,EF2000方能真正達成目前廠商於宣傳上所宣稱的能力; 在空優方面, 其將陸續增添使用AIM-120 C5, IRIS-T以及隨後流星中長程AAM的能力, 至於對地作戰方面則將拓展使用風暴之影與KEPD350等距外遠攻飛彈和laser- and GPS/INS-guided武器之能力.

5. Tranch3將拓展extended air defense, 反巡航飛彈, SEAD和偵察任務等方面的能力, 目前其考慮中的升級改良方案選擇有：

a. 由AMSAR計畫所衍生發展而來, 改良自現有CAPTOR PD雷達之AESA化雷達.（這似乎是目前唯一已確定會被採用的改良方案）

b. Interoperability增進: Link 22 and Satcom communications

c. 燃料酬載的增加：使用適型油箱 + inboard 派龍改良以使用528 USG超大型副油箱

d. 戰場存活率提升：導入地貌追延能力, 先進EW拖曳式誘餌, 雷達截面積縮小與紅外線訊跡減訊

e. EJ-200引擎動力系統改良：使用新型壓縮器, 可使推力提升或維持現有推力但減少life cycle cost, 並延長引擎大修間隔（目前為1600小時)

f. 機動力提升：使用2D或3D向量推力, 增添inner-wing leading-edge strakes以增進戰機在高攻角狀態下的穩定性.

6. 更長遠的改進計畫：

a. Further development of the current EF-2000 design

b. Build standard through architecture changes with the same external profile;

c. External configuration changes to maximize air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities

以下是老戰機：
F-15:應該只有Mountain Home的有JTIDS 其它的有地空Link4
F-14：D有JTIDS A型有自己的Link（與Link4相容的樣子)
F-16：都只有IDM（Have Quick無線電） 歐洲的MLU才有空戰能力
F-18：只有地空Link4
龍捲風F3:全配JTIDS
海鵟：照上文看來 也有JTIDS，不過也快除役了

文中可以看出新一代歐系戰機在未來國際軍武市場上的外銷前景會是何等慘澹：在政治與經濟等多重因素影響下，歐洲新世代戰機的發展時程迭遭延宕，較原先的預定推遲將近十年以上，且配備與功能完善的完成機型遲遲無法推出，以至於在目前的國際間軍機外銷競爭中，只有外表美觀，卻無實質內涵的紙面推估性能資料數字可以示人，根本無從和發展成熟，配備完善且擁有輝煌戰績的現役美系戰機競爭，而等到其發展完成時，卻又將遇上美製F-35系列這外銷魅力無與倫比的無敵對手............

在歐洲三大新世代戰機之中，JAS-39 GRIPEN 是成軍最早，發展完成度最高且最為價廉物美者，然而即便是如此，本文作者指出：JAS-39不僅缺乏實戰驗證，且在敵我識別／通訊／導航／資料鏈等重要系統上仍未能達成NATO規範標準，而在武器系統上也只能使用AIM-9L、AIM-120B、AGM-65A之流老一代的美系配備，而尚未能兼容使用最新的美系空用武器規格，例如AIM-9M/X, AIM-120 C-5, AGM-65G等等.....這對目前正打算積極融入NATO防禦體系的波蘭政府而言，無疑是令人無法接受的狀況；雖然JAS-39的生產商（SAAB與BAE）一再聲稱這些問題可經由升級改裝解決，然而任何的升級改裝都是得耗費額外成本費用、測試時間與潛在失敗風險的，和發展成熟，戰功彪炳並早已成為多數NATO成員武器標準規格之一的F-16系列相較之下，JAS-39的劣勢顯而易見。而如果連發展最為成熟，服役最為順利且操作成本最為低廉的JAS-39都是如此的話，EF2000與RAFALE的外銷處境之艱困就更別提了........

個人開始懷疑：在未來二、三十年間的新一代戰機國際外銷市場上，除了JAS-39會有難滿百位數的少許成績外，歐製戰機系列搞不好會徹底絕跡..........

[Article by Zdzislaw Dyrman discusses aspects that should be considered in making choice of the multipurpose fighter plane for Poland: "Fighter for Polish Sky -- Selected Aspects for Making Choice" ]

Persons interested in our national defense entertain differing opinions about the multipurpose combat plane for Poland. The opinions of experts on the advantages and disadvantages of the designs of the planes proposed by bidders for the Polish tender are divided. That is because to some experts certain issues matter more than others. For example, they consider the question of industrial co-production to be more important than technical specifications and combat potential. In the article below I intend to present selected but so far rarely discussed factors impacting the selection of a multipurpose fighter plane for Poland.

A major argument cited in favor of the F-16 is its widespread use and positive experience in its operation and in combat. It must be admitted that these two aspects are decidedly in favor of the American fighter plane. Altogether, more than 4,000 F-16's have been built and are used in several dozen countries around the world. Their production is ongoing and will be continued until at least the end of the present decade [as published]: As ensues from the orders placed so far the total of the F-16's built will reach nearly 4,600 in 2020. The F-16 will still account for more than one-third of the combat plane fleet of the US air forces for the next 15 to 20 years. Whatever the region of an eventual conflict in the world, the infrastructure for operating this plane is already in place there. This may prove very helpful, but this fact, while it should not be ignored, does not in itself tip the scales for selecting that plane.

The F-16's extensive combat experience in various kinds of conflicts, including the famous Israeli-Syrian air battle in the Bekaa Valley in 1982, in conditions close to a tactical scenario for a full-scale conflict, is a much more telling argument in favor of this aircraft.

As for the Gripen, it is true that it has had no opportunity for demonstrating its potential in combat, because its currently sole user, Sweden, is a neutral country. But from the military point of view this is not significant. What matters is that a particular plane take part in combat operations and emerge from them successfully.

Both the aforementioned arguments in favor of selecting the F-16 are essential, but still they cannot be considered decisive. The really decisive aspect of this question is something else that has been generally overlooked. This precisely is considered in what follows here.

What Ensues from Membership in NATO?

This is one of the most fundamental issues, as well as a major requirement of the tender underway. Why? In joining North Atlantic Treaty Organization we expected to benefit from specific advantages in return for, "unfortunately," adopting highly important obligations. The advantages are indisputable, because we have joined a group of countries with an imposing military deterrence potential, and as a result we ensured for ourselves a fairly high level of security. We can moreover reduce (that is, cut the financial outlays on) our own armed forces, because collective defense is much more efficacious, not just from the military but also from the political standpoint. Therefore, our future multipurpose combat plane must be consonant with NATO standards.

What Does It Mean for a Plane To Be Compatible With NATO Requirements?

Participation in NATO operations is the price we pay for safeguarding our security, and therefore we must take part in them. Our aircraft must be capable of participating in such operations. In theory, any aircraft equipped with appropriate IFF [Identification Friend-or-Foe] gear and NATO navigational and communications systems can take part in such operations. But that in itself is not enough. If we rest content with that, we will have to provide on our own, at our own expense, at the site of operations, the entire remaining ground logistics, weaponry, and suitable sets of spare parts. In addition, we would have to attend to the logistics of our aircraft there, in the form of logistical supply units and personnel trained in operating a particular type of aircraft. Moreover, we would have to provide several (a minimum of two) transport aircraft for ferrying the needed equipment and personnel to other airfields at which our planes (or even a single plane) would be landing owing to inclement weather, damage sustained over hostile territory, or ordinary breakdowns of on-board systems. The question arises, how much will all this logistics cost? Moreover, a logistical and repair base established at our expense in a distant theater of operations would have to operate under differing climatic and geographical conditions. For example, on Middle East airfields plagued in the spring and fall by vexatious sand storms and for much of the time by scorching heat. It would be better to have aircraft which could benefit from a uniform logistical base, typical of NATO, developed by other countries--or jointly with us. Even then, though, our aircraft would have to meet the following basic NATO requirements:

Basic Requirements

For an aircraft to be at all able to operate within NATO air forces, it has to meet certain basic requirements. They include:

--IFF gear adapted to NATO military code ranges, Mode 4, must be present on board.

--The plane must be equipped with radio gear operating in the Have Quick II system (frequency hopping in accord with a particular sequence of the actually mandatory codes).

--The plane's communications gear must be additionally equipped with the KY-58 coding system, typical of NATO.

--The plane must include an information exchange system compatible with NATO Link 16 protocol.

--The plane's navigation system (extremely precise) must be equipped with a GPS system operating within the military code ranges (these codes are accessible to the Americans, who maintain a satellite network ensuring the performance of the system).

--Flight personnel must be trained in the tactical operation of their aircraft according to NATO procedures, day and night and in any weather.

When we consider the various makes of aircraft offered as the future multipurpose plane for Poland, the principal question is whether they meet the above requirements.

Unfortunately, the Gripen, that otherwise reliable and modern combat plane, does not meet any of the above requirements. Sweden is not a NATO country, and therefore it has no access to NATO identification codes in Friend-or-Foe terms. It also lacks the Have Quick II technology (it merely has the older Have Quick I system). Similarly, it lacks access to P-Code codes for military GPS receivers and to the KY-58 coding device. The Gripen consortium, represented not only by the Swedish Saab but also the British (and hence NATO member country) BAE Systems, vouches that the export version offered to Poland will be equipped with all these devices, and its bid price includes the cost of adaptation to the aforementioned requirements. But this does not alter the fact that performing all these adaptations will be costly (perhaps more than expected), takes time, and most likely will require the consent of the US Government to providing the attendant information to the company handling the integration.

These adaptations may be handled by BAE Systems, but in themselves they are not enough. Following the physical completion of this work the performance of all the additional equipment would still have to be tested in flight. This raises the question of whether BAE Systems has available Gripen-trained British test pilots or whether it as yet intends to train them. That is because it is hardly conceivable for Swedish pilots to test the new equipment in flight, since it is supposed to remain secret to them.

Since we are speaking of pilots, another question that arises is that of training Polish WLOP [Air Force and Air Defense Troops] pilots according to NATO standards and tactical procedures, on utilizing specific properties of aircraft. But for that we need instructors trained on the Gripens and having experience in NATO operations. The Swedish air force includes a group of Gripen-trained instructors, but they certainly have no experience in utilizing broadly the tactics of NATO air forces in any weather and in various combat applications. As for the British pilots, who do have such experience, and who have not infrequently taken part in actual combat operations conducted according to the concept of using NATO air forces, they are not trained to fly the Gripen. It is likewise quite certain that there are not any British Gripen flight instructors.

Armament

Regarding armament, the matter is even more complicated. It might appear that an aircraft carrying Sidewinders, AMRAAMs, and Mavericks is quite compatible with NATO requirements. In reality, what matters is a particular version of that armament. That is because the aircraft should be capable of carrying armament that is actually being manufactured. The reasons are two: While Polish aircraft are to operate in distant theaters of operation only modern armament ensuring NATO planes with top combat effectiveness in complex combat conditions over the region can be accessible. When an aircraft is integrated with newer-generation weaponry, as a rule it can also use older weaponry (with which integration had simply taken place in an earlier stage of development, as in the case of the F-16). The converse, unfortunately, is not possible. In the event that NATO aircraft have to operate from Polish bases, should the Gripen be chosen, the WLOP would have to maintain two separate stocks of weaponry, the older for Polish planes and the more recent one for the NATO reinforcement forces. That would be a rather curious situation.

In the case of the Gripen, it has been integrated with Sidewinder, AMRAAM and Maverick missiles. As usual, however, the devil lies in the details. That is because the Gripen caries the following versions of that weaponry: AIM-9L, AIM-120B, and AGM-65A. At present, however, the versions AIM-9M, AIM-120C-5, and AGM-65G, as well as older missiles adapted to the AGM-65H version, are being manufactured. Regarding the AIM-9M missiles, Sweden has obtained permission to acquire them, but so far that country has not requested the transfer of the data needed to integrate the Gripen with them. This also applies to the AIM-120C-5. But as regards the last-named missile, it is additionally heavier and longer than the AIM-120B and integrating the Gripen with this weapon requires additional test flights and obtaining appropriate certification. As for the AGM-65G/H, the situation is even worse, because Sweden has not obtained consent to acquiring these versions of the missile. Of course, this is merely a question of following appropriate procedures, but that has to be done yet.

NATO also requires of a multipurpose aircraft that it carry laser-guided bombs (for example, of the Paveway II or III family) and GPS-guided bombs (for example, JDAM). The Gripen does not at all carry weaponry of this type. As of the present, Sweden has not obtained permission to acquire Paveway II (or Paveway III, too) bombs. There is no need to add that the Gripen has not been integrated with these weapons, and such integration requires considerable work and flight tests. The situation with GPS-guided weaponry is even worse. That is because it requires the MIL STD 1760 data bus, whereas the Gripen uses only the MIL STD 1553B data bus. Installing the newer data bus is a big job in itself, because it would require, for example, altering the power supply system. Altogether, thus, the scale of these changes is considerable and they, too, must culminate in a specified cycle of flight tests and certification process.

It should be added that these are only selected examples. There are many more questions regarding the Gripen's armament. For example, there is such an important question as anti-air defense weaponry, if only to protect the aircraft against radar-guided air defense. As for HARM missiles, we have not mentioned them at all, but it is worth noting that the Gripen carries no missiles of that class.

The Version Existing "On Paper"

The version of the Gripen plane offered to Poland simply does not exist except on paper. To be sure, such a version will some day (perhaps) be built. According to the manufacturer, the Gripens to be delivered starting in 2005 will meet NATO requirements. But when we consider the details, it turns out that this concerns the requirements binding at present, that is, in 2002. Polish multipurpose combat planes will attain full combat readiness not earlier than in 2007. Will NATO requirements change by then? Most certainly. Hence, we do not know whether the Gripen version meeting the requirements of 2002 will be compatible with NATO requirements in 2007. Perhaps yes and perhaps not. In contrast, aircraft which are even now compatible with NATO standards and are being continually modernized in order to keep meeting these changing standards are a different kettle of fish.

Recently a tender for transport aircraft, culminating in the signing of a contract with the company EADS CASA, has been conducted in Poland. Consider that the offer to acquire the Spartan plane was rejected for formal reasons: The lack of certification of the version of the Spartan offered. At the time when this decision was taken the certification process had been underway and was completed in June 2001, whereupon the aircraft met the requirements. Were our government to be consistent, the offer of the Gripen consortium would have to be rejected for the same, formal reasons.

One could ask why the interest of other, bigger countries in protecting Polish sovereignty. Well, it is exactly the same as ours. In the course of achieving their political objectives in various regions of the world, these countries rely on the support and assistance of their lesser allies, because it is politically advantageous. At the same time it enables the big countries, even if they are world powers, to reduce their own armed forces and their outlays on defense. In view of this, they cannot leave their "little allies" in the lurch. Were they to act otherwise, other countries would see no point in continuing to maintain the structure of NATO and everyone would be the loser. This delicate machinery offers us a real chance to safeguard our national security, the basis of existence of our country.

For this machinery to perform irreproachably, we too must make our own contribution to the functioning of NATO. No one expects of us any excessive efforts, but meeting elementary NATO requirements is directly linked to our own national security. This also applies to our active participation in NATO activities intended to maintain peace and stability not only in the traditional region of NATO responsibility but also wherever the unfolding situation may create a real danger to the security of NATO member countries. After 11 September 2001 this problem has acquired a completely new importance. It could be said that the rules of the game have been tightened. The time of jokes is over.

NATO-Compatible Combat Aviation

If we accept the idea that our active participation in NATO operations wherever the need arises is directly linked to our national security, we have to choose between two options.

We could be a supplier of "cannon fodder" in the form of light infantry. Then it is enough to buy rifles, helmets, and backpacks, and eventually also radio sets, and send our "boys" to the mountains of Afghanistan or to the Iraqi desert. But at the same time we would have to invest in developing military hospitals as well as purchase a considerable number of wheelchairs and prostheses for war veterans with (in the best case) legs mutilated by land mines.

The other option is to turn our military into a source of elite, well-equipped units, for example, aviation units, which in present-day conflicts play a much greater role than infantry, which performs the "dirtiest" jobs in the absence of publicity and while suffering painful casualties.

Modern aviation is also the key to an effective repulsion of aggression by an eventual enemy, especially during the first, decisive stage--the struggle for air superiority. Therefore, our combat planes, and especially the future multipurpose combat planes, must be fully compatible with NATO requirements. This concerns extremely detailed requirements, precisely in order that NATO aircraft transferred to our air bases could utilize the existing logistical structure not only with the object of restoring combat readiness but also as regards the performance of repairs, inspections, and periodic maintenance. This may happen in the event that a prolonged crisis requires long-lasting presence of NATO air forces in our country. Otherwise, our NATO allies would be forced to set up their own logistical and repair facilities in our country at the moment a crisis or tension arises in our region and not before. That could be pregnant in consequences. On the occasion, it is worthwhile to consider just what aircraft will be flown by Americans, Belgians, Dutchmen, and Danes to our air bases?

Instead of a Conclusion

The F-16 is said to be a fighter used for many years already and therefore not a promising one. But that is not true. Although this plane has indeed been flown for many years, it still is being produced and will remain produced for many years ahead. Furthermore, the versions of the F-16 used at present have hardly anything in common (other than the characteristic shape of the fuselage) with the versions built in the years past. Not only is this plane fully adapted to NATO standards but even, considering its widespread use in NATO air forces, the fact is that these standards are established in accordance with its capabilities and those of similar aircraft (even in an informal manner). So far, more than 4,026 specimens of the F-16 have been built ("more than," because new specimens are continually being released from production lines, to this day, too). Given the number of orders placed until 2010 the output of F-16 planes will reach a total of 4,348, and in 2020, more than 4,570. In the next few years the F-16's will account for more than 40 percent of the entire combat air fleet of the USAF. The US Air Force expects to fly the F-16 until the year 2026. By 2010 a large number of planes of this type is scheduled to be upgraded, with the costs correspondingly apportioned (the so-called economies-of-scale effect). Poland could upgrade its F-16's in, say, 2015, that is after one-third of their operating life, more or less. Moreover, this plane has a successor, in the form of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35).

This also applies to the Mirage 2000, which has a successor, the Rafale. But as for the Gripen, it has no successor. The company Saab has admitted that this will be the last combat plane to be developed in Sweden.

As for the F-35, it is worth noting that this plane has also been chosen by Great Britain, both by its naval aviation (FAA) and by its air force (RAF). This is an unusually promising aircraft, designed with a thought to future transition to unmanned flying combat vehicles (see the article in Lotnictwo Wojskowe, No 1, 2002).

波蘭：
預定採購48~60架新型主力戰機，目前的兩大競標者為美國F-16與瑞典的JAS-39

奧地利：
預定採購或租借24~30架新型主力戰機，參與競標者有美國的新製或二手F-16，瑞典的JAS-39與歐洲的EF-2000，目前奧地利軍方屬意的自然是全新研發的EF-2000或JAS-39，但是由於老美所提供的F-16之報價極為低廉（特別是二手機選擇，其報價只有購買全新F-16的一半不到。），所以..........

Brazil: Gripen, Mirage Seen as Front-Runners for Air Force Jet Contract

Sao Paulo-With a few weeks remaining before the Ministry of Defense's decision on its $700 million purchase of supersonic fighter jets, the competitors have stepped up their activity to get their products chosen.

The Saab/BAeSystem consortium has decided to offer a solution for the most criticized technical feature of its project: range, meaning the time that the aircraft can operate without having to refuel. The Gripen, which is the model being offered by the consortium vying for the FAB [Brazilian Air Force] contract, has one of the best ranges, but now the possibility exists of installing an additional fuel tank, thereby giving the aircraft more independence.

The consortium has signed a partnership agreement in Brazil with Varig Maintenance Engineering (VEM), but the comment is being made that modification of the fuel tank could be done at Embraer [Brazilian Aeronautics Company]-which is also participating in the competition with another model.

The Brazilian aircraft manufacturer signed a partnership agreement with France's Dassault to offer a Mirage 2000 model that will be tropicalized. At the beginning of this month, as part of the activity to demonstrate the advantages of that product, the French Government and the FAB sponsored an event in which one of the stars was the Mirage 2000.

Those efforts are explained by the fact that this competition is one of the biggest in Latin America. The contract will probably total $1 billion, including spare parts for the aircraft.

The Ministry of Defense has chosen the 28th of this month as the date for the National Defense Council to begin its final round of discussions aimed at deciding on the purchase of from 12 to 24 supersonic fighter planes for the FAB's fleet.

The expectation is that a number of meetings will be held before 15 June to decide who is going to win the contract.

Five consortiums are participating: Embraer and France's Dassault with the Mirage 2000BR; Lockheed Martin with the F-16; Russia's RAC [expansion not given] and MiG with the MiG-29; Russia's Rosoboronexport with the Sukhoi 35; and Saab/BAeSystem with the Gripen International. The purpose is to replace the FAB's obsolete Mirage III's.

To win the support of members of the government, some foreign participants have signed agreements with domestic firms covering future technology exchange and final assembly in Brazil. The manufacturers of the Gripen signed with Varig. The Russian export consortium that produces the Sukhoi signed a contract of intent with Avibras [Avibras Aerospace Industry, Inc.]. The Americans have not signed a partnership agreement, but they have attacked on the marketing front. Coinciding with the final period of bidding process is an expansion of their advertising in magazines specializing in military aviation.

Since every race has its favorites, this competition could not be any different. FAB pilots initially indicated a liking for the Russian Sukhoi, but in recent months, following the start of flight tests, the Gripen has gained ground. In Brasilia, however, many people take it for granted that Embraer will win. The Brazilian company has the support of nearly all the congressmen. About 400 deputies have signed a formal request that the Mirage 2000BR be chosen. Deputy Walfredo Mares Guia (PTB [Brazilian Labor Party], Minas Gerais) explained previously that purchasing Embraer's model would guarantee Brazilian jobs while also bringing technological progress to the country, since Dassault would transfer technology to Embraer. Embraer's contract with the French for receiving information includes the possibility of exporting the Mirage BR. Sales to the foreign market would make series production viable.

But experts criticize the Mirage as having already reached the limit of its capacity for further development. The aircraft could not be updated any further without undergoing structural changes. Dassault responds that the aircraft is not a model from the past, since it was last updated in the 21st century.

As regards maneuverability, the models are all very similar to each other. But price, parts availability, and armament set some of the offers apart. One expert in the sector points out that the MiG lost points as a result of the situation in Peru, which chose the Russian fighters but whose fleet is now unusable because of the lack of parts. Another problem with the Russians, both the MiG and the Sukhoi, has to do with financing. In that they differ from the Gripen, the contract for which includes the financing solution.

As delivered, the projects carry price tags ranging from the MiG's $750 million to Embraer's $1 billion

本新聞所披露，令在下感到有些意外的消息：

1. 在不經空中加油的作戰航程方面上，身為五大競標者（俄國的Su-35、俄國的MIG-29、老美的F-16、法國與巴西合作的M2000-BR、瑞典的JAS-39）中最為輕小的JAS-39居然能在作戰航程上擁有最為優異的評價，實在是令人感到不可思議。

2. 在飛行機動性能方面，巴西軍方對五大競標者的評分居然是半斤八兩，不分軒輊；Su-35若是有靈性的話，大概會哭死...........

戰機也可以用租的?聽起來不錯,那是不是出租者還要負責維護保修?不小心摔壞了還可以免費補齊架數(假如非使用者責任的話)?要不要投保第三責任險?

有時候想不懂英國人在想什麼
澳洲F-111的重要任務是反艦 而英國的海鷹飛彈已經除役 EF-2000尚無配備任何反艦飛彈的構形出現。英國人不想辦法塞顆反艦飛彈上去，卻想著這些有的沒的...唉....

另外在巴西F-X未來戰機競標案方面, 目前也已經進入緊鑼密鼓的最後決標關頭階段, 五大候選機種的現況與看好程度如下：

1. MIRAGE-2000BR：
由法國達騷集團與巴西Embraer集團合作研發的M2000系列終極改良型, 法國方面允諾巴西百分之百的技術與相關配備轉移, 自主控制權以及工業互惠額度, 巴西空軍可視自身情況需要在MIRAGE-2000BR上作任何修改或加改裝任何配備, 此外Embraer集團也獲得法方允諾可以向外國推銷MIRAGE-2000BR......如此寬大慷慨的優惠措施, 使法巴合作的MIRAGE-2000BR成為最被看好的競標者, 但其隱憂在於其原始設計畢竟已屬於三十年前的過時產物, 成長提升空間已經趨近飽和, 不經大幅結構修改變更實在難以滿足未來二三十年的需求........對於此方面的質疑, 達騷方面僅含糊表示：”MIRAGE2000BR將大量採用二十一世紀的科技與建造技術, 以符合新世紀的作戰需求........

2. Su-35BR：
由俄羅斯蘇凱集團與巴西Avibras飛機公司所合作的Su-35BR, 其整體作戰性能被評為五大競標者之首, 特別是在Autonomy, 武器酬載量以及作戰航程等三方面更是無與倫比, 俄羅斯方面又允諾以優渥的技術轉移與工業互惠額度, 故被視為除MIRAGE2000BR之外最有冠軍相的黑馬; 然而俄系武器體系向來為人所詬病的交貨時程與後勤補保卻是其最大的潛在致命傷....

3. JAS-39A：
由瑞典SAAB與英國BAE集團合作的JAS-39A在五大競爭者中被視為設計最先進, 最具後續發展潛力者, 然而其體型過於輕小導致作戰航程不足, 被認為難以完全符合巴西方面之需要（紳寶集團為此打算在巴西型JAS-39上增設額外機內油箱以符合需求....對於輕小短薄的JAS-39而言, 此舉的困難度顯然不低.）,而截至目前的總產量又居五者之末, 導至巴西方面對其後勤補保的便利性與經濟性頗有疑慮.

4. F-16 C/D Block50/52：
為了巴西F-X競標案, 老美不僅同意出售配備最新電子系統構型的F-16 C/D Block50/52, 更以罕見的阿莎力氣魄答應提供其不輕易外傳的AIM-120C與巴西, 但是不同於荷蘭與南韓等老美次殖民地, 講求獨立自主的巴西要求毫無限制的技術轉移與修改設計自主控制權, 因此向來囂張跋扈, 予取予求的老美軍火商此次極有可能踢到鐵板......

21st Century Falcon
Philip Sen
Additional reporting Nick Brown

Northrop Grumman has won a contract to provide the 17 air forces across the world that operate the Lockheed Martin F-16 Falcon with engineering services and technical support for the aircraft's AN/APG-66 and AN/APG-68 fire-control radar over the next 23 years. The contract includes spares and repair and returns of major components, and has come as the latest in a batch of support and upgrade contracts that will ensure that the F-16 remains in service for at least the next couple of decades.

In line with this, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Lockheed Martin a US$69 million post-production support contract for the Falcon 2020 programme. The cornerstone of the contract, which came into effect on 1 March, rests on the return and repair of major components, acquisition of modification and upgrade kits and on-site contractor support, which the DoD believes could ultimately be worth US$12.7 billion over a 23-year period. Crucially for the future of the type, Falcon 2020 provides flexible terms dependent on customer requirements and will cover future versions of the aircraft, including those upgraded under the US Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) and European Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU).

The USAF's first CCIP aircraft, a Block 50 F-16C, was redelivered to the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw AFB two months ahead of schedule on 11 January 2002. The US$1billion programme began in June 1998, and prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics delivered the first modification kits in June 2001 (see JDU Vol V No.15 p5).

The CCIP upgrade varies depending on the F-16 Block in question. There are three phases for Block 50/52 aircraft. The first includes a new Modular Mission Computer (MMC) 5000 with M2.3+ software, colour cockpit displays and AN/BRU-57 hardpoints for advanced munitions such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) and weapons fitted with the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser.

Phase two provides the AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) and modifications for employment of the Sniper XR targeting pod (see JDU Vol V No. 17 p1). The software fit will be upgraded to M3.1+ standard and the Common Programmable Display Generator (CPDG) and Common Data Entry Electronics Unit (CDEEU) will be improved, with the first aircraft to be fielded in September 2002.

From July 2003, the aircraft will receive Link 16 datalinks, the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and an electronic horizontal situation indicator, plus M3.3+ software and provision for the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM). The first 18 aircraft should be ready by September 2003 with a total of 650 F-16s set to undergo these upgrades.

Block 40/42 aircraft, meanwhile, should receive the whole upgrade in one fitting, with work commencing in 2005. Minor differences include newer M4+ software and provision for the AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile, but the CCIP will ultimately mean that the only radical difference between the aircraft will be the engines.

The CCIP is designed to give the US and European (Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway) F-16 fleets a greater degree of commonality. As a result, the European F-16 MLU programme and CCIP have enjoyed a synergistic relationship and economies of scale since their inception.

According to Lockheed Martin's deputy programme manager for the MLU, Chris May, the MLU configuration is now a rolling plan to take advantage of new technology. "We are now in the process of designing further enhancements and can see a growth path into the future for many years to come," he said.

The latest MLU M3 kit delivery contract (see JDU Vol VI No.1 p4) will see further implementation of common technologies on European F-16s around 2004. In addition to Link 16 and JHMCS, the M3 phase includes upgraded capabilities for the MMC, CDEEU, CPDG and displays, provision to carry stores such as JDAM, JSOW and WCMD and reconnaissance pod pilot/vehicle interface improvements. A European user group is currently discussing future EW management requirements and there will be capability enhancements to the AN/APG-66(V)2 radar.

The US$142 million contract provides for 296 upgrade kits with an option for a further 49. Local companies and depots will fit the M3 kits, deliveries of which will start later this year. Operational evaluation trials begin at the end of 2002.

The M4 software standard is now under development and its introduction will mark a point of convergence between the CCIP and MLU programmes. European MLU aircraft will receive the M4 issue to improve Link 16, JHMCS, AIFF and weapons capabilities while USAF aircraft will have a slightly enhanced M4+.

M4 will also include provision for JDAM and High Off-Boresight Seekers (HOBS), the generic name for the AIM-9X/JHMCS system. The US and Europeans (including Portugal) are ready to commit to this phase, which will enter service around 2005-06.

From 2008-10, the programme will move on to the M5/M5+ software update. Currently in the planning stage, it may include further MMC updates, compatibility with the civilian Global Air Traffic Management system and enhanced displays. Potentially, this could also cover the Small Diameter Bomb and perhaps a synthetic aperture radar.

CCIP and MLU aircraft also share a combined lifetime support arrangement for the MMC, and the USAF and European members can rely on each other for field support. After the "big leap forwards" of M3, interoperability will be enhanced to such an extent that US and European pilots could be able to fly each others' aircraft with a minimum of conversion training. "The avionics are extremely close to being identical," said May, "and it's an essentially common operational flight programme."

21st Century Falcon
Philip Sen
Additional reporting Nick Brown

Northrop Grumman has won a contract to provide the 17 air forces across the world that operate the Lockheed Martin F-16 Falcon with engineering services and technical support for the aircraft's AN/APG-66 and AN/APG-68 fire-control radar over the next 23 years. The contract includes spares and repair and returns of major components, and has come as the latest in a batch of support and upgrade contracts that will ensure that the F-16 remains in service for at least the next couple of decades.

In line with this, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Lockheed Martin a US$69 million post-production support contract for the Falcon 2020 programme. The cornerstone of the contract, which came into effect on 1 March, rests on the return and repair of major components, acquisition of modification and upgrade kits and on-site contractor support, which the DoD believes could ultimately be worth US$12.7 billion over a 23-year period. Crucially for the future of the type, Falcon 2020 provides flexible terms dependent on customer requirements and will cover future versions of the aircraft, including those upgraded under the US Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) and European Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU).

The USAF's first CCIP aircraft, a Block 50 F-16C, was redelivered to the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw AFB two months ahead of schedule on 11 January 2002. The US$1billion programme began in June 1998, and prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics delivered the first modification kits in June 2001 (see JDU Vol V No.15 p5).

The CCIP upgrade varies depending on the F-16 Block in question. There are three phases for Block 50/52 aircraft. The first includes a new Modular Mission Computer (MMC) 5000 with M2.3+ software, colour cockpit displays and AN/BRU-57 hardpoints for advanced munitions such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) and weapons fitted with the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser.

Phase two provides the AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) and modifications for employment of the Sniper XR targeting pod (see JDU Vol V No. 17 p1). The software fit will be upgraded to M3.1+ standard and the Common Programmable Display Generator (CPDG) and Common Data Entry Electronics Unit (CDEEU) will be improved, with the first aircraft to be fielded in September 2002.

From July 2003, the aircraft will receive Link 16 datalinks, the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and an electronic horizontal situation indicator, plus M3.3+ software and provision for the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM). The first 18 aircraft should be ready by September 2003 with a total of 650 F-16s set to undergo these upgrades.

Block 40/42 aircraft, meanwhile, should receive the whole upgrade in one fitting, with work commencing in 2005. Minor differences include newer M4+ software and provision for the AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile, but the CCIP will ultimately mean that the only radical difference between the aircraft will be the engines.

The CCIP is designed to give the US and European (Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway) F-16 fleets a greater degree of commonality. As a result, the European F-16 MLU programme and CCIP have enjoyed a synergistic relationship and economies of scale since their inception.

According to Lockheed Martin's deputy programme manager for the MLU, Chris May, the MLU configuration is now a rolling plan to take advantage of new technology. "We are now in the process of designing further enhancements and can see a growth path into the future for many years to come," he said.

The latest MLU M3 kit delivery contract (see JDU Vol VI No.1 p4) will see further implementation of common technologies on European F-16s around 2004. In addition to Link 16 and JHMCS, the M3 phase includes upgraded capabilities for the MMC, CDEEU, CPDG and displays, provision to carry stores such as JDAM, JSOW and WCMD and reconnaissance pod pilot/vehicle interface improvements. A European user group is currently discussing future EW management requirements and there will be capability enhancements to the AN/APG-66(V)2 radar.

The US$142 million contract provides for 296 upgrade kits with an option for a further 49. Local companies and depots will fit the M3 kits, deliveries of which will start later this year. Operational evaluation trials begin at the end of 2002.

The M4 software standard is now under development and its introduction will mark a point of convergence between the CCIP and MLU programmes. European MLU aircraft will receive the M4 issue to improve Link 16, JHMCS, AIFF and weapons capabilities while USAF aircraft will have a slightly enhanced M4+.

M4 will also include provision for JDAM and High Off-Boresight Seekers (HOBS), the generic name for the AIM-9X/JHMCS system. The US and Europeans (including Portugal) are ready to commit to this phase, which will enter service around 2005-06.

From 2008-10, the programme will move on to the M5/M5+ software update. Currently in the planning stage, it may include further MMC updates, compatibility with the civilian Global Air Traffic Management system and enhanced displays. Potentially, this could also cover the Small Diameter Bomb and perhaps a synthetic aperture radar.

CCIP and MLU aircraft also share a combined lifetime support arrangement for the MMC, and the USAF and European members can rely on each other for field support. After the "big leap forwards" of M3, interoperability will be enhanced to such an extent that US and European pilots could be able to fly each others' aircraft with a minimum of conversion training. "The avionics are extremely close to being identical," said May, "and it's an essentially common operational flight programme."

戰機型式：教練機型/戰鬥機型
機身空重：5800KG/6200KG
內載燃油：3000KG/3300KG
燃料分率： 0.341/ 0.347（Fuel Fraction = 內載燃料重 /（內載燃料重 + 戰機空重）)

比FCK-1, JAS-39A更為輕小的六噸級機身, 卻有著比F-16和M2000-5還多的內載燃油; 其燃料分率是九噸級的F-16C/D Block50/52的1.4倍, 比十至十一噸級的EF2000和RAFALE等中型新世代戰機還高且幾乎可和十六至十八噸級的Su-27重型戰機相媲美; 在不使用適型油箱作弊為前提之下, 當世之間能比MAKO擁有更高燃油分率的戰鬥機只有F-22, JSF以及部分的蘇愷27系列戰機三款, 可是其任何一種的空重都在MAKO的兩倍以上.....拜高燃料分率之賜, MAKO戰鬥教練/輕型戰鬥機的最大飛送航程高達3700km, 與重量是其1.7至1.9倍的RAFALE與EF-2000等歐製中型先進戰機不相上下, 徹底扭轉輕型戰機乃短腿戰機之同義詞的宿命; 除此之外, 其載彈量在輕型戰機界亦屬一流：4500kg, 和JAS-39A約略相當........

UCAV計畫的一開始是企圖藉由拿掉飛行員來提高G值的限制。但後來為了配合多種兵力 網路聯合作戰的趨勢，演變成為可與有人戰機編隊作戰，交換資訊的作戰平台。

這東西怎麼防止被干擾?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

根據EADS最近所公佈的一份飛行包絡線圖（X軸：飛行時速，單位馬赫。Y軸：高度。Z軸：SEP，單位ft/sec）比較顯示，目前各國廣泛使用的次音速戰鬥教練機，其飛行包絡線範圍只有第四／第五世代戰機的10％不到，而MAKO戰鬥教練機卻能有著其七成至八成左右的飛行包絡線範圍，因此經由MAKO訓練出來的戰機飛行員在駕駛操作新一代戰機時，其適應上手的時間將快得多。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

此外，EADS集團也以F-16C/D Block50／52為基準，將MAKO與其主要競爭對手的基本飛行性能諸元作一比較：

評量對象：
1. MAKO
2. T／A-50（南韓大宇和美國洛馬合作開發的金鷹式超音速戰鬥教練／攻擊機）
3. M-346（俄羅斯Yak-130戰鬥教練機外銷版）
4. JAS-39A Gripen
5. HAWK100（暢銷世界的英製戰鬥教練機）
6. L-159

引擎動力：
戰鬥教練型採用一具SEJ200渦扇發動機，最大軍用推力13500磅，後燃推力16860磅；至於輕型戰機型則可使用最大後燃推力達20250磅一級的發動機。除了EJ200系列發動機以外，Mako亦可視顧客要求改用美製F404／F414系列或法製M88-2／-3系列發動機。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

火控雷達：

基本要求：具備RWS與TWS功能，可以偵測64目標並自動追蹤其中六個。

選擇對象：美製AN/APG-67系列、意製Grifo系列、法製RC400系列、英製Bluehawk系列

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

基本飛行性能諸元：

最高飛行時速：高空1.5Mach，海平面1.1Mach。

最低可控制飛行時速：100節（185km/h）

著地時速：110至120節（204~222km/h）

起／降跑道長：450／750m（1480／2460ft）

爬升率：15000m（49200ft）／min（海平面）

實用升限：14400m（47240ft）

操作升限：15240m（50000ft）

飛送航程：3704km（2000nm）

耐Ｇ限度：-3~+9Ｇ

maintenance man-hour／flight hour：3/1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

重量性能諸元：

機身空重：6200kg／5800kg（輕型戰機型／戰鬥教練機型）

標準起飛：9400kg／8100kg（輕型戰機型／戰鬥教練機型）

滿載起飛：13000kg

內載燃油：3300kg

外掛彈量：4500kg

機翼負荷：352.1kg/m2／303.4kg/m2（輕型戰機型／戰鬥教練機型，標準起飛重量）

Max. Power Loading：104kg/KN／90kg/KN（輕型戰機型／戰鬥教練機型，標準起飛重量）

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

尺寸性能諸元：

機全長：13.75m

機全高：4.50m

翼展長：8.25m

翼面積：26.8m2

展弦比：2.6

The first three production Eurofighter aircraft, hand-built on production tooling, made their maiden flights at Caselle, Manching and Warton during April. Dubbed IPA1 to 3 (Instrumented Production Aircraft), they are scheduled to join the flight-test program this month. At the factories of the four partner companies, Alenia Aeronautica, BAE Systems, EADS Germany and EADS CASA in Spain, at this time major assemblies for 64 aircraft were in the production chain. This year 12 aircraft will be completed; next year 40. Without exports, peak production is 52 aircraft per year between 2005 and 2013

（目前EF-2000的量產出廠計畫：今年12架，明年40架，之後不計外銷訂單的話，從2005至2013年間每年交貨52架。）

First quarter 2002 milestones, with the seven development DA series aircraft, have included the initial guided firing of AIM-120 AMRAAM (advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles), the longest sorties to date at four hours 22 minutes, the greatest altitude at 55,000ft (17,000m), and simultaneous air- to-air refueling trials of two aircraft from one tanker.

（以上是截至目前本年度量產型EF-2000試飛時所達成測試里程碑：包括首次AIM-120導引試射、長達四小時22分的長程飛行作戰測試、戰機實用升限拓展至17000公尺、一對二空中加油測試等等........）

Test pilots report extremely simple cockpit and systems interface, and praise the performance and what is described as "no brains" handling. Dry thrust takeoffs are routine; single engine takeoff with a weapons load is possible. Acceleration to supersonic speed, while not quite in the F-22 class, is reported to be impressive, as is ride quality at low level. Instantaneous turn rate is good, not unusual with a delta wing, but the sustained turn rate is described as excellent due to high thrust and the sophisticated Flight Control System (FCS).

（試飛員對量產型EF-2000的評價：人機界面與座艙航電的設計極為簡便，幾乎不用大腦便可操控愉快；引擎推力十足，在外掛武器下只用一具引擎也可起飛。飛機的穿音速加速性能與低空操控性能雖不若F-22猛禽那般無與倫比【喲！！老英這回居然如此謙遜，真是難得難得......】，但表現亦是令人印象深刻﹔瞬間轉彎性能表現不俗，但是對前翼三角機而言本來就是份內之事，至於持續轉彎性能則拜高推力與優異的FCS 之賜，表現優異至極【只可惜此能力在講究一擊必殺的未來近距空戰中用處不大......】。）

Pilots admit there have been frustrations, with delays to the first flights of the IPA aircraft, extensive ground testing and protracted clearance of the FCS software. Departure avoidance is specified, with the aircraft being 'spin-proof'. FCS software is currently not quite to delivery standard.

Eurofighter's production program, which currently covers 620 aircraft plus 90 options, comprises in the first instance single and two-seater variants. The program is sub-divided into three tranches. Within those tranches, configurations from Block 1 up to a projected Block 25 represent further evolution over the 15-year production life. Therefore, the program ranges from near-term enhancements, such as modifications to take Paveway II or GBU-16 weapons at Tranche 1 Block 5 in 2005, to counter-stealth technologies in a pre-feasibility study that will not mature until Tranche 3 Block 25 in 2014.

（預定2014年成軍的EF-2000第三批次型最後一批戰機上有可能使用匿蹤戰機反制科技？？真令人期待啊.............話說回來，英國是截至目前唯一確定將使用F-35多用途近匿蹤戰機和EF-2000第三批次型的國家，想想十五年後發生在英國海空軍間的異種戰機模擬空戰競技，匿蹤V.S反匿蹤，以子之矛攻子之盾式的宿命對決........喔喔喔∼∼！！！我現在猛烈地覺得熱血沸騰∼∼！！！！！）

A second tranche of engines, for delivery between 2005 and 2009 represents 519 powerplants and brings the first opportunity to introduce enhancements to the EJ200. Eurojet engineers emphasise that the first objective of any enhancement package will translate into reduced life-cycle costs rather than increased thrust, although thrust improvements of 5% afterburning or 15% dry are possible 'with minimal extra development'. Instead, the aim will be engine 'on wing time' life extension by 25% from 1,600 hours to 2,000 hours gained by improvements to the hot gas path parts.

（在引擎升級改良方面，Eurojet目前把目標重點放在引擎全壽命週期操作成本的儉省與延長引擎大修間隔【1600hours-->2000hours】等兩方面上，推力提升並非目前迫切的需求，但是若情況需要，EJ-200只要小做更動便能提升15%的最大軍用推力【13500Ib-->15525Ib】與5%的後燃推力【20250Ib-->21260Ib】。）

The third tranche of 500 engines, from 2009 to 2014, could offer more substantial enhancements, including thrust vectoring. A thrust vectoring nozzle has been installed in an EJ200 and run on a testbed by ITP in Spain at up to 23.5o deflection. Two dimension thrust vectoring is seen, principally, as conferring aerodynamic benefits in the cruise, reducing afterbody drag and extending range. A three dimensional nozzle would have vast consequences for the airframe.

（至於提供給預定於2009~2014年間服役的第三批次型EF-2000的EJ200系列引擎則預定使用向量推力科技，目前二維與三維向量推力科技均備納入考量範圍；二維向量推力被認為能在超音速巡航，機後阻力減低與航程延伸等領域上提供相當助益，而三維向量推力則會為機體氣動性能帶來鉅大、禍福難料的影響與可能。）

X-45A是DARPA與USAF的計畫，由Boeing得標，主要任務是深入打擊與SEAD。

X-47是DARPA與USN的計畫，由NG得標，主要任務是打擊與SEAD，特別的是USN加入了長程偵搜平台的要求。

UCAV-N 是 DARPA 和 Navy 的計畫、 NG 得標，可是 X-47 是 NG 自己掏腰包造的； UCAV-N 還沒到造原型機或者驗證機的階段，但是 NG 現在不掏腰包造個東西玩玩，將來很難勝過波音的 X-46 ─ X-45 的海軍型。

X-45A型雖然用F-124引擎，但是更大的X-45B型會改用F414無後燃器版，奇異封殺蓋瑞特的決心真是不容小覷。

A:量產型UCAV-N於2015年左右開始於老美航艦上服役時，其首要任務將是執行長程長時戰場情蒐／監視／偵查任務，至於對地攻擊與防空壓制方面的能力，則預定是至2020年左右才會陸續開發具備。根據美國海航的需求，量產型UCAV-N在執行戰場情蒐／監視／偵查任務時，必須能滯空12個小時以上，並持續監視戰場狀況且將敵情目標最新動態以網路資料鏈即時傳輸給航艦空中打擊部隊；在此等級性能級數要求下，美國海軍於最近所作的一份研究中指出：未來在美國航母上正式服役的量產型UCAV-N，其標準任務起飛重量將可達兩萬六千磅等級左右，大小規模約和A-4天鷹式攻擊機相當。

F-15E的後繼者？？：FB-22戰鬥轟炸機

洛馬正在研擬以F22為基礎的一種三角翼、無垂尾、有更大航程與載彈量的機種，暫稱為FB22。他是一種「轟炸機」，美國發現在阿富汗的任務中，戰鬥機沒什麼用，反倒是B1、B52這類的轟炸機大為活躍。

2001年時國會就有壓力要USAF多買一些B2以更新日益老舊的轟炸機群，但USAF不願意，因為B2又貴又難維持。而且在前線基地維修B2的匿蹤設施的問題也仍未解決，空軍想要新的轟炸機，但又不想要B2，因此對FB22相當有興趣。

空軍對於DARPA的超音速轟炸機QSP計畫也有相當的興趣，他原始設計即是用來擔任長程打擊任務的，但是FB22卻能夠比較快獲得，而發展經費也比較低。

FB22的細節至今仍未確定也未公開，但洛馬表示這事一架相當不同的飛機，是F22的衍申型。

這項計畫令人想起以前的F16XL與出售給UAE的三角翼F16計畫。這兩個計畫大幅增加了機內燃料攜帶量與武器酬載能力，機體結構也予以強化，但是其他的航電設備則沒有太多變動。

如果FB22也要也用類似的方式，勢將採取一系列的設計。為了能容納想要攜帶的武器將會影響飛機尺寸與外型。F22原先在機腹的彈艙攜帶武器，為了拉長彈艙，FB22可能要將機身延長3∼3.5公尺，使彈艙足夠縱向掛載兩枚JDAM，而原先進氣道側邊的武器艙可能會加大到足以攜帶AIM120的程度，而機砲應該會被拆除。

因為必須要能進入強化機堡中，因此翼展不得超過14.6公尺，考慮到經過加長的機身，推測65度後略的三角主翼翼展大約是14公尺，能符合要求。

FB22可能既無水平尾翼亦無垂直尾翼，洛馬已經在Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) 計畫下研究沒有尾翼的設計，擁有65度後掠三角翼，SLOT-spoiler與傳統控制面。一架實驗性的無尾翼F22，也就是所謂的X-44 Manta (Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft) 正在由NASA與USAF進行實驗，無垂直尾翼設計可以大幅減低側面的RCS。

FB22得航程會大幅增加，主因是油料的增加，而加長機身而不增加機身週長，也會減低高速時的阻力。如同F16XL，以縱列方式攜帶武器而不會增加正面的面積，無尾翼的設計進一步減低了阻力，因此航程可能會加倍。

操作上，FB22的運用方式會與F22執行空對地任務時一樣。F22的價值是在於其速度與高度，使之能攻擊SAM而仍處於SAM的有效攻擊範圍之外。高度與速度從兩方面達到這種效果，在60000呎的高度以超音速發射武器會增加武器的射程，另一方面則是減低了飛彈的攔截距離，即使飛機冒險進入SAM的理論射程內，超音速轉彎使飛彈必須面對一個超音速的橫向目標，仍缺乏足夠的能量攔截。

如果FB22想要成功，先決條件是F22必須先成功，此外此一計畫也尚未受USAF領導人青睞，當然實際上他們也還沒有為任何一種長程打擊能力的解決方案背書，無論是超音速的、倍音速的、或是太空的。另外一個問題是，理論上FB22如要接在F22之後量產，則其發展將與JSF重疊。

X-31 Flying Again at Pax River

(Source : US Navy ; issued May 23, 2002)

電漿的低黏性減少不了多少摩擦阻力
而低密度省下的阻力又會被衍生阻力補回來

"今日的眼光來看，其航程正好說長不長，說短不短，說便宜不會比多加一次油的JSF便宜，說長程又不夠本土起飛"

唯有FB22貝爾丹蒂女神陛下方可能彌補袋鼠先生失去土豚夫人之後, 心中那永難磨滅的創痛與遺憾, 若其召喚失敗的話, 那個唯一沒有前緣襟翼的傢伙恐怕又要洋洋得意, 繼續主演悲慘世界下去了.............

Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'

By David A. Fulghum, Washington and Douglas Barrie, London

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.

"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.

The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 (AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.

1. Su-27系列戰機機上配備的向量推力系統並非是美觀不實用的玩意兒.

2. 先前ADF兄於本網所述, 中國空軍之所以對R-77基本型不屑一顧的主因.

他說聯合的政府和工業隊將會使用來自汽車的機器人工程的一個全世界的製造業者的機器人

面對正面雷達截面積高達10m2等級, 使用現有AIM-120型號的F-15C, 配備R-77M/R-27EA/R-77的Su-30MK在BVR空戰時將享有射程與時間上先發制人的優勢, F-15C雖然可以靠著優異的電戰系統或Beam機動來抵禦敵方的先制攻擊, 但也勢必很難有暇兼顧敵機的繼續進逼（即使真得找的出空檔鎖定近逼之Su-30MK, Su-30MK也可以靠著過人的減速機動使F-15C脫鎖.）;而Su-30MK便可趁著F-15C陷入被動的時候趁機進逼至R-73/74的有效射程（新一代R-73/74的有效射程可達30~40km, 較老美現有的AIM-120也不徨多讓........）之內發動第二波更難逃脫反制的飛彈攻勢, 然後隨即以其過人的高機動性反向脫離戰場.........F-15C雖然未必便會被慘遭擊落, 但是從頭到尾陷入被動挨打的局面, 難對Su-30MK造成威脅; 而Su-30MK縱非必勝, 但至少也近乎立於不敗之地.

Date: Thu May 30, 2002 3:42 am

Subject: (Austria) Austrian Army Said to Buy Either Eurofighter or Gripen Interceptors

Austrian Army Said to Buy Either Eurofighter or Gripen Interceptors

The preliminary decision will be taken on Monday [27 May]: Eurofighter and Gripen are the contenders in the duel over the successor model to the Draken interceptors. On Monday, the military assessment is to be presented to [Austrian Defense] Minister Scheibner.

Vienna -- The envelopes containing the revised final offers with the prices reduced again have been opened. Now calculations are being made. According to information obtained by Die Presse, one thing is clear: the three-part competition over the succession to the Draken has become a duel focusing on two contenders. US Lockheed Martin's F-16 has dropped out of the race. A European product, Eurofighter or Gripen, is going to win the tender for the 1.8-billion-euro deal.

The assessment commission is to present its results to Defense Minister Herbert Scheibner on Monday. Information has leaked out that in the purely military evaluation, the assessments of the Eurofighter and the Gripen are fairly close together. Therefore, the purchase decision will strongly depend on the compensation deals offered by the German/British/French/Spanish Eurofighter consortium and Gripen manufacturer Saab-British Aerospace.

While lobbyists of the three aviation corporations Saab, Lockheed Martin, and EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company) have increased their activities behind the scenes, the politicians are approaching a purchase decision on the Draken successor model. Another aspect that has not been sufficiently taken into account so far, has come to the fore in this respect: according to expert opinion, the operating costs for the larger, unlike the Gripen, twin-jet Eurofighter aircraft would be higher.

Moreover, it is pointed out that there might be "teething troubles" with this combat aircraft, the serial production of which has only just begun. However, if the majority of domestic industry were to decide, the decision would be clearly in favor of the Eurofighter Typhoon, because Austrian companies are interested in, above all, long-term cooperation opportunities. And the Eurofighter lobbyists seem to have successfully prepared the ground in this respect over the past few weeks, although, it is said, with not quite "straight" methods.

Especially the subcontractors of the automobile and aviation industries are increasingly favoring the Eurofighter off the record. After all, behind EADS Corporation, which is quoted on the stock exchange, there is Airbus, the second-largest manufacturer of civilian aircraft worldwide and one of the largest suppliers of space satellites. In addition, DaimlerChrysler holds a large block of EADS shares. Which, in turn, let the hearts in the Styrian automobile cluster beat faster. Other sectors of industry -- especially those that are not involved in the aviation or automobile industries -- still hope for Saab's Gripen, because the Swedes' offers for compensation deals are more widely spread over various sectors.

Su-30有兩種選擇1.持續進逼 2.減速閃躲
F-15一樣有兩種選擇 1.持續進逼 2.Beam

F-15要嘛就是進行動作1要嘛就是進行動作2 Su-30不是一樣嗎？
Su-30要嘛就是動作1 要嘛就是動作2 唯一不可能的就是動作1+2 也就是說 既可以「節節進逼」（動作1），又可以「兼顧」「減速機動」

>而Su-30MK便可趁著F-15C陷入被動的時候趁機進逼至R-73/74的有效射程（新一代R-73/74
>的有效射程可達30~40km, 較老美現有的AIM-120也不徨多讓........）

F-15要嘛就是進行動作1要嘛就是進行動作2 Su-30不是一樣嗎？

A:依照該篇論文的觀點, 兩者的處境有一關鍵不同：F-15C面臨的是單發乃至數發R-27AE/R-77M/R-77襲來的危機, 而此時Su-30MK卻還在AIM-120的有效射程之外, 在這樣的情況下, 雙方的處境與戰術選擇總不能一概而論吧........

更何況若依照閣下先前評論科索夫空戰的大作所言, 在實戰狀況下, 主動雷達導引AAM經常直到命中敵機前的一剎那都無法被敵機所察覺的話, 則同樣是主動雷達導引, 又較現有之AIM-120享有顯著獵殺動能與射程上優勢的R-27AE/R-77M/R-77對毫無匿蹤性可言的F-15C而言不就...........

Su-30要嘛就是動作1 要嘛就是動作2 唯一不可能的就是動作1+2 也就是說 既可以「節節進逼」（動作1），又可以「兼顧」「減速機動」

A:利用BVR的優勢把F-15C逼得手忙腳亂之際再趁機節節進逼總是可以作到的吧......減速機動應該只是用於萬一F-15C的飛行員真的神通廣大, 發覺並甩脫Su-30MK先發制人的BVR攻擊之後, 還想反將一軍時的逃命法寶.......

再者, 減速機動故然是不能兼顧進逼, 側轉蛇行機動呢？？兩伊戰爭時的伊朗F-14, 波灣戰爭時的伊拉克MIG-25不都是曾經靠著這招讓敵機雷達脫鎖之餘還同時閃身至敵機近處乃至背後趁機倒打一耙？？配備向量推力的Su-30MK玩起這招來, 應該更是迅捷無倫, 令人防不勝防吧？？何況若其對手是F-15的話, 在Su-30MK玩起這招之際, 還會有兩枚乃至以上的主動雷達導引AAM充當開路先鋒率先襲來？？

>而Su-30MK便可趁著F-15C陷入被動的時候趁機進逼至R-73/74的有效射程（新一代R-73/74
>的有效射程可達30~40km, 較老美現有的AIM-120也不徨多讓........）

這種推論跟當年的美國華山大論劍（在內華達洲以數十架F-14 F-15 F-5進行模擬對抗）一樣，F-5可以用AIM-9反擊接近的F-15。

問題在於 當年華山大論劍的主角是AIM-7，F-15「必須」持續進逼F-5的原因是AIM-7需要持續照射。但是AMRAAM「不需要」！！

A: R-27AE/R-77M/R-77也同樣不需要, 而相較於現有的AIM-120, 它們還有射程與獵殺動能上的優勢, 若真想只玩單純的打就跑BVR, 目前的F-15 + AIM-120 A/B/C4也同樣玩不過Su-30MK + R-27AE /R-77M/R-77; 然而以新一代R-73/74之有效射程逼近老美現有的AIM-120, 則又能提供給足夠勇敢的Su-30MK飛行員一個機會：趁F-15C被R-27AE/R-77M/R-77先制攻擊弄得手忙腳亂之際衝入約與AIM-120有效射程相當的位置以IRST鎖定, 發動第二波IR AAM攻勢, 進而大幅提高擊落F-15C的機率, 在此過程間就算失手反遭F-15C鎖定, Su-30MK也隨時能以過人的減速機動性能脫鎖逃出生天.........

Su-30要嘛就是減速機動陷入「被動」，要嘛就是加速進逼爭取「主動」，絕無可能用減速機動去爭取「主動」，而導致F-15陷入「被動」。

所以，Su-30真正掌握主動權的關鍵是射程優勢（如果真的有的話），而不是低速機動。
假如F-15有射程更長的BVRAAM，照樣可以在Su-30發射前先開火，並用Beam躲到Su-30看不到的地方。

>利用BVR的優勢把F-15C逼得手忙腳亂之際再趁機節節進逼總是可以作到的吧......減速機
>動應該只是用於萬一F-15C的飛行員真的神通廣大, 發覺並甩脫Su-30MK先發制人的BVR攻擊
>之後, 還想反將一軍時的逃命法寶.......

減速機動就很難重新節節進逼，這就是減速機動的問題。
戰機以0.8馬赫轉向到90度再轉回來，絕對比從1.2馬赫減速到0.3馬赫再加速回1.2馬赫來得快。

>再者, 減速機動故然是不能兼顧進逼, 側轉蛇行機動呢？？兩伊戰爭時的伊朗F-14, 波灣
>戰爭時的伊拉克MIG-25不都是曾經靠著這招讓敵機雷達脫鎖之餘還同時閃身至敵機近處乃
MiG-25是超音速蛇行。所以它才可以一邊閃一邊衝。如果低速動作也可以一邊閃一邊衝的話，那最強的攔截機會變成直昇機。
（想像烏龜有可能在足球場上過人衝進禁區射門嗎？）

>沒錯.........但Su-30MK的主動權是從掌握BVR空戰時射程上的優勢就開始了, 減速機動應
>該只是在萬一諸事不諧, 能確保敵機雷達脫鎖（和側轉機動得精確掌握敵機的方向角度方
>能奏效不同, 減速機動能使Su-30MK的瞬間速度趨近於零, 幾乎可以確定使敵機的都卜勒雷
>達立刻脫鎖）逃出生天以立於不敗之地的法寶罷了...
Su-30如果有射程優勢的話，那的確掌握了主動權。但從它減速的時候開始，它就轉為被動。
Su-30如果射程屈於弱勢，必須Beam的話，它就變成被動。但是如果Su-30也是減速的話，那兩者都是被動的。沒有人得到主動。
今天Su-30不管用減速機動或用Beam都一樣，當兩者都被動的時候，架是打不起來的，這在陸戰中叫作「逃避會戰」。
所以，當你有射程優勢時，你有取得主動的權力，但你要如何保證「主動」轉變成「勝利」呢？很抱歉，你必須去追它。MRAAM的射程優勢只保證了你可以迫使敵機轉向，好讓你取得「角度」優勢，再轉向變成「尾追」。但不管是尾追，或是真的要追到目標，你都需要「速度優勢」。
假設今天情勢換過來，F-15具有BVR的射程優勢，迫使Su-30進行一個減速動作，則Su-30一定會陷入速度「劣勢」，而角度呢？頂多平手而已（假設它來得及轉完360度或者不需轉向）。所以F-15一定追得到它，但F-15卻不一定會去追它。F-15一樣Beam走，不理會Su-30，一樣是「逃避會戰」成功。
所以，如果你的目的只是要逃避會戰的話，很抱歉，不管用Beam或減速都可以。如果你要追擊去擊墜的話，對不起，請推你的油門去追它。如果你要停在原地不動，祈禱敵機直走來撞你的話，那乾脆祈禱敵機面對MRAAM的時候就會直走去撞它，你最少可以省一顆R-73（也省掉你的向量噴嘴）。

應該不會∼∼∼∼∼∼∼
照文中那樣講，空軍的F-35會變成陸戰隊型

喝啊啊啊呀喔~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!傾聽我巴薩拉燃燒靈魂的熱血之歌吧!!!!!!

First Production AIM-9X Rolls Out to the Warfighter

(Source : US Naval Air Systems Command; issued May23, 2002)

主動空對空沒有射程優勢沒關係，主動雷達加上半主動飛彈不但可以大角度轉向之後持續照明，還可以繼續TWS全空域，所以俄國戰機機動力再好，遇上兩發雷達導引的飛彈，也是一樣為先重重。而且當俄國戰機進入終端照明階段時，SA就會馬上銳減，動作還會受到限制。

另外一點，這一篇文章當中提到的模擬是俄國戰機在比較低的高度，所以利用都普勒的因素暫時隱藏本身的位置。但是只要F-15高度降低，MK也要跟著降低，否則這個把戲就玩不了，拿麼低過一個高度，MK本身將會進入對本身比較不利的操作範圍，能量較低的狀態下受到攻擊，機動力再高都沒有用，因為沒有能量。

捷克上議院此一"符合人民利益"的決議, 將使得捷克空軍在2005年旗下之MIG-21退役之後, 不再有任何超音速戰機配備..........

那請問捷克要靠什麼來攔截入侵的敵機呢?????

正如本國國會袞袞諸公們深信其能光憑其夸夸大言召喚出神打第十壇之“神盾護體，伯克降世”，捷克上議院的咨爾多士們也個個深信自己是原力永遠與其同在的絕地武士，足以擊敗一切來犯的黑暗帝國勢力........

1. 安放位置類似F-16C/D Block60和疾風，共兩具。

2. 每具油箱燃料容量為1500L，安裝之後，颱風戰機的“內載燃料量”將可達到9250L（約7400kg）左右，能延伸EF2000的作戰航程達25%以上，且根據縮尺模型風洞測試結果顯示，其對EF2000的氣動性能影響損害趨近於零。

3. 這款CFT設計是由英澳兩國合作，其優先目標是用於競標澳洲F-111C/G土豚式長程打擊戰機汰換案；其外形呈半長橢圓形，EF2000在安裝上此型CFT之後，機背外型很像一隻金龜子，造型十分“可愛”。

一、 機身尺寸：

翼展寬：8.40m
機全長：單座A型14.10m、雙座B型14.80m
機身高：4.50m
機空重：5700~6622kg
最大起飛重：14000kg
防空起飛重：8500kg

二、 飛行性能：

（拜先進氣動構型設計之賜，JAS-39的drag-force特低，因此雖然JAS-39在引擎動力與空戰推重比性能表現上平平無奇，可是其在實用升限、緊急攔截爬升性能、加速性能、轉彎性能、最大攻角等諸多攸關攔截性能的指標表現上都足以與較其體型大得多的EF-2000A空優戰機分庭亢禮，不愧是史上最強的局地防空戰機。）

高空最高時速：約2.0Mach弱
海平面最高時速：1.15Mach
超音速巡航性能：1.0Mach+
緊急爬升性能：自地面鬆煞車至爬升到10000m處，約2mins
實用升限：65,615ft（20000m）
加速能力：低空自0.5M加速至1.1M，30secs。
轉彎性能：30度／秒（瞬間），20度／秒（持續）
最大攻角：50度（FCS穩定攻角上限），110度（瞬間攻角極限）
空戰推重比：約1.0
持續耐Ｇ限：-3~+9G
（為了避免飛行員因劇烈的G值變化昏迷失事，瑞典開發了新型抗Ｇ服供其飛行員配備使用；這款新型抗Ｇ衣的抗Ｇ能力極為優異，據說當戰機機動至9G的時候，飛行員所感受到的Ｇ值只有5~6Ｇ而已；所以理論上，在緊急狀況下JAS-39飛行員可以做出12~13G的緊急瞬間機動……...這對面臨日益刁鑽靈活的紅外線短程AAM／SAM的戰機飛行員而言，倒還真是一件好消息。）

起飛跑道長：≦500m（防空作戰構型）
降落跑道長：350~400m（14度攻角，落地時速235km）

最大續航距離：3000km
CAP（AIM-120*2, AIM-9L*2, 兩具副油箱）：可在距離基地385km處執行巡邏任務兩小時
Lo-Lo-Lo打擊任務半徑：648km（1000磅級GBU-16*3）
Lo-Lo-Lo打擊任務半徑：833km（1000磅級GBU-16*2＋副油箱*1）
Hi-Lo-Hi反艦作戰Range：500km（RBS-15F ASM*2）
點至點最大飛送航程：2778km

三、 引擎動力：RM-12渦扇引擎*1
最大軍推：12140Ib（54kN）
後燃推力：18100Ib（80.51kN）

四、 火控雷達：PS-05/A脈波都卜勒雷達
空對空偵測距離：約可在120km處偵測到典型戰機大小目標。
多目標攻擊能力：追14打4。

五、標準武裝：

固定武裝：毛瑟Bk-27 27mm單管機炮*1（砲彈120發）
（JAS-39的機炮射控有一項獨步全球的性能：Auto-aimer；一旦飛行員開火，戰機雷達便自動追蹤目標並計算目標的正確機炮攔截距離與射擊角度，同時自動控制戰機的飛行，使機砲火力能精準的朝目標投射【也就是說，一旦確認攻擊目標，飛行員只管扣板機就好，飛行的部份交由電腦處理即可。】；這種能力不僅能使JAS-39的機炮有效射程顯著延伸，在惡劣天候或夜晚的情況下使用更是效果奇佳。根據一位瑞典試飛員的說法，在一次與老美同行的交流會議中，他曾向老美同行們提及JAS-39此一獨特性能，而老美同行的反應卻是：“這怎麼可能∼∼∼！！！？？？”）

空戰配備：
短程AAM：
目前Rb-74（AIM-9L）*2 ?? 2004年以後Rb-98*2（IRIS-T IIR高機動離軸短程AAM，有效射程約12km+，並具有反巡航飛彈能力）
中程AAM：
目前Rb-99（AIM-120B）*4 ?? 短期目標為將Rb-99的最大攜行量提升至六發（在機腹底下改裝類似經國號戰機的縱列式雙發半隱藏AAM發射器）?? 2010年以後改以Meteor中長程AAM為主力。

反艦配備：
RBS-15M/F ASM（RBS-15M單發重量約600kg，擁有200kg級HE彈頭，有效射程約15miles【24KM】）

對地攻擊配備：
1. Rb-75（小牛A/B型飛彈）：有效射程約6km。
2. Bk-90次彈械撒佈器：有效射程5~10km。
3. 波佛斯M70六聯裝135mm無導引火箭發射器。
4. 1000Ib級LGB（GBU-16……..）
5. 德瑞合作KEPD-150/350金牛座遠攻飛彈（根據先前計畫，射程較遠且重量較重的KEPD-350將由德國空軍的龍捲風重型戰鬥轟炸機與EF-2000中型多用途戰機使用，至於較為輕小短程的KEPD-150則供瑞典空軍的JAS-39所使用；然而隨著JAS-39的武裝攜型量日益提升【3600kg ?? 4500kg ?? 5300kg】，現在瑞典空軍也在積極考慮放棄KEPD-150，改用射程較遠的KEPD-350。）

尚待開發賦予之能力：SEAD防空壓制能力、戰術偵查性能

六、 後勤維修／操作成本：
a. 7.6 flight hours between failures。
b. Less than 10 maintenance man-hours per flight hour。
c. Flyaway Price：equal to the new F-16C/D
d. Operating cost：less than 2500 USD per flying hour.

七、 近未來升級改良計畫：

第三批次型（JAS-39C/D）：
a. NVG使用能力
b. 新型敵我識別裝置
c. in-flight refuelling capability
d. EWS-39第二代整合式電戰系統（初期型JAS-39A/B的電戰系統只有RWR、ECM模組以及兩具翼尖BOP403干擾絲／火焰彈撒佈器，EWS-39將增添兩具派龍攜帶BOP402 反制措施撒佈器、一具雷射警告裝置、一具飛彈近迫警告器和一具BOL500拖曳式RF誘餌。）
e. 機腹縱列式雙發半隱藏飛彈發射器

尚在考量中的進一步升級計畫：
a. 被動式偵搜系統（Saab IR-OTIS IRST）
b. 頭盔顯示器（由Celsius的Oden系統與Ericsson-Saab合作的Pilkington系統競標）
c. AESA雷達（Ericsson研發）

一、構成套件：

1. Fr41類比式radio*2

2. Fr90數位式radio*1
（操作頻率：960~1215MHz，使用先進抗干擾技術，例如躍頻捷變、Encryption、先進密碼等等....）

3. Audio Management Unit（ＡＭＵ）

4. Ground Telecommunication Amplifier（ＧＴＡ）

5. Audio Control Panel（ＡＣＰ）

6. Communication Control Display Unit（ＣＣＤＵ）

二、有效範圍約300+ miles（500km），可以同時統合四架JAS-39A進行聯合空對空／空對海／空對地作戰任務。

三、根據FMV說法，和CDL39相較，現役的其他西方世界戰機DATALINK不僅資料傳輸交換速率低得可憐，且無法實現平台間資訊自由傳輸，能處理的資料形式也受限；得等到F-18E/F與EF-2000等先進戰機正式服役之後，歐美各國海空軍方能首次擁有能與瑞典空軍JAS-39相提並論的DATALINK戰力。

在使用此款CFT之後，EF-2000的基本燃料量將高達7400kg以上，這已經是美製F-14雄貓戰機系列或俄製Su-27系列早期型等級的“內載燃油量”，而EF-2000的燃油消耗速率又肯定比這些重型前輩們顯著為小，故其在執行各類任務時的作戰航程／半徑能延伸至何等令人印象深刻的程度，不言可喻。

自噴火戰機時代便一直長相左右的短腿惡夢啊，永別矣！！！！

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>這款新型抗Ｇ衣的抗Ｇ能力極為優異
灌水......................這衣服灌的是水

莫非是“蜻蜓裝”？？這種劃時代的抗Ｇ服連老英都還在研發測試階段，老瑞卻已經把其普及於JAS-39戰機之上！！？？

1. 1982年簽約訂購，總數量30架，並於1993/6/8~1996/12/13期間陸續交貨；其中單座A型29架（S39101~S39130），雙座B型1架（其從單座型S39129改裝而來，並且重新編號命名為S39800）；其中單座型S39102於1993年八月十八日因FCS系統問題而失事墜毀。

2. 其電子系統配備為MK1構型，重要內容如下：
a. D80任務電腦
b. 李耳公司研發三重數位式線傳飛控系統。
c. 休斯公司研發廣角HUD。
d. 三具5*6 Inch 單色CRT HDD，由PP1和PP2處理器操控。

3. 目前所有第一批次型JAS-39A/B均已被升級至第二批次MK2構型。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Batch2：

1. 1992年簽約訂購，總數量110架，並於1996/12/19~2003年間陸續交貨；其中單座A型96架（S39131~S39226），雙座B型14架（S39801~S39814），本批次戰機又分成兩個次型：MK2和MK3構型。

2. MK2構型的重要改良內容：
a. 任務電腦升級為D80E，記憶容量與處理速度分別為舊有的D80之五倍與十倍。
b. 線傳飛控系統改由洛馬集團供應。
c. HUD改由Kaiser電子提供。
d. CRT HDD改以較為輕小且能力更強的PP12處理器操控。
e. APU系統由先前的法國貨改為美製品，輸出功率更強，且噪音與操作成本更低。

3. MK3構型的重要改進內容：
a. 本批次最後20架單座型【S39207~39226】為此構型，未來更預定近一步升級至MK4構型。
b. 任務電腦換裝為全新的D96模組化超級電腦，記憶容量與處理速度均有所提升。
c. HDD部份換裝使用彩色型CRT。
d. 其他部份同MK2構型。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Batch3（JAS-39至此改稱為C/D型）：

1. 1997年簽約訂購，總數量64架，並預定於2003~2007年間陸續交貨；其中單座C型50架（S39227~S39276），雙座D型14架（S39815~S39828）。

2. 其電子系統配備為MK1構型，重要改進內容如下：
a. HDD部份換裝新型6*8新型多功能LCD。
b. 換裝新型數位式錄影記錄器。
c. 雙座Ｄ型後座航電系統升級修改／獨立化，使後座飛行員可以充作第二駕駛或任務執行官，使JAS-39D可以勝任更多特殊任務，如攻擊機隊先導機、戰場命令指揮機、防空壓制、電子壓制等等.......

老印好事多磨的LCA計畫在“磨”了十五多年以後，其第二架技術展示機終於在最近展開飛行測試，根據老印宣稱，這架技術展示機的飛行性能頗佳，整體飛行表現勝過幻象兩千一籌；然而經過多年跌跌撞撞之後，原本期許自製率100%的LCA如今不得不向現實低頭，改頭換面成為美印合作榮譽出品的混血兒；可是由於近來印巴衝突的緊張情勢節節高升，以致於老美決定擱置暫緩對印軍事銷售，如今LCA的預定成軍時間，可能會比台灣獲得二手神盾的時程還晚........

請問這是海軍型F-35的空重嗎？？如果這是空軍型的空重的話，那海軍型恐怕真要與F-22等量齊觀了......

A:........這幾乎是單發動機與雙發動機構型的差別，若其已決定使用單發構型的話（還是最近狀況又有變？？），除非老俄的軍用戰機引擎推力境界已經到達單具六、七萬磅的絕世境界【即使是老美，也只是打算在2010年左右時推出最大推力五萬磅級左右的F-119改技術驗證引擎......】，否則如何作成F-22？？

2.目前公開的假想圖還是以S-37為構形，不過前掠翼被拿掉，改用F-35的超大漸縮翼（漸縮翼的復興？）

A:超級可變翼構想（使戰機翼型能視情況需要，在前掠翼至後掠翼之間變化。）已經莎喲那啦了乎？？

3.可能會有35％左右會拿去作短場起降型