Aller au contenu
AIR-DEFENSE.NET

Le F-35


georgio
 Share

Messages recommandés

Pentagon Tester: JSF F-35 Program Risking a "Serious Mishap"

The Pentagon's top official for weapons testing sent a sternly worded letter warning the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and the Air Force that their plans to start unmonitored flight training on the Air Force variant of the JSF F-35 this fall "risks the occurrence of a serious mishap," according to an October 21 memo, first published by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). The JSF program and Air Force disagree with the test official's assessment, saying they are appropriately mitigating safety risks. The dispute has gone all the way up to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, reported Bloomberg Government's Tony Capaccio, who first broke news of the memo in a story behind a paywall.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/10/31/pentagon-tester-jsf-program-risking-a-serious-mishap/#ixzz1cRUBljdu

En gros les pilotes d'essais commencent à stresser et disent que l'avion est pas prés pour débuter les entrainement "en masse"

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

ça faisait longtemps, B Sweetman repart de plus belle

"Oh no. This is terrible. The program that critics of defense spending love to hate is becoming a normal acquisition program. What are the F-35 deniers to do?"

That's how Dan Goure -- vice-president of Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson's Lexington Institute -- opens a diatribe published yesterday.

Let's start with the headline: "Bad News For F-35 Critics: It’s Becoming A Normal Acquisition Program."

Goure is right, to a point. Like the V-22 (which he also cheerfully trumpets as a success) the F-35 is many years late and billions of  dollars over budget. This is "normal" for the people who pay Goure and Thompson.

Goure is wrong on a more basic level. Normal acquisition programs function within a complex set of rules, written into Federal law. One of those rules is that any major research, development and low-rate initial production program has to receive Milestone B approval before it starts, after review by the Defense Acquisition Board.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a00f478ec-841d-4f77-89bb-05c688c39742&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

et dans la partie commentaire:

Propaganda - which is what Lexington is doing - has to be countered.

This is perhaps the most egregious example, but in the past few days Thompson and Goure have been on the offensive against any reform that might reduce defense contractors' revenues, promoting the idea that affordability is a "religion" (Goure) or that the idea of downsizing the number of missile tubes on SSBN-X, or assessing its stealth against the real threat, is "extremely dangerous" (Thompson, in Forbes).

As regards the last point, how many Forbes readers know that the US Navy seldom if ever loads its Trident D5 missiles to their full eight-warhead capability today? Not many. How many will realize that, while the future is uncertain, one item you can take to the bank is that, in the next century, it is hardly likely that the SSBNs will face a threat equal to the 1970s CIA projection of what the Soviets might posed in the Ohio boats' lifetime?

As for JSF overruns, Thompson blames them on the customer, saying that the government "has burdened the F-35 with lengthy delays, superfluous flight tests, and specious cost assessments". Never a mention of the initial F-35B design that was almost two tons overweight, or the fact that half the test jets were between eight and 15 months late.

This sort of thing cannot do good, and the question is how much harm it caused. As I mused here a few months ago:

"Another question, for application to future programs, is whether the optimistic rhetoric for outside consumption - endemic on almost any program on this scale, it has to be admitted - reached the point where it interfered with leadership's ability to diagnose problems and take corrective action."

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Que vaut le JSf en AToA?

Il me semble bien lourdaud pour du dogfight, mais avec un radar de qualité et des AAMRAM, ça doit pas être pire que le Tornado ADV?

Faut pas dire ça quand des ex-fan de Tornado trainent dans les parages. Le Tornado ADV aurait pû être excellent ... si le budget lui avait permis d'arriver 20 ans avant.

Le Tornado ADV (on va raisonner sur la version idéale et nominale, celle qu'on n'a jamais vu, ou alors seulement dans les 2 ans avant la fin) et le Lightning II ne boxent pas dans la même catégorie, même en A2A.

Le Tornado ADV est un coureur de grands espaces, chasseur de grosses proies à grande distance. Son truc, c'est l'interception lointaine ou bien la patrouille de zones océaniques. Il trace, tire, et revient. C'est presque plus un porte-missile (et porte-radar si le Blue-Fox-Hunter avait été mis au point correctement) qu'un avion de combat aérien. Un intercepteur à la mode des années 70 quoi.

Le Lightning II est court sur pattes en allonge, c'est donc déjà cuit pour les grands espaces. Il est furtif, donc on peut aussi supposer qu'il ne signalera pas son arrivée avant d'être à portée de tir. Il a un gros moulin, capable de donner de la dynamique de vol à une brique (ça tombe bien vu son design), et de larges surfaces de contrôle. Il n'a donc pas de raison d'être une brêle en BFM, même si ce n'est pas son domaine de prédilection, ni celui de son emploi principal. Il devrait pouvoir se tirer de ce domaine aussi bien que le F-16 qu'il est censé remplacer.

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

USAF in the 2020s -- F-15s, F-16s ... and U-2s?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a14ff6512-94e4-4af6-80d5-98b07223df30&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Because of the delays, the US Air Force will soon announce a program to extend the service life and upgrade the avionics of 300-350 Block 40/50 F-16s at a cost of $9.4 million per aircraft, Lt Gen Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told Congress.

This will extend their airframe life to 10,000hr from 8,000hr, another eight years of service life keeping the F-16 on the front line until 2030. The life-extension could be expanded to up to 600 F-16s if there are further F-35 delays, but Carlisle said he did not believe the Air Force would have to go that far.

At the same time, the Air Force may extend the F-15C/D upgrade already way from the 176 aircraft planned to the full 250-aircraft inventory "based on requirements of the future force structure," he said. The F-15C/D upgrade, which includes AESA radar, is intended to keep the fleet viable until 2025-2030.

And don't forget the A-10, which the F-35 is also scheduled to replace. Two-thirds of the Air Force's fleet of 347 already-upgraded A-10Cs are to be rewinged beginning in FY2012, to keep the aircraft in service beyond 2030.

And the picture is little better over at the Department of the Navy. The Navy will have to SLEP 150 F/A-18A-Ds beginning in FY2012 to extend their airframe life to 10,000hr and keep them in service till 2023 to fill in the fighter shortfall caused by F-35C delays. And that's in addition to buying an extra 41 new F/A-18E/Fs through 2014.

And the US Marine Corps, which is totally dependent on the F-35B to maintain its STOVL capability, has been forced to extend the AV-8B's out-of-service date to 2026, from 2022. No major SLEP is planned; instead the Marines will "focus on sustainment efforts to mitigate significant legacy inventory shortfalls, maintain airframe sustainment and address reliability and obsolescence issues of avionics and subsystems," Congress was told. Issues include unexpected fatigue cracks in the nose landing-gear attachment point.

La vache, dans 10 ans ils seront toujours sur F16c, F18A, A10, AV-8 etc... (U2 aussi :) )

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

USAF in the 2020s -- F-15s, F-16s ... and U-2s?

La vache, dans 10 ans ils seront toujours sur F16c, F18A, A10, AV-8 etc... (U2 aussi :) )

C’est une nouvelle intéressante si cela se confirme.

Lockheed va détester : pour pouvoir financer cette mise à niveau, le Pentagone va devoir retarder le programme F-35.

De plus, cette opération améliore l’état de la flotte de l’Air Force. Elle ne va plus être si pressée de passer au F-35.

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Rejoindre la conversation

Vous pouvez publier maintenant et vous inscrire plus tard. Si vous avez un compte, connectez-vous maintenant pour publier avec votre compte.

Invité
Répondre à ce sujet…

×   Collé en tant que texte enrichi.   Restaurer la mise en forme

  Seulement 75 émoticônes maximum sont autorisées.

×   Votre lien a été automatiquement intégré.   Afficher plutôt comme un lien

×   Votre contenu précédent a été rétabli.   Vider l’éditeur

×   Vous ne pouvez pas directement coller des images. Envoyez-les depuis votre ordinateur ou insérez-les depuis une URL.

 Share

  • Statistiques des membres

    5 967
    Total des membres
    1 749
    Maximum en ligne
    Stevendes
    Membre le plus récent
    Stevendes
    Inscription
  • Statistiques des forums

    21,5k
    Total des sujets
    1,7m
    Total des messages
  • Statistiques des blogs

    4
    Total des blogs
    3
    Total des billets
×
×
  • Créer...