georgio

Le F-35

Recommended Posts

Mais si la GB se dote dans le futur des deux porte avions conventionnels (c'est à dire pas des porte hélicoptères) qu'elle a prévus, n'aurait elle pas besoin d'appareils à décollage et atterrissage classiques ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moi je dir si, car les Porte-avion Britannique sont plus petit que ceux des states

Ben si le Royaume Uni prend des F-35 navalisés à décollage conventionnel, es USA ne peuvent pas supprimer cette version :rolleyes: Surtout que la GB est le pays qui finance le plus pour ce programme (après les USA bien sur)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mais si la GB se dote dans le futur des deux porte avions conventionnels (c'est à dire pas des porte hélicoptères) qu'elle a prévus, n'aurait elle pas besoin d'appareils à décollage et atterrissage classiques ?

Ils ne le savent pas tres bien eux mêmes. C'est la raison pour laquelle leur CVF doit pouvoir être converti en version à catapulte...au cas ou :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ils ne le savent pas tres bien eux mêmes. C'est la raison pour laquelle leur CVF doit pouvoir être converti en version à catapulte...au cas ou :lol:

:lol: Ben c'est brillant tout ça :lol:

Enfin ça serait quand meme mieux pour eux (avis strictement personnel bien-sur) qu'ils choisissent la version à décollage conventionnel, puisqu'ils ont les moyens de la faire décoller de leurs nouveaux PA. De plus elle doit avoir une meilleure autonomie et une meilleure charge utile que celle à décollage vertical, non ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oui sûrrement, mais après la maintenance serait plus cher à cause des catapultes et des brins d'arrêt. De plus il faudrait former le personnel. En attendant, il faudrait qu'il développe une version navale du Typhoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oui sûrrement, mais après la maintenance serait plus cher à cause des catapultes et des brins d'arrêt. De plus il faudrait former le personnel.

C'est quand meme le + gros budget européen les UK :rolleyes:

En attendant, il faudrait qu'il développe une version navale du Typhoon.

Pourquoi pas, mais ça serait vraiment très cher et peut etre pas nécessaire compte tenu de la commande de F-35.

A mon avis la meilleure solution serait de garder les Harrier (quitte à les utiliser depuis le futur PA) puis de commander des F-35 à décollage conventionnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mais après la maintenance serait plus cher à cause des catapultes et des brins d'arrêt

A mon avis la maintenance d'un F-35 a decollage verticale est beaucoup plus importante qu'un F-35 classique. Il est beaucoup plus complexe donc aura forcement une disponibilité plus faible, coutera plus cher à l'entretien, il consome plus de carburant car plus lourd et les decollage en charge demanderont plus de puissance donc la aussi le cout est plus important. Enfin piloter un avion a decollage vertical demande plus de formation pour un pilote qu'un avion classique.

Tout ca pour une efficacitée operationelle beacuoup plus faible qu'un avions classique. Sans compter l'impossiblitée d'emport ddavions radar aujourd'hui indispensables pour tout groupe aeronavale respectable.

D'ailleur a ce sujet c'est à cause de l'absence de surveillance radar aéroporté que les brit ont eu de gros problèmes au malouines. Alors pour un PA de 60.000 tonnes emportant 50 aeronef l'absence d'un tel appareil me parait totalement idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'est bien fait pour eux. Oh !!! Je suis méchant en ce moment ! :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ouais c'est vrai que vu comme ça ça change tout. Je pense qu'un mix de F-35B et F-35C pourrait faire l'affaire, les Harriers commençant à ce faire vieux. Un avion à décollage court peut être très utile quand même.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ouais c'est vrai que vu comme ça ça change tout.

Je pense qu'un mix de F-35B et F-35C pourrait faire l'affaire, les Harriers commençant à ce faire vieux.

Un avion à décollage court peut être très utile quand même.

Quel sont les avantages d'un décollage court, si ce n'est la possibilité d'embarquer les appareils sur un porte hélicoptères (qui n'est ici pas valable, puisque les anglishe ont décidé de se doter de PA pouvant mettre en oeuvre des avions à décollagr conventionnel) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quel sont les avantages d'un décollage court, si ce n'est la possibilité d'embarquer les appareils sur un porte hélicoptères (qui n'est ici pas valable, puisque les anglishe ont décidé de se doter de PA pouvant mettre en oeuvre des avions à décollagr conventionnel) ?

Sur une plateforme de type CVF, pour moi l'avantage tourne au desavantage. C'est absurde. A mon avis la seul chose qui pousse les anglais la dedans c'est Rolls Royce et la technologie du decollage verticale, qu'ils ne veulent pas totalement perdre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le F-35 sera au F-22 ce que nEuRON sera au Rafale. Un F-35 en mission dépendra toujours des données que peut lui refiler un F-22, il devra toujours graviter autour. Les Ricains ont bien joué, ils vont prendre le contrôle des armées de l'air de plein de pays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imaginons,... je dis bien "imaginons", que la perfide Albion nous achete des rafales M. Ce serait terriblement pratique pour la formation commune des pilotes des deux armees ainsi que pour l'interpolarite des deux flottes et la mise en commun des armes. Dans le cadre de la defense Europeenne je verrais bien des escadrons anglais a bord de nos porte avions et vice versa, des escadrons francais sur les PA anglais. Bon maintenant c'est juste mon imagination. Je suppose que de basses questions d'amour propre nationaliste interdirons aux anglais d'aller acheter du matos a ces fichus froggies. Ou alors Dassault accepte qu'EADS construisent les rafales sous licences. D'ailleur ce ne serait pas idiot plutot que de developper une cellule du typhoon navalise, utiliser la cellule existante du Rafale M avec les moteurs un brin plus puissant du typhoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ton imagination est fertile Fouineur :lol: D'une part ,la GB avec BAE Systems est partie prenante dans 3 programmes d'avions de combat. Le Typhoon avec EADS ,le Gripen avec Saab et le F35 avec LM. Une coopération franco-britannique dans l'aéronautique n'est pas utopique puisque nous avons développés et produit en commun quelques aéronefs : Concorde ,Jaguar ,Puma ,Lynx ,Gazelle et maintenant Airbus. R&R a du faire du lobbying pour un VSTOL ,leur fleet air arm est composé de sea harrier et harrier GR7 et GR9 impliquant une formation de décollage court depuis de longues années ,leurs futurs CVF disposeront de pistes axiales avec tremplin. Leur futur JCA a de forte chance qui ressemble à un F35 ,au vu de leur implication onéreuse dans ce programme. Tu veux que l'amiral Nelson se retourne dans sa tombe. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Une coopération franco-britannique dans l'aéronautique n'est pas utopique

oui c'ets vrai qu'il y a plusieurs devellopement internationnale (France-GB)

mais si mes souvenirs sont bon au depart du Typhon ,la france etait partie prenante du projet ,avant que Dassault ne ressorte son vieux dessin du Rafale et n'oblige presque (surement) la presidence de l'epoque a quitter le projet EuroFighter ...

Donc a mon avis ce genre de problemes risque de rester en travers de la gorge de certaines societés ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Au depart du Typhoon, il y avait les projets P.106 puis ACA (BAe), TFK90 (MBB) et ACT/ACX (Dassault). Le Typhoon etant un savant melange TFK90/ACA, qui a gagne ? Principalement BAe grace au groupement Panavia. Dassault ne faisait simplement pas le poids face a Panavia et aurait ete relegue au rang de second role. Le gouvernement de l'epoque (Hernu ?) a fait un choix strategique : retrait de la cooperation pour conserver les acquits technologiques de Dassault ce qui permettait en outre une totale liberte d'action pour concevoir un avion correspondant a NOS besoins. Il serait interressant de retrouver tout l'historique menant au Rafale et a l'Eurofighter. On critique facilement Dassault, mais BAe n'est pas blanc comme neige...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ZedroS

Vous allez un peu vite en besogne pour condamner une partie ou l'autre, comme dit DEFA faudrait bien se renseigner avant, les jugements à l'emporte pièce c'est assez moyen. Pour info, une des raisons du retrait de la France (et non de Dassault) a aussi été la volonté d'avoir un appareil pouvant apponter sur un porte avions, chose que les partenaires potentiels jugeaient non pertinents... Au final, on a un seul avion multi rôle là où d'autres auront au moins deux avions (Typhoon et F35). Bref, je ne suis pas sûr que l'approche anglaise, malgré toutes les histoires de "best value for money" soit le plus pertinente...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oui c'ets vrai qu'il y a plusieurs devellopement internationnale (France-GB)

mais si mes souvenirs sont bon au depart du Typhon ,la france etait partie prenante du projet ,avant que Dassault ne ressorte son vieux dessin du Rafale et n'oblige presque (surement) la presidence de l'epoque a quitter le projet EuroFighter ...

Donc a mon avis ce genre de problemes risque de rester en travers de la gorge de certaines societés ;)

Hum... Je crois que le problème du retrait français de l'Eurofighter n'est pas si simple. Il y avait en effet sans doute des tensions entre BAe et Dassault pour le role de maître d'oeuvre du projet (d'ailleurs Dassault a prouvé ses qualités en concevant seul un appareil au moins aussi bon que le Typhoon), mais il y avait aussi le problème de la nécessité française de se doter d'un appareil navalisé à décollage conventionnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bon pour le F35..... ça cause dure au pentagone!

England directs QDR consolidation

BY: VAGO MURADIAN, Defense News

08/05/2005

Acting U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England has directed that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) narrow its focus from 36 separate categories to 11 key capability areas - dubbed “major muscle movements” - to yield a more focused strategy document.

Aside from trying to rejuvenate what he considers a stagnant QDR, England also wants the review to shake up the Pentagon’s modernization programs by cutting major weapons, according to sources.

The review’s conclusions will start to emerge in September so they can shape the Bush administration’s 2007 budget proposal, due to Congress in February. Sources said the Pentagon is likely to delay the customary August start of its six-year budget planning process - the services’ submissions of their Program Objective Memorandums - to await the review’s conclusions.

The improved focus was welcomed by senior military officers who have long complained that the QDR attempted to answer too many questions and had lost strategic focus. From 17 original questions late last year, the review at one point mushroomed to 180 capability issues that needed resolution, before being winnowed down to the current 36 categories.

These 36 categories still largely stand, sources said, but are now grouped into 11 broad areas - air, land, sea power, etc. - that over the coming weeks are to be consolidated to 11 key areas, sources said.

But senior officers, along with defense industry executives, are also nervous about the potential for arms cuts.

As Navy secretary, England drastically scaled back the Navy’s plans to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) and cut other programs. He and Vern Clark, the newly retired chief of naval operations, presided over an ever-shrinking fleet of both ships and aircraft, based on their belief that efficiency can substitute for numbers.

England is still Navy secretary; his nomination to become deputy defense secretary is being stalled by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

It’s not clear that the new QDR will kill major programs. Some point to Rumsfeld’s inability to cancel the C-130J transport program, which was preserved through a concerted campaign by maker Lockheed Martin and its congressional allies. But analysts say “England’s QDR” will have teeth.

“The program cuts coming in the quadrennial review are going to be far more severe than anyone outside the Pentagon imagines, and unless Congress intervenes, many of the biggest aircraft and warship programs could be cut back or completely eliminated,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a defense research center in Arlington, Va.

Recent news reports have suggested that the multiservice JSF and the Air Force’s F/A-22 are in danger of deep cuts or cancellation.

According to Pentagon sources, the F/A-22 program is likely to be capped at 179 planes, while more cuts are possible to the JSF.

The F-35’s affordability depends on volume and, should several hundred more planes be cut, unit prices could skyrocket, leading to the program’s cancellation. Of particular concern is whether European partners on the program will balk not only at rising prices, but also the U.S. government’s tougher line on technology transfer over concerns that American technologies could leak to China through member nations.

Some Pentagon leaders debate the value of the stealthy strike jet in fighting insurgents in Iraq or al-Qaida cells worldwide. JSF supporters argue that, al-Qaida or not, the F-35 is needed to replace a vast array of aging jets across the military services, the bulk of which were purchased during the Reagan administration.

Although the overall QDR debate has been characterized as a battle that has pitted the Army and Marines against the Air Force and Navy for funding, senior military leaders reject the notion.

They contend that the biggest challenge they face as strategic planners is to convince the Pentagon as a whole to look beyond Iraq in shaping U.S. forces.

“Everyone is so focused on Iraq it’s sometimes hard to get them to think beyond the insurgency to all the other things out there that we might have to do one day,” one officer said. “You have to remind everyone that this is a strategic review.”

The reality that the U.S. military must be shaped to fight a broad range of threats - beyond simply insurgents - is exactly why programs should be preserved, not sacrificed, Thompson said.

The administration is bent on cutting major fighter and ship programs on the grounds that they are unnecessary in fighting an insurgency in Iraq, despite having “already decided to scale back U.S. presence there over the next two years,” Thompson said.

“In other words, they are trying to free up money for something we may not be doing a lot of in the future,” he said. “Rumsfeld’s advisers seem to be backing into a threat-based defense posture, but many senior military officers think they are focused on the wrong threat.”

Pentagon May Scrap Jet Plans

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 programs could be cut in budget moves and as strategies shift to meet unconventional threats.

Facing severe budget pressures, the Pentagon is developing plans to slash the Air Force's two prized fighter jet programs, according to Defense Department officials and outside experts.

Military planners are debating options to scale back the Air Force's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the stealth F/A-22 fighter, as some defense officials question spending billions on weapons that have little use against terrorist networks and other unconventional threats.

Such a move would be an enormous blow to the Air Force, which has spent years developing the two weapons to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets. The budget cuts could encounter fierce resistance from lawmakers, including some from California, whose districts would be hit hard by the economic repercussions.

Yet as the Pentagon conducts a top-to-bottom assessment of its entire arsenal, defense officials are mindful that the military buildup that followed Sept. 11 is coming to an end. The war in Iraq, which now costs the Defense Department more than $4 billion per month, is contributing to the budget squeeze that jeopardizes some of the Pentagon's most desired - and expensive - weapons.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is projected to cost $245 billion, a price tag shared by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and nine U.S. allies, including Britain, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Turkey. It is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program, and the Air Force has by far the largest part of the budget; it hopes to purchase 1,763 of the planes to replace the F-16 fighter.

The Air Force also plans to acquire 179 F/A-22s, each costing about $345 million.

A Pentagon decision to scale back the programs would be the strongest signal yet of a significant change in strategic priorities. With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld trying to transform the military to deal with unconventional threats, many say that weapons built for dogfights and eluding enemy radar are increasingly irrelevant.

"What does Al Qaeda's air force look like?" said one defense official working on the Pentagon's assessment, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review.

The Pentagon's overall budget is expected to grow by 8% between now and the end of fiscal year 2011. Yet with the military planning to field about a dozen big-ticket planes, ships and submarines during that period, the Pentagon estimates that its budget for new weapons will balloon by 34%.

Some of these weapons, such as the Army's Future Combat System - a fleet of combat vehicles linked to a computer network - and the Navy's DDX destroyer, are being eyed for cutbacks to prevent a budget crisis later.

Because U.S. troops are heavily engaged in the Middle East and Central Asia, officials say there is little room to cut personnel costs from the Pentagon budget. Weapons, they say, are the only target for cost reductions.

Although Pentagon officials contend that no final decision has been made about the fate of the two Lockheed Martin-designed jets, some inside the Defense Department say that the deepest cuts could come in the Joint Strike Fighter program. According to one source, the Pentagon could cut the Air Force's allotment of the planes by half.

Officials involved in the review process say that the option of canceling one or both of the programs is on the table, although it is extremely unlikely - in part because such a move would cause a furor among members of Congress. The fact that close allies are involved in developing the JSF is another factor that should keep the program alive, the officials say.

Although Lockheed is the prime contractor for both jets, about 40% of the JSF is assembled at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s plant in Palmdale. Most of the F/A-22 is built at Lockheed's plant in Marietta, Ga.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said it was too early in the review process to know what specific programs might be cut or expanded, and that planners were still identifying which types of missions the military ought to be preparing for.

"It's definitely premature to say we're looking at cuts," said DiRita, who stressed that there were months remaining in the review - due before Congress by early February - and that no proposals had been presented to Rumsfeld.

He did say that Pentagon officials hoped to make some decisions about weapons programs by September or October, as the Defense Department prepared its fiscal year 2007 budget.

The Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 have been plagued by cost overruns and production delays. In April, the Government Accountability Office called the JSF's original business case, laid out by the Pentagon in 1996, "unexecutable."

"When you have difficult budget choices to make, several of the Pentagon's expensive modernization programs become likely targets," said Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

"The JSF sits at the top of that list."

Air Force officials are vigorously lobbying to preserve their coveted weapons, and supporters of the two programs point out that the emergence of China as a potential long-term threat is the best case for a large investment in fighter jet technology.

Last week, a Pentagon report warned that China's military buildup threatened the balance of power in Asia, and that within a decade China's military could pose a threat to modern militaries on the continent.

Air Force officials, who consider protecting the F/A-22 their top priority during the review process, argue that the jet's stealth technology makes it essential for eluding the advanced radar systems the Chinese are developing.

The Pentagon has scaled back the number of F/A-22 jets it intends to buy from 381 aircraft to 179. But Pentagon officials say that deeper cuts in the number of planes purchased are possible.

Rumsfeld has repeatedly criticized the length of time it can take for a weapon to move from the drawing board to operational testing to deployment in the field.

"There's no question that the longer it takes to field a program, the more expensive it becomes," DiRita said.

The Pentagon has billed the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review as a crucial step in the long-term effort to transform the military into a lighter, more agile fighting force.

As defense officials try to predict the types of threats U.S. forces will confront, they face hard choices about spending billions on weapons that in most cases were first envisioned during the Cold War.

Many defense experts point out that the success of Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops is evidence that few enemies will choose to fight the U.S. military on the conventional battlefield.

Instead of buying expensive technology, they point out, the future of warfare requires that the Pentagon invest in counterinsurgency warfare and bulk up spending on armored vehicles, language training and civil affairs programs.

"The big cuts in fighters being considered are just one instance of a far broader rethinking in the Pentagon spending priorities," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va. "Much of the impetus for these cuts originated in the Iraqi insurgency and in the need to wage a protracted war against terror."

Vulnerable birds

A look at the two fighter jets that may have their budgets cut in a cost-cutting plan by the Defense Department; both jets are in production and not yet in use:

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

· Users: Air Force, Navy and Marines, and some foreign militaries

· Schedule: Test flights are to begin in 2006.

· Program cost: $245 billion

· Contractors: Lockheed Martin Corp., main prime contractor. Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems, principal partners.

· Manufacturing locations: Center fuselage by Northrop Grumman in Palmdale and El Segundo. Final assembly by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth.

F/A-22 Raptor

· Users: Air Force

· Schedule: To be operational by the end of the year.

· Program cost: $64 billion

· Contractors: Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp.

· Manufacturing locations: Wings and aft fuselage by Boeing in Seattle. Final assembly by Lockheed Martin in Marietta, Ga.

London Financial Times 07/29/2005

QDR: Pentagon mulls cuts in JSF project

Pentagon officials are considering proposals to cut the $245bn (€203bn) Joint Strike Fighter programme by at least 70 per cent as part of a department-wide review of all weapons systems, according to people briefed on internal Pentagon discussions.

One of the proposals includes axing the version of the JSF being built for the US air force, which would see the 2,400-fighter programme cut by 1,700 aircraft. A second proposal would see the US navy's version, designed to be slightly larger and more robust to land on aircraft carriers, cut.

In spite of the size of the changes being considered, those who have been briefed say none of the eight international partners on the JSF programme, including the UK, has been consulted. The UK must decide by next year whether to buy as many as 150 of the aircraft. It is the only “tier one” country involved, giving it design input into the project

The British Ministry of Defence declined to comment.

The Pentagon, however, denied senior decision-makers were considering cutting parts of the JSF.

“Speculation about individual programmes by people who themselves will not be involved in the decisions is irresponsible, uninformed and unhelpful,” said Larry Di Rita, Pentagon spokesman. “We have not gotten to individual programme discussions as yet.

“I have no doubt that somewhere in the beancounting end of the department people are laying out all kinds of possible scenarios, but if they're doing that, it is on the basis of incomplete slivers of info.”

However, people briefed on the discussions said the cuts were being considered as part of the Pentagon's congressionally-mandated quadrennial defence review - a top-to-bottom rethink of all military policies, including procurement programmes, due out by the end of the year.

One person briefed on the discussions said the military reductions were being pushed by Ryan Henry, a top Pentagon policy official who had been selected by Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, to help lead the defence review.

Although all weapons programmes were expected to be reviewed, until now there was never any suggestion that JSF would be among those considered for cuts. The Pentagon is, however, under intense pressure to cut weapons spending because of the unexpectedly high costs of the war in Iraq, which has forced billions in procurement dollars to be spent on repairing and upgrading older army systems. New fighter aircraft have also been criticised because of their huge cost, and doubts have been voiced over whether they are still needed when rival air forces no longer exist.

Any decision to cut the number of aircraft produced would drive up the costs of the remaining fighters, since development costs, which have risen from $25bn when the programme was launched in 1996 to $45bn today, would be spread out over a smaller number of aircraft.

Analysts said such a price rise would put the entire JSF programme in jeopardy, since remaining customers might no longer be able to afford the fighter.

Y'a du plomb dans les ailes !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest grinch

i vi vi.... ça cause dure sur le devenir de certaines versions du JSF.

ce programme a permit d'assecher les crédits de R&D de l'europe.

Donc beaucoup de pays commencent à s'inquieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    5,488
    Total Members
    1,550
    Most Online
    Redapache
    Newest Member
    Redapache
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    20,845
    Total Topics
    1,300,704
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    3
    Total Blogs
    2
    Total Entries