Le F-35

[Bighoz]

Comment ca se passe pour ce contrat au niveau de la vente? C'est le Pentagon qui achète et revend aux autres clients ou LM vend directement aux pays "partenaires" ?

[Skw]

Bonne question Bighoz.

La situation n’est apparemment pas la même pour tous les pays. Par exemple, sur le site web de la Defense Security Cooperation Agency (cliquer ici), il est possible de trouver une notification adressée au Congrès concernant la possible vente du F-35 à Israël. Citation :

On September 26, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Israel of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $15.2 billion.

PDF officiel : ici

En revanche, une telle procédure, c'est-à-dire la Foreign Military Sale (FMS), ne semble pas avoir été mise en oeuvre pour les F-35 australiens. En tout cas, j’ai bien cherché sur le site et je n’en ai pas trouvé la moindre trace. Or, toutes les plus importantes procédures de FMS y sont répertoriées.

L’explication est donnée ici :

This is a decision of policy, correct? Not a formal order for aircraft?

This is an acquisition decision – which includes funding approval – for the first 14 aircraft. Placing orders for the 14 aircraft will be done via the US-led JSF Project Office in conjunction with the US and other partners.

Have the U.S. and Australian governments agreed on price and terms of the F-35 purchase?

Australia will pay the same price as the US Government. The US and all partners will buy aircraft under the same contracts placed by the US-led JSF Project Office. For the next several years, the prices of aircraft under these contracts are being determined annually. Eventually acquisition will be via multi-year orders, again in collaboration with all other partners.

Source originale : Star telegram

En fait, ce JSF Project Office semble être un moyen de contourner la procédure américaine habituelle en cas de vente d’armes à l’international. Il me semble qu’un tel bidouillage a également été monté, sous l’administration W. Bush, pour contourner les procédures ITAR. Elles compliquaient le transfert de technologies entre US et Gibis.

Pourquoi cette différence de traitement entre Israéliens et Australiens ? Le JSF Programm fait la différence entre les partenaires (UK, Italie, Canada, Australie, etc.) et les membres intégrés dans le cadre d’une « Security Cooperative Participation » (Israël, Singapour)

Source : site officiel du JSF

PS : Donc, pour une réponse plus directe : dans le cas d'Israel, la vente se fait d'Etat à Etat. Dans le cas australien, ça passe par le JSF Project Office. De toute manière, On imagine que le gouvernement US ne doit pas traîner très loin)

[Bighoz]

merci skw ! je m'inquiétais un peu parceque je me disais que si cela passait par le Pentagon pour les partenaires, finalement ils ne pouvaient pas vraiment négocier les prix avec LM et que c'était le gouvernement americain qui les fixait "arbitrairement".

Bon ca change pas nécessairement la situation réelle vous me direz ...

[BPCs]

LA Saga (cata ???) continue :

F-35 Faces A Troubled 2010

Feb 5, 2010

By Bill Sweetman

http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/dti/2010/02/01/DT_02_01_2010_p32-199424.xml&headline=F-35%20Faces%20A%20Troubled%202010&channel=defense

[flanker]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6gq84TiIFcA&pos=9

F-35C pas assez renforcé pour supporter les contraintes du catapultage :lol:

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp. is fixing a structural weakness in the Navy version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that limits the jet’s ability to launch from aircraft carriers, according to a company spokesman.

Engineers in July discovered a “strength shortfall” in an aluminum structure in the aircraft’s center fuselage that helps absorb stresses during a catapult takeoff, Lockheed spokesman John Kent said today in an e-mailed statement.

“U.S. Navy and program office engineers were apprised immediately and have been directly involved in approving design updates,” Kent said. “A modification is already approved and ready to incorporate early this year prior to any catapult testing planned for 2011.”

[Chris.]

et là, c'est le drame, la moitié arrière du fuselage fait sécession de la moitié avant, lors du premier catapultage. 

[Akhilleus]

mais ils vont finir par les avoir toutes faites

c'est pas possible !!  >:(

[P4]

Moi qui pensait la Navy opposer au F-35C....

[xav]

Australia commits $2.6 billion to buy 14 F-35s. US tells Aussies to pay more

    Australia previously committed AUD $3 billion(US $2.6 billion dollars) to buy 14 F-35s, but this apparently isn't enough.

    Visiting US Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn instead brought the bad news; he doesn't know what the final cost would be, but it will cost more(than previously announced US $2.6 billion) and faces an additional 14 month delay, assuming accelerated testing goes well.

    Previous unit cost was US $185 million per plane, so this delay would push the unit cost past US $200 million per copy.

    At US $200 million per copy, one must ask question of why the US is even bothering with F-35, when an F-22 could be had for less.

200 millions $ l'unité

[Chaps]

rCe sont les prix first batch, on ne peut pas en tirer des conclusions sur les prix séries. Même si ce sont des coûts importants

[Arka_Voltchek]

rCe sont les prix first batch, on ne peut pas en tirer des conclusions sur les prix séries. Même si ce sont des coûts importants

Le problème, c'est que le dévelloppement est loins d'être terminé. Ces prix déjà énorme peuvent encore augmenter...

@+, Arka

[Rob1]

Difficile de croire quand même que le prix de l'appareil de série dépassera celui du Raptor. Rien qu'avec la production quasi-assurée pour les armées US...

[Arka_Voltchek]

Difficile de croire quand même que le prix de l'appareil de série dépassera celui du Raptor. Rien qu'avec la production quasi-assurée pour les armées US...

"l'AH-64 sera bien moins cher que le trop complexe AH-56"

"Le Class Virginia sera beaucoup moins cher que les Class Seawolf dont les performances extrèmes ont augmenté le prix hors de tout propos"

...

Plus cher ? Pas sûr, mais loin d'être impossible.

@+, Arka

[alexandreVBCI]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4500895&c=AME&s=AIR

Pentagon officials on Feb. 16 confirmed Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn's announcement one day prior that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program will be delayed by about one year.

The Pentagon's No. 2 official said this week that the jet's development schedule would slip between 12 months and 13 months despite an aggressive restructuring of the program that was announced earlier this month.

=> Entre 12 et 13 mois de retard confirmé par le Pentagone !

[pascal]

le Rafale dans l'ADLA a pris presque 10 ans (1996/2005) de retard et nécessita le rétrofit F1 CT pour faire la soudure ...

Ne nous gaussons pas trop  =)

[ARPA]

le Rafale dans l'ADLA a pris presque 10 ans (1996/2005) de retard et nécessita le rétrofit F1 CT pour faire la soudure ...

Ne nous gaussons pas trop  =)

En plus du rétrofit de F1CT, on pourrait aussi rajouter celui des -5F et même la commande des 2000D qui aurait pu être annulé ou au moins réduite à quelques 2000N avec des capacités conventionnelles.

[Skw]

La différence entre le Rafale et le F-35, c'est que le gouvernement fédéral US a toujours répondu dans les temps aux besoins du programme. La "faute" incombe donc avant tout à LM.

[Oberoth]

Qui est étonné franchement ? 

[alexandreVBCI]

En fait la date de mise en service du F-35 est repoussée à 2015 :

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4506723&c=AME&s=AIR

"The general said that the restructuring, which was announced Feb. 1 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will extend the plane's system design and development (SDD) phase until 2015. That's two years after the air service had planned to begin operating the aircraft.

.../...

Earlier this week, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the SDD phase of the program would be one year behind schedule. And yesterday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that the F-35 program is likely to breach Nunn-McCurdy limits on per-unit cost growth, which would likely require a formal notice to Congress."

ouch !

[Rob1]

:oops:

[TMor]

Heu... hum.....

:lol:

[xav]

4-year plan calls for fewer JSFs, more mobility

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer

Posted : Sunday Feb 21, 2010 9:12:41 EST

The Air Force has its marching orders.

Every four years, Congress requires the Defense Department to map out where the services will head in the coming four years.

For the Air Force, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review gives the OK to ideas that have support but no money to make them happen — more trainers for foreign militaries and new light-attack and light-airlift planes.

But the QDR, released Feb. 1, also lacks details and ignores some missions entirely. For generals and politicians, there’s plenty of room to make their cases about the best road forward.

What’s there

More trainers: Thousands of airmen – no number is specified — will be assigned to deploy and work with foreign air forces.

A close partnership: Greater integration of Air Force and Navy missions is called for in a program labeled the “joint air-sea battle concept.” Besides cooperation at the tactical level, the QDR envisions a joint approach to deciding which aircraft and missiles can best perform long-range strike.

Shrinking fighters: The QDR lays out a fleet of 1,224 “primary aircraft” for the Air Force. The total is 539 fewer planes than the 1,763 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that the Air Force wants to buy in the next 20 years. Air Force officials refused to discuss the difference until after they brief lawmakers on their portion of the QDR, starting the week of Feb. 7.

Greater mobility: A force of 1,056 tankers and airlifters is the QDR goal. The Air Force would still get only the 223 C-17s it already has on order but would pick up an unspecified number of small C-27 cargo planes. Defense Secretary Robert Gates hasn’t been shy about stopping production of the C-17. He dropped it from the 2010 defense budget; Congress put it back in.

More ISR: Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — three missions that the Air Force has repeatedly said it is expanding. The QDR puts weight behind the words: 380 remote-controlled and manned surveillance planes and 65 round-the-clock patrols by 2015. The Air Force now has about 190 remote-controlled reconnaissance planes and flies 39 patrols.

Better surveillance: Today’s remote-controlled planes lack the stealth and speed to avoid advanced missile defenses. The QDR calls for surveillance aircraft able to fly in heavily defended airspace.

New gunships: The number of AC-130 gunships grows by eight, to 33. Starting in 2012, the service and U.S. Special Operations Command will convert 16 C-130Js into AC-130s, allowing the Air Force to retire eight AC-130Hs.

What’s missing

Specifics: The QDR is long on big ideas but short on details. For example, no mention is made of when a long-range bomber should be operational or how many airmen should be in uniform.

CSAR’s future: When Gates killed the Air Force’s new combat search-and-rescue helicopter program in 2009, he promised a departmentwide review of the CSAR mission. The word “rescuer” doesn’t appear in the QDR.

Operational tempo: The QDR promises to reduce operational tempo so that troops gone for a year have at least two years at home before deploying. But the review offers no deadlines or instructions for how the services should reach that goal.

The “4.5 generation fighter”: Air National Guard advocates pushed the Pentagon to consider buying upgraded versions of the F-16 and F-15E instead of only the F-35. There’s no mention of pursuing the latest versions of the nonstealthy fighters.

Electronic warfare fighters: The Air Force isn’t getting its own tactical electronic warfare protection. It will continue to depend on its own planes equipped with jamming pods or on Marine Corps and Navy jets.

The Air Force’s cyberspace role: While the study trumpets plans for a joint cyber command, there are no specifics on how each service fits into the master plan.

[Chimera]

Alors si on résume, l'US Navy en veut pas, l'USAF en veut moins, les Marines se tâtent... C'est la débandade ce JSF!

[Babou]

Veulent des rafis a la place..? O0 :oops:

[debonneguerre]

Ah ben super comme ca ils vont essayer d'en refourguer un paquet aux européens moutons qui ont génialement souscrits à ce beau projet.

En 2015 en plus....

Une fortune à l'unité....

Le contribuable US a l'échine souple..

Dire que les hollandais avaient songé à se retirer du projet en passant en perte les sommes déjà versées.