zx

Avion de combat Franco Allemand

Recommended Posts

Oui les Allemands doivent impérativement s'aligner sur le concept omnirôle et laisser le leadership du programme à la France (plus précisément Dassault), ça leur fera des économies (plus besoin de deux types d'avions) et nous on aura pas à traîner un boulet.

Si par exemple l'avion n'est pas fait pour atterrir sur PA, on devra se résoudre à acheter américain pour remplacer nos Rafale M, si l'avion n'est pas fait pour les missions d'attaque nucléaire on devra mettre à la poubelle notre composante aéroportée de la dissuasion nucléaire... bref beaucoup d'enjeux dans ce projet.

Edited by Tonton Charlie
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
il y a 30 minutes, Tonton Charlie a dit :

Oui les Allemands doivent impérativement s'aligner sur le concept omnirôle et laisser le leadership du programme à la France (plus précisément Dassault), ça leur fera des économies (plus besoin de deux types d'avions) et nous on aura pas à traîner un boulet.

Si par exemple l'avion n'est pas fait pour atterrir sur PA, on devra se résoudre à acheter américain pour remplacer nos Rafale M, si l'avion n'est pas fait pour les missions d'attaque nucléaire on devra mettre à la poubelle notre composante aéroportée de la dissuasion nucléaire... bref beaucoup d'enjeux dans ce projet.

Il est urgent d'attendre.... les élections allemandes et que l'équipe de menuisiers de Bercy ait rangé le rabot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c'est tout bon, la France amène le savoir faire,  l'Allemagne les sous.  Arf ! :bloblaugh: ja ! so ist gut  und das ist perfekt

Edited by zx
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on va passer peut être directement à 6G avec des drones 5G, avec la force des deux industries ca doit être jouable dans le cadre de budget maitrisé si on ne retombe pas en situation de guéguerre et si le partage des tâches est bien répartie.

 
Citation

 

Design concepts

Dubbed the "Next Generation Tactical Aircraft"/"Next Gen TACAIR",[8] the USAF seeks a fighter with "enhanced capabilities in areas such as reach, persistence, survivability, net-centricity, situational awareness, human-system integration and weapons effects," a November 4, 2010 presolicitation notice states. “The future system will have to counter adversaries equipped with next generation advanced electronic attack, sophisticated integrated air defense systems, passive detection, integrated self-protection, directed energy weapons, and cyber attack capabilities. It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030–50 timeframe.”[9] [10]

The sixth-generation fighters are expected to use advanced engines such as Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology to allow longer ranges and higher performance. Risk reduction began in 2012 so that engine development can start around 2020. An engine is to be ready when fighters are introduced by the Navy in 2028 and the Air Force in 2032.[11]

USAF General Mike Hostage has said that they have yet to decide on which features will define the sixth-generation fighters.[12]

In November 2013, the Air Force Research Laboratory released a request for information (RFI) for a laser weapon that could be mounted on next-generation air dominance fighters by the 2030s. The Air Force is interested in three categories of lasers: low-power for illuminating, tracking, targeting, and defeating enemy sensors; moderate-power for protection to destroy incoming missiles; and high-power to offensively engage enemy aircraft and ground targets. The laser and systems controls are to work at altitudes from sea level to 65,000 ft at speeds from Mach 0.6 to Mach 2.5. Laser submissions are to be at technology readiness level 4 (basic components work in a lab) by October 2014, and the Air Force wants a system to be at technology readiness level 5 (system components work in a simulated environment) or higher by 2022. The RFI requests submissions with detailed descriptions in a militarily useful configuration, potential problems and solutions, and cost estimates.[13]

The RAND Corporation has recommended that the U.S. military services avoid joint programs for the development of the design of a sixth-generation fighter. Studies by RAND have found that in previous joint programs, different service-specific requirements for complex programs have led to design compromises that raise costs far more than normal single-service programs. In a comparison between four recent joint service programs (F-35, Joint Strike Fighter, T-6A Texan II Joint Primary Aircraft Training System, E-8 JSTARS, V-22 Osprey) and four recent single-service programs (C-17 Globemaster III, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-22 Raptor, T-45 Goshawk), costs for joint programs rose 65 percent nine years after a Milestone B decision to move into engineering and manufacturing development compared to 24 percent for independent programs during the same timespan.[14]

Engine development for sixth generation fighters is already underway to be more efficient in making jets faster and giving them a longer range. While current engines operate best at a single point in the flight envelope, newer engines could vary their bypass ratios for optimum efficiency at any speed or altitude. That would give an aircraft a much greater range, faster acceleration, and greater subsonic cruise efficiency. A variable-cycle engine could configure itself to act like a turbojet at supersonic speeds, while performing like a high-bypass turbofan for efficient cruising at slower speeds; the ability to supercruise may not be a critical requirement, but it will likely be able to with the engine type. One critical component is the adaptive fan to allow the engine to vary its bypass ratio depending on altitude and speed with a third stream of air to increase or decrease the bypass ratio. A low-bypass configuration would be used for take offs and supersonic flight, and a high-bypass configuration would have high propulsive efficiency for cruising. The U.S. Navy and Air Force have different sixth generation fighter development programs, but both services are working together on engine development. The Air Force is aiming for a Milestone A decision by 2018, with a production version to be ready possibly by 2021. Companies involved with next-generation engine development include General Electric and Pratt & Whitney.[15]

On 30 July 2014, General Mike Hostage spoke about the evolving nature of proposed sixth-generation fighter requirements at an event hosted by the Air Force Association (AFA). Since Air Combat Command released a request for information(RFI) in 2009 for industry feedback on sixth-generation air dominance technologies, teams thinking of requirements have been told not to think in terms of a "platform" like a single-seat fighter with a certain number of engines. Hostage remarked that if next-generation air dominance capabilities came from pressing "a single button on a keyboard that makes all our adversaries fall to the ground" it would be acceptable. Concepts from the Air Force and industry have so far revolved around supersonic tailless aircraft. One of the key limitations in relying on a single platform is they have a limited weapons load, so the original RFI sought ground-based and non-kinetic solutions, with whatever sixth-generation technology being required to have a larger magazine than current fighter solutions.[16]

There are significant differences between Navy and Air Force visions for their respective next-generation jet concepts, but both agree on some fundamental characteristic aspects they will share. American sixth-generation fighters are to feature artificial intelligence as a decision aid to the pilot, similar in concept to how advanced sensor fusion is used by the F-22 and F-35. They will also have Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT), and communications that allow big data movement between both service's aircraft.[17]

Air Force General Herbert Carlisle said in February 2015 that stealth is "incredibly important" for their next-generation F-X fighter. This contrasts with statements made by Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert that their F/A-XX fighter might not be so focused on survivability as to sacrifice speed and payload. Unlike the previous F-22 and F-35 development programs that depended on new technologies that drove up cost and delayed introduction, the Air Force is intending to follow a methodical path of risk reduction to include as much prototyping, technology demonstration, and systems engineering work as possible before creation of an aircraft actually starts. Carlisle describes the sixth-generation strike capability not as just an aircraft, but a system of systems including communications, space capabilities, standoff, and stand-in options.[18]

In March 2015, the Navy revealed they were working with the Air Force to potentially release joint analysis of alternatives (AoA) in 2016 for their next-generation fighters; they are allowed to take a joint AoA, then define a service solution that would be good for each service. The Navy is focusing on replacing the capabilities of the fighter with a wide range of options for the Super Hornet, as well as the EA-18G Growler. The AoA will run parallel to several other design and technology efforts including engine technology, airframe molds, broadband and IR stealth, and new ways to dominate the electromagnetic spectrum. Part of the Navy's calculus will be based on how the F-35C performs as a critical forward sensor node for the carrier air wing. How the fifth-generation F-35C integrates with the rest of the air wing to give greater capabilities than what the platform itself can do may lend itself to the sixth-generation F/A-XX.[19]

In April 2015, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) released a report concluding that the next-generation U.S. Air Force fighter should be larger and more resembling a bomber than a small, maneuverable traditional fighter. It analyzed over 1,450 air-to-air engagements since 1965 and found that long-range weapons and sensors have dramatically decreased instances of dogfighting. With the increase of air defense systems using electronic and infrared sensors and high-speed weapons, traditional designs relying on small size, high speed, and maneuverability may be less relevant and easier to intercept. As a result, the CSBA suggests building a fighter significantly larger relying on enhanced sensors, signature control, networked situational awareness, and very-long-range weapons to complete engagements before being detected or tracked. Larger planes would have greater range that would enable them to be stationed further from a combat zone, have greater radar and IR detection capabilities, and carry bigger and longer-range missiles. One airframe could be fitted with various attachments to fill several roles. The concept of a small number of large, intercontinental and heavily armed combat aircraft could link itself to the development of the Long Range Strike Bomber.[20]

In November 2016 the USAF Scientific Advisory Board announced studies for a Penetrating Counterair (PCA) platform that would combine long range, supersonic speed, stealth and maneuverability and be fielded by 2030.[21]

Examples

In September 2011, Boeing unveiled a sixth-generation fighter concept for the U.S. Navy and Air Force. It is planned to have supercruise and fly faster and further than the F-35 Lightning II. Boeing is self-funding the project until an official fighter program starts to have a design ready.[22]

Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division has revealed a conceptual next-generation fighter design that offers the first hints of an ambitious, long-term technology strategy for the new class of tactical aircraft that will emerge after 2030. The concept was published in a 2012 calendar, which was distributed to journalists. Lockheed Martin has called for greater speed, range, stealth and self-healing structures.[23]

In January 2015, Northrop Grumman revealed it had stood up teams dedicated to developing a sixth-generation fighter and that it would compete for the next fighter. Individual teams were created to focus on the specific separate requirements for the Navy and Air Force. The company indicates it is looking at a supersonic tailless jet, something never created before due to complexity; it may also be optionally manned.[24]

International Development

In 2010, the Japanese Ministry of Defence exposed the concept of sixth-generation national product jet fighter.[25] This would be based on the I3 concepts of an aircraft that was informed, intelligent and instantaneous.[26] On March 22, 2016, Japan conducted the first flight of the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin testbed aircraft for this project.

On 26 August 2013, Russia revealed it would proceed with development of a sixth-generation jet fighter. They say the aircraft will most likely be pilotless. However, they would not skip completing development of fifth-generation fighter projects, like the Sukhoi T-50.[27]

France has abandoned any attempt to develop an indigenous fifth-generation fighter and have moved resources directly to development of a sixth-generation fighter aircraft.[28]

On the 29th of July 2014, "IHS Jane’s" reported that a House of Commons Defence Select Committee had published a report in late July 2014 about the UK's future, "post-2030 combat aviation force structure". The report highlighted a possibility of the UK committing to a next generation fighter program to potentially replace the Eurofighter Typhoon post-2030, however, the Eurofighter Typhoon has since had its intended service life extended to around 2040.[29]

The Mikoyan MiG-41 is a sixth-generation jet fighter interceptor aircraft currently being developed for the Russian Air Force by Mikoyan.[30] [31]

 

 

 

Edited by zx
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 6 heures, herciv a dit :

ET avec le f-16 pour moi ils vont tout perdre car le calendrier de Macron ne va pas leur plaire et d'après @web123 il devrait même ne pas être très favorable aux indiens.

C'est quoi le calendrier de Macron ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le gros problème qu'ils ne voient pas venir, ca sera ou trouver l'argent.

Edited by zx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un autre truc à noter dans l'article posté par @zx, c'est que

Quote

Sweden has shown an interest, as well, said one executive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lire les premières réactions, on pense déjà que le projet est déjà signé, financé, les industriels sélectionnés, et le premier accompte versé....

ON EST ENCORE LOIN DE TOUT ÇA ! 

La France va poser ses conditions et l'Allemagne les siennes et on verra seulement si il y a une petite chance si cet embryon de projet verra le jour...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le côté Cabirol

Paris et Berlin prêts à monter ensemble dans le futur avion de combat européen

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/paris-et-berlin-prets-a-monter-ensemble-dans-le-futur-avion-de-combat-europeen-743936.html

Oui, faut déjà voir ce qu'on veut et si on arrive à se mettre d'accord,mais c'est marrant de voir les réactions de part et d'autres.

Il y a les indiens qui n'arrêtent pas de sauter partout avec leur AMCA et le LSA sera peut être de retour

les anglois qui disent c'est pas grave on en finira par en faire un

saab, je voudrais bien en être.

les US (silence radio, wait and see)

 

 

Edited by zx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'est moi où cette idée là, d'un avion avec les allemands, puis d'autres qui veulent rejoindre le programme, on l'a déjà vécue... Non ?

Il me semble que cela s'est traduit pas un fiasco, du côté français en tout cas (peut-être même du côté des partenaires qui se sont maintenus dans le programme, si j'en crois tous les déboires du Typhoon...).

Ok, ok, si il faut en passer par là pour, qu'une nouvelle fois on comprenne que nos besoins sont incompatibles, que nous claquions la porte et que nous accouchions d'un Rafale 2 aussi bien réalisé que le premier du nom, alors j'achète !

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pas si nous faisons deux variantes avec des composants commun,  une version lourde genre intercepteur comme le F22,  et une version moyenne omnirole comme le rafale. en ++ bien sur

Edited by zx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Je suis étonné du peu de cas donné à la nouvelle d'un Rafale allongé dit XL  pour porter le futur ASN4G, plus long que l'ASMPA R  ( fil dissuasion française ) , il est vrai à travers 2 sénateurs  ...

Y aurait il un lien entre ce besoin là , français, et un Rafale orienté  Succession du Tornado  ? ( puisque les allemands ont représenté  un NGWS avec pas mal d'embonpoint )

http://www.air-cosmos.com/rapport-du-senat-un-programme-pour-le-successeur-de-l-asmpa-est-imperatif-96991#.WVOZKyEQ4lk.twitter

"L'objectif sera de disposer de la nouvelle arme d'ici 2035, le développement final de l'ASN4G pourrait donc n'être lancé qu'en 2024 "

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Je doute qu'airbus soit mis dans la boucle avec cassidian dans le bazar. Dassault ne voudra pas son leadership

 

Edited by zx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ce dont l'Allemagne a besoin, c'est du Rafale. Je propose qu'ils ravalent leur fierté, en achètent quelques dizaines et ensuite on pourra envisager un quelconque avenir commun.

Edited by Kal
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a bien acheté des HK416 pour remplacer des famas, ils peuvent bien remplacer les tournedos par les raffy.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'est pas le même montant quand même.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 10 heures, zx a dit :

Je doute qu'airbus soit mis dans la boucle avec cassidian dans le bazar. Dassault ne voudra pas son leadership

D'accord, mais il y a quelle autre grosse entreprise en Allemagne disposant des compétences associées à la réalisation d'un chasseur ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 11 heures, Kal a dit :

qu'ils ravalent leur fierté, en achètent quelques dizaines et ensuite on pourra envisager un quelconque avenir commun

C'est ce à quoi beaucoup pensent... Evidemment: des Rafale G qui intégreraient des armements auxquels ils ont déjà participé ( Taurus par ex., Iris T t autres ? ): ainsi ils auraient de quoi se faire la main en intégration.... Au moins à titre transitoire, en attendant le XL,  dérivé du G et du F4, XL auquel ils auront participé  sous maîtrise d'ouvrage DA

Je fais un résumé de ma relecture du fil Rafale, ayant été absent une grosse dizaine de jours: 

"Pour le NG, il y aurait des moteurs plus puissant, un fuselage allongé puis un profil d'aile modifié. Si on prévoit une mise en service en 2035, ça ne fait que 18 ans pour développer de nouveau moteur, un nouveau fuselage et de nouvelles aile."  Dixit ARPA le 6 July  /   Fil Rafale

"parier qu'il s'agira d'une version beaucoup plus furtive passivement que l'actuelle et disposant de beaucoup plus de carburant interne. L'allongement de la cellule plaide pour cela, ainsi que pour un fuselage encore plus portant (réduisant l'intérêt d'une augmentation de l'envergure) et une vitesse maximum sans doute augmentée ou en tout cas un passage aux vitesses transsoniques facilité."  Dixit Patrick le 6 july

"On peut tout a fait imaginer un Rafale plus long de 2 m , du coup effectivement il faut redessiner l'aile , avec des M-88 améliorés 9t et biplace pour la commande de drones , ce serait un nouvel appareil mais en fait pas tant que ça non plus. En plus on a une dizaine d'années pour y arriver c'est facilement tenable sans exploser les budgets."  Dixit dark sidius  July 7 

"PS: arrêtez de vous poser trop de questions sur le 2 m en plus pour le Rafale. A ma connaissance, ces 2 m sont juste un "exemple" pris par Dark Sidius. La seule source que j'ai trouvé, c'est que le Rafale NG sera plus long mais sans précision, c'est peut-être juste 50cm (juste pour améliorer le dessin sans véritable gain opérationnel) ou peut-être 5m (donc avec une soute, du carburant ....)."  ARPA  9 july

"Le Rafale a été conçu pour travailler sur un porte avions. Le Rafale NG pourrait laisser tomber cette contrainte. Le Rafale M peut continuer a exister et même être produit, alors que le Rafale NG serait un avion plus gros avec une autonomie nettement plus important. Un peu à l'image du "Long Range Strike Bomber" "    Dixit 1foismax  9 july

Edited by Bechar06
Retro lecture
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Member Statistics

    5,544
    Total Members
    1,550
    Most Online
    salvaggioc
    Newest Member
    salvaggioc
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    20,996
    Total Topics
    1,349,869
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    3
    Total Blogs
    2
    Total Entries