Tomcat

Re : Avions de Combat 6ème Génération

86 messages dans ce sujet

Il y a 6 heures, zx a dit :

Le futur avion 6G, remplacera le F22 & F18, bref un F22 rafaliser

 

Sixth-Gen Fighter Likely Won’t Be Common Across Services, Air Force General Says

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/02/12/sixth-gen-fighter-likely-wont-common-across-services-air-force-general-says/80307248/

L'article est vraiment intéressant.

Ceci étant dit, ZX, ils n'y parlent pas du tout d'un appareil remplaçant les F22 & F18, mais bien de 2 appareils très distincts pour répondre à des missions également fortement distinctes.

Par contre, ils envisagent de partager les recherches et leurs résultats autour des technologies et solutions innovantes qu'ils auront ciblé.

 

l'article est vraiment très instructif, avec notamment une très forte remise à sa place de l'Industrie dans le processus de définition du programme et des recherches à mener.

Manifestement, il y a quelques dernières pillules qui ont vraiment du mal à passer (et on se demande bien pourquoi...).

Vraiment à lire en entier, cet article.

 

0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Effectivement, je l'avais lu en diagonale.

0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Il y a 3 heures, TarpTent a dit :

L'article est vraiment intéressant.

Ceci étant dit, ZX, ils n'y parlent pas du tout d'un appareil remplaçant les F22 & F18, mais bien de 2 appareils très distincts pour répondre à des missions également fortement distinctes.[...]

l'article est vraiment très instructif, avec notamment une très forte remise à sa place de l'Industrie dans le processus de définition du programme et des recherches à mener.
Manifestement, il y a quelques dernières pillules qui ont vraiment du mal à passer (et on se demande bien pourquoi...).
Vraiment à lire en entier, cet article.

Oui, il faut vraiment être aguerri à la lecture entre les lignes.

Mon sous-titrage perso est :

Citation

Si le JSF est une telle catastrophe, c'est évidemment la faute au "Joint"-ness.
L'USAF et l'USN vivent mieux en séparation de corps et de bien (et surtout de budget!)

:tongue:

 

0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Un concept russe (avis à ceux qui comprennent le Russe, si l'un d'eux puvait nous faire un résumé de ce qu'y dit l'ingénieur...), on y voit à la fin une arme Laser ventrale rétractable > 

 

0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Bill Sweetman

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160226_AW-05_637&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001204990&utm_campaign=5093&utm_medium=email&elq2=de46630c046e48ceb9d1915fe47ca114

Opinion: Defining The Next Fighter

The first thing to do about the sixth-generation fighter is to stop calling it a sixth-generation fighter. Ever since Lockheed Martin borrowed the “fifth-generation” brand from the Russians a decade ago, it has muddied the debate. It is at best an example of begging the question—that is, assuming as fact (“high-band stealth is worth the money and everything else is obsolete”) what needs to be demonstrated.

Labels aside, it is becoming popular to talk about what comes after the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This is a pressing issue for the U.S. Navy because the F-35C nominally replaces the F/A-18A-D Classic Hornet, not the Super Hornet. The Air Force’s program-of-record, 1,763-jet F-35 buy stretches into the 2040s, but long before that the service must perform a midlife update (MLU) of the F-22 Raptor or replace it.

It’s tempting to start drawing supersonic-cruising, long-range, agile aircraft with all-aspect, wideband stealth, powered by variable-cycle engines (see photo). That’s what major airplane contractors do, because it is a high-margin business with formidable barriers to entry for new competitors. The problem is building that wonder-plane for less money than the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B).

The timing of a new start in the 2020s—when the Pentagon is thinking of funding next-generation fighter demonstrations—will be unique: nearly 30 years behind JSF, which was only 10 years behind the Advanced Tactical Fighter/Advanced Tactical Aircraft projects that led to the F-22 and the canceled A-12 Avenger II. But at the same time, the so-called fourth-generation fighters should be alive and well, with the Saab JAS 39E entering service and Rafale and Typhoon entering MLU territory.

Any new development has to learn from past mistakes. The demand for agility, as well as stealth and supersonic cruise, left the F-22 with big tails, heavy thrust-vectoring nozzles and disappointing range. In 1995, optimistic numbers made it look as if the constraints of a short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing JSF would not cause difficulties for the other two versions, but they did.

A new manned fighter will be defined in an era when unmanned air vehicles (UAV) are ubiquitous and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV) are a reality. UCAVs will not replace manned aircraft but will influence the design of the next fighters by relieving them of some missions, such as suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses or stand-in electronic attack. One argument for the Navy’s RAQ-25 carrier-based air refueling system is that it can extend both the range and life of the strike-fighter force.

Directed-energy weapons will be a real factor. Technological breakthroughs, like the Missile Defense Agency’s projects, lie within the realm of the possible. More likely, the development of a practical weapon—such as a laser capable of defending a large aircraft against missile attack—will trigger a cascade of new applications, higher production rates and engineering improvements, analogous to the rapid development of targeting pods since the late 1990s.

Small precision-guided bombs, largely autonomous after launch, are a reality: A future fighter will be designed around many small weapons rather than a pair of 2,000-lb. heavyweights. There is a case for reshaping weapons: The JSF’s bomb bays are tailored to fit the Mk. 84 bomb, which was designed in 1946 for low-drag external carriage on the long (and deservedly) forgotten Douglas A2D Skyshark. Guided cannon shells could give the fighter’s oldest weapon a new lease on life.

To drag the cost of LRS-B out of the stratosphere, the Air Force made it part of a reconnaissance-strike complex. The fighter will be the same: The more that it functions as a link in the chain between more capable, survivable UAVs and longer-range, more jam-resistant weapons, the less it relies on its own sensors and survivability. It will be able to operate autonomously, but that may not be its primary mode of operation.

Above all, adaptability. When the JSF’s shape was sketched two decades ago, China’s military comprised serried ranks of 1950s Soviet kit, a mobile phone was only mobile in big cities (and a mere plastic brick if you lived elsewhere), and containing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was little more than a chore. The industry had barely started to contemplate MLUs for the first digital fighters, so the word “obsolescence” was only starting to cause fear.

We have little idea what to expect by 2036, so we must be ready to adapt: to use only open architectures, to upgrade electronic hardware and software at close-to-market speed and even use new manufacturing technology to alter airframes—“change the dustcover,” as one engineer put it a few years ago, when computers had dustcovers.

It will be difficult. It won’t provide the same opportunities to lock up business for decades, but that is a good thing. And it promises to be exciting, which is better. 

Modifié par zx
0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Le 26/2/2016à12:42, zx a dit :

Bill Sweetman

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160226_AW-05_637&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001204990&utm_campaign=5093&utm_medium=email&elq2=de46630c046e48ceb9d1915fe47ca114

Opinion: Defining The Next Fighter

The first thing to do about the sixth-generation fighter is to stop calling it a sixth-generation fighter. Ever since Lockheed Martin borrowed the “fifth-generation” brand from the Russians a decade ago, it has muddied the debate. It is at best an example of begging the question—that is, assuming as fact (“high-band stealth is worth the money and everything else is obsolete”) what needs to be demonstrated.

Labels aside, it is becoming popular to talk about what comes after the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This is a pressing issue for the U.S. Navy because the F-35C nominally replaces the F/A-18A-D Classic Hornet, not the Super Hornet. The Air Force’s program-of-record, 1,763-jet F-35 buy stretches into the 2040s, but long before that the service must perform a midlife update (MLU) of the F-22 Raptor or replace it.

It’s tempting to start drawing supersonic-cruising, long-range, agile aircraft with all-aspect, wideband stealth, powered by variable-cycle engines (see photo). That’s what major airplane contractors do, because it is a high-margin business with formidable barriers to entry for new competitors. The problem is building that wonder-plane for less money than the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B).

The timing of a new start in the 2020s—when the Pentagon is thinking of funding next-generation fighter demonstrations—will be unique: nearly 30 years behind JSF, which was only 10 years behind the Advanced Tactical Fighter/Advanced Tactical Aircraft projects that led to the F-22 and the canceled A-12 Avenger II. But at the same time, the so-called fourth-generation fighters should be alive and well, with the Saab JAS 39E entering service and Rafale and Typhoon entering MLU territory.

Any new development has to learn from past mistakes. The demand for agility, as well as stealth and supersonic cruise, left the F-22 with big tails, heavy thrust-vectoring nozzles and disappointing range. In 1995, optimistic numbers made it look as if the constraints of a short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing JSF would not cause difficulties for the other two versions, but they did.

A new manned fighter will be defined in an era when unmanned air vehicles (UAV) are ubiquitous and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV) are a reality. UCAVs will not replace manned aircraft but will influence the design of the next fighters by relieving them of some missions, such as suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses or stand-in electronic attack. One argument for the Navy’s RAQ-25 carrier-based air refueling system is that it can extend both the range and life of the strike-fighter force.

Directed-energy weapons will be a real factor. Technological breakthroughs, like the Missile Defense Agency’s projects, lie within the realm of the possible. More likely, the development of a practical weapon—such as a laser capable of defending a large aircraft against missile attack—will trigger a cascade of new applications, higher production rates and engineering improvements, analogous to the rapid development of targeting pods since the late 1990s.

Small precision-guided bombs, largely autonomous after launch, are a reality: A future fighter will be designed around many small weapons rather than a pair of 2,000-lb. heavyweights. There is a case for reshaping weapons: The JSF’s bomb bays are tailored to fit the Mk. 84 bomb, which was designed in 1946 for low-drag external carriage on the long (and deservedly) forgotten Douglas A2D Skyshark. Guided cannon shells could give the fighter’s oldest weapon a new lease on life.

To drag the cost of LRS-B out of the stratosphere, the Air Force made it part of a reconnaissance-strike complex. The fighter will be the same: The more that it functions as a link in the chain between more capable, survivable UAVs and longer-range, more jam-resistant weapons, the less it relies on its own sensors and survivability. It will be able to operate autonomously, but that may not be its primary mode of operation.

Above all, adaptability. When the JSF’s shape was sketched two decades ago, China’s military comprised serried ranks of 1950s Soviet kit, a mobile phone was only mobile in big cities (and a mere plastic brick if you lived elsewhere), and containing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was little more than a chore. The industry had barely started to contemplate MLUs for the first digital fighters, so the word “obsolescence” was only starting to cause fear.

We have little idea what to expect by 2036, so we must be ready to adapt: to use only open architectures, to upgrade electronic hardware and software at close-to-market speed and even use new manufacturing technology to alter airframes—“change the dustcover,” as one engineer put it a few years ago, when computers had dustcovers.

It will be difficult. It won’t provide the same opportunities to lock up business for decades, but that is a good thing. And it promises to be exciting, which is better. 

Demain, on rase gratis !

0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Au fait, Dassault a des idées sur le sujet, il a lancé des pré études ?

0

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !


Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.


Connectez-vous maintenant

  • Statistiques des membres

    5 063
    Total des membres
    1 132
    Maximum en ligne
    Blaireau11
    Membre le plus récent
    Blaireau11
    Inscription
  • Statistiques des forums

    19 995
    Total des sujets
    1 062 456
    Total des messages
  • Statistiques des blogs

    3
    Total des blogs
    2
    Total des billets