glevass

Le JSF menacé au Canada !!!!

Recommended Posts

Opérer le F-35 coûterait 12.000 dollars de plus par heure de vol que le F-18 :

Conservative MP Hawn estimates CF-18 costs $12,000 less per flying hour than F-35 fighter jet

Conservative MP Laurie, who has been deeply involved with the $25-billion F-35 stealth fighter jet project, says the cost of operating Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is $12,000 less per flying hour for each plane than the current forecast costs for maintaining and operating the sophisticated F-35s.

By Tim Naumetz, Published: Thursday, 05/17/2012 8:18 pm EDT

PARLIAMENT HILL—A Conservative MP who has been deeply involved with the $25-billion F-35 stealth fighter jet project says the cost of operating Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighters is $12,000 less per flying hour for each plane than the current forecast costs for maintaining and operating the sophisticated F-35s.

Conservative MP Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, Alta.) made the comment on Thursday as he also disclosed that the Department of National Defence will likely have to delay the purchase of any F-35s by at least one or two years, possibly more, beyond its current initial acquisition target year of 2017 because of delays and rising costs.

Furthermore, Mr. Hawn told The Hill Times he expects a top-level interdepartmental secretariat the government is establishing to take over management of the fighter acquisition project from the Department of National Defence will in the end verify that the F-35, still in testing and development stages, is the only aircraft that can meet top-secret operating requirements that the Air Force has established for Canada’s new fighter fleet, thus vindicating National Defence and the Public Works Department following a scathing report by Auditor General Michael Fraser in April.

Mr. Hawn, who was Parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) through the period that led to the government’s 2010 decision to buy 65 F-35s, which the government claimed at the time would cost $14.7-billion for acquisition and sustainment and operating costs over 20 years, said there is no need to “panic” over delays in acquiring new fighters, with National Defence citing 2017 as the first delivery date in a recent report to Parliament.

“I think it’s probably going to be later than that,” Mr. Hawn. “We’re not in any position to put anybody in a panic yet.”

“We’ve got the (Public Works and Government Services) secretariat, let it do its work, let it verify, which they will, they’re very competent, and they will verify that that airplane is the only airplane that meets our requirement,” Mr. Hawn said.

Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.), a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee that is conducting an inquiry into Mr. Ferguson’s findings, agreed, and also reacted strongly to Mr. Hawn’s statement about the huge gap between the operating cost of the current CF-18 fleet and the forecast cost of flying the F-35s.

A U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress last March estimated the F-35A, the Air Force version of the F-35 that Canada would acquire, will cost $32,000 per flying hour for each aircraft to maintain, sustain and operate, 42 per cent more than the $22,000 per hour cost of maintaining and operating U.S. Air Force F-16s.

A senior National Defence official involved in the F-35 project recently told the Public Accounts Committee the new stealth aircraft, with pioneer computer systems that require 24 million lines of code, would cost more to operate than the CF-18, but did not elaborate. At a later committee meeting, Defence officials were asked what the CF-18 hourly operating and flying costs were, but told the committee they did not have them at hand.

Mr. MacKay has said several times the F-35 operating costs would be similar to CF-18 operating costs, and that was why the government did not include them in the 20-year costs National Defence provided to Parliament.

Mr. Hawn told The Hill Timeson Thursday, in an interview after Question Period, that the CF-18 operating costs are roughly $19,000 per flying hour.

“If you look at just the operating, fuel and oil (and other direct costs), it’s nineteen thousand, nineteen five, nineteen six, something like that,” said Mr. Hawn, a former CF-18 pilot.

Mr. Byrne said Mr. Hawn’s disclosure of the CF-18 costs suggests the National Defence officials were not straightforward with the Public Accounts Committee.

“Someone is lying,” Mr. Byrne told The Hill Times. “Now we just need Parliament to find out who.”

Mr. Hawn dismissed the F-35 operating cost forecast as “all guess.”

“Do we know exactly what the F-35 is going to cost? No, it’s probably going to cost more per flying hour than the F-18, but we’re going to have a smaller fleet, I’m not sure how many flying hours we’re going to fly per year, probably less,” Mr. Hawn said.

“Those numbers on the F-35 are estimates, and that’s the fallacy, they’re trying to determine a lifecycle cost out to 30, 40 years. There’s no idea, what’s the cost of fuel, what’s the cost of diesel, what missions are we going to do, where are we going to wind up fighting. We have no clue,” he said.

The government established a new secretariat within the Public Works and Government Services Department to oversee the procurement of a fighter jet to replace the aging CF-18s following Mr. Ferguson’s critical report on the program’s management over the past six years.

Mr. Ferguson singled out events that took place in the months leading to the government’s July, 2010, announcement it would acquire the F-35s, saying National Defence omitted $10-billion in operating costs in a report to Parliament prior to the May 2, 2011, federal election. The auditor general said Public Works failed to demonstrate due diligence when it accepted a one-page letter from National Defence in June 2010, as justification the F-35 could be acquired without a competition.

Public Works accepted the letter as legal evidence that National Defence could acquire the F-35s on a sole-source procurement basis because they were the only aircraft that met the operating requirements National Defence had established for the new fighter.

In its announcement setting out the new secretariat to take over the project, which will be led within Public Works by the deputy ministers of both the departments, Mr. Ferguson criticized, as well as the deputy minister of Industry Canada and senior officials from the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Finance Department, the government said National Defence would “continue to evaluate options to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability well into the 21st Century.”

The phrase led MPs and observers to believe the government was open to consideration of new fighter jets other than the F-35s being developed by Texas-based Lockheed Martin under the auspices of a nine-country consortium, including Canada and the U.S., that are taking part in the project with the option of acquiring F-35s to qualify for global civilian sustainment contracts throughout the aircraft lifetime.

The government later changed the name of the panel from the F-35 Secretariat to the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, apparently in reaction to criticism that National Defence intended to continue on with its plan for the F-35, despite the placement of the project within Public Works under new management.

NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) said Mr. Hawn’s belief that the secretariat will eventually verify selection of the F-35s signals that the government has never intended to consider other options.

“His confidence the F-35 will be the plane that this secretariat will choose is well founded, because it’s pre-determined,” Mr. Kellway said. “The fix has been in with this government since 2006. They’ve made the decision, multiple times, and confirmed that decision multiple times, and here is a member of the government once again confirming that’s going to be the decision they’ll make, one more time.”

Source : The Hill Times

Pour info :

Cost Per Flying Hour

F-35A = $35,200

F-35B = $38,400

F-35C = $36,300

Ces chiffres communiqués en mars au Senate Armed Services Committee sont apparemment des objectifs, et non pas des estimations. Une paille !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By jove Tabernacle (pour faire plus local), à 1'51, on voit le F35 réaliser un tonneau.

Toute une pensée théorique remise en cause par quelques secondes de souplesse :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bof, et en plus c'est le X-35.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bof, et en plus c'est le X-35.  :lol:

Pas faux ! Mais alors, pourquoi s'inquiéter à la vue d'une vidéo montrant un tonneau réalisé dans un vol test par le SDD AA-1, qui est un prototype au design non figé et censé justement permettre des améliorations en termes de design et de masses ? La vidéo qui nous a été présentée est d'ailleurs vieille : elle doit remonter au moins à 2007 ou 2008. Je me demande d'ailleurs si ce n'était pas lors de son premier vol, en 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effectivement, ca ne sert a rien, on a deja aborde le sujet dans le fil F-35.

C'est du pur bashing a 10cts qui nuit a la credibilite du forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah moi je ne suis pas inquiet.  :lol:

Et si il y a du changement, c'est le F-35 qui à pris quelques tonnes!  :happy: Je sors...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Et si il y a du changement, c'est le F-35 qui à pris quelques tonnes!

Je ne sais même pas si ça vaut le coup que je réponde : le SDD AA-1 fut justement le F-35A le plus lourd car dessiné avant 2004 et n'intégrant donc pas encore les changements de structure - entre autres choses - qui furent imaginés par la suite pour gagner du poids. Depuis fin 2006 et le premier vol de cet exemplaire AA-1, le F-35 A n'a pas pris de poids, bien au contraire. Le problème, c'est surtout qu'il n'en a pas perdu autant qu'il le faudrait - le point étant d'ailleurs encore plus critique sur le F-35 B -  et que ces gains de poids sont souvent la cause des retards et des surcoûts constatés sur le programme. Il leur a par exemple fallu changer les procédures de montage, devenues plus complexes et donc plus coûteuses pour gagner du poids sur la structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement

un petit extrait, je vous laisse lire

On 25 April 2012 retired air force Colonel Paul Maillet, an aeronautical engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager at National Defence Headquarters spoke out against purchasing the F-35, indicating it was unsuitable for Canadian service. Maillet criticized the F-35 as unsuitable for use in Canada's arctic saying, "how do you get a single-engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support...to operate effectively in the North?" He also noted that it will obsolete soon after its introduction due to advances made in UAV technology. Maillet suggested that the F-18E/F Super Hornet or even extending the life of the CF-18s and buying UAVs would be a better choice for Canada. Maillet has run unsuccessfully for the Green Party of Canada in previous federal elections and the Conservative government responded to his comments dismissively. Jay Paxton, spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, said, "the goal of this failed candidate is to promote a political party without a care for the future of our nation."[171][172]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/25/f-35s-panned-by-retired-colonel

Image IPB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blog canadien

http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.fr/2012/06/f-35-modest-proposal.html

The U.S. Air Force has identified five major problems with the aircraft and a gaggle of lesser problems. 

One of the majors is much too secret to be mentioned, which means there's something seriously wrong with the stealth technology. 

Others include speed and agility.  At the upper range of the F-35's speed requirements, basically supersonic flight, the stealth coatings on the tail have been damaged by heating, causing bubbling and separating. 

Then there's a problem with high angle of attack flying causing excessive buffeting leading to premature structural failure. 

The space-age, cockpit in a helmet has been acting up with input lags and sensitivity to airframe buffeting.

  Then there's any number of lesser problems with the F-35's millions upon millions of lines of computer code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Débat d'ajournement du 10 mai 2012 : le programme des F-35 a besoin de réelles solutions et non des points de discussions sans substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacré Christine !

Elle ne lâche pas le morceau ! =)

Dommage que l'on n'a pas des députés de cette trempe ! =)

il y a juste son accent qui m'énerve, qu'elle aie vivre un an a paris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

il y a juste son accent qui m'énerve, qu'elle aie vivre un an a paris

Un accent québecois au canada, quelle horreur et anormalité ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

il y a juste son accent qui m'énerve, qu'elle aie vivre un an a paris

Soigne donc ton orthographe avant d'imposer un stage en France pour sacrifier un charmant accent par celui des parisiens. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soigne donc ton orthographe avant d'imposer un stage en France pour sacrifier un charmant accent par celui des parisiens. :lol:

d'accord qu'elle vienne faire un stage a liège et qu'elle prenne le gros accent liégeois

content c'est plus paris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, le retour l'Avro Arrow, why not, en version stealth relooke, il serait pas mal

dommage

Harper government dismissed famous Canadian design as 'not a viable option' for CF-18 replacement

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/10/pol-cp-avro-arrow.html

A Canadian company is seeking to go back in time to help fly Canada's air force into the future.

Documents obtained by Global News indicate an update to the storied CF-105 Avro Arrow was put forward as an alternative to the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets.

And among the project's champions is one of Canada's top soldiers, retired Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.

The Arrow was an advanced, all-weather supersonic interceptor jet that was developed in the 1950s. Several prototypes were built and flight tests were conducted, but the project was abruptly shut down in 1959 and the aircraft never went into production.

MacKenzie told Global that the Arrow's basic design and platform still exceed any current fighter jet and it is perfect for Canada's needs.

"It's an attack aircraft. It's designed for attacking ground targets and its stealth is most effective against short range radar, protecting ground targets," MacKenzie said.

"What we need in Canada is something that can go to the edge of our airspace, from a sovereignty point of view, and be able to catch up with intruders."

The plan to build an updated Arrow in Canada instead of buying into an international deal for a fleet of F-35s was originally put before the Harper Conservatives in 2010 by a company called Bourdeau Industries, which has offices in the U.K. and Canada.

The proposal, which was updated in 2012, suggested the plane could fly 20,000 feet higher than the F-35, soar twice as fast and would cost less.

For example, the proposal said that the total cost of the Arrow program would be $11.73 billion, compared to the $16 billion the federal government says the F-35 program will cost.

Arrow 'not viable option': Fantino

That F-35 figure has been disputed by the auditor general and parliamentary budget officer, who peg the true cost of the new stealth fighters at closer to $25 billion.

The Arrow project would also create a made-in-Canada plane and an industry that would add thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the Canadian economy, the proposal's author wrote.

"The government of Canada is in a position to project foreign policy initiatives within the global community while simultaneously leading Canada's socio-economic capabilities to rise to real security, defence and industrial policy challenges at home and abroad," the proposal said.

But in June, the government rejected the plan, saying too much money and time was required to execute it and the plane didn't meet the technical specifications required.

"Unfortunately, what is proposed is not a viable option for Canada's next generation fighter," said a letter from Julian Fantino, who was then Canada's associate minister for national defence.

Meanwhile, the plans for the F-35s remain on hold.

Last spring the auditor general tore a strip off the government, accusing the Department of National Defence of hiding $10 billion in continuing costs for the fighter and the Public Works department of not doing enough homework to justify the purchase.

Conservatives responded with a seven-point action plan that took responsibility for the plane away from defence, giving it to a secretariat at Public Works.

Image IPB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

En passant,

Le gouvernement Canadien a demandé un « formal request for information » à

Boeing concernant sa future version de Super Hornet. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/

Le Canada pourrait peut être devenir le client de lancement du "Super Hornet Next Generation"

si les coûts exorbitants et les délais de production du F-35 continuent de battre tous les records.

Boeing propose cette évolution du Super Hornet en confirmant :

85 % des capacité du F-35A

50 % du coût d'acquisiton du F-35A

et

60 % du coût d'opération du F-35A

Cette évolution du Super Hornet est équipée :

De nombreux raffinement aérodynamiques ;

( fini les pylones d'emports désaxés vers l'extérieur )

D'un cockpit fusionné monoécran de type F-35 ;

De réservoirs conformes profilés sur le dos de l'appareil ;

D'un détecteur de menace sphérique évolué ;

D'un viseur IRST évolué ;

De pods d'armements conformes profilés ;

De moteurs évolués "Super Cruise" ;

http://aviationintel.com/2011/11/06/more-info-comes-to-light-on-super-hornet-international-export-configuration/

L'Offre au Canada impliquerait :

60 x F-18E Blk3 monoplaces et 15 x F-18F Blk3 biplaces

Le partage de 100 % des codes sources de l'appareil

100 % de l'entretien de cette flotte effectués par des partenaires de Boeing au Canada

et

130 % de compensations économiques au Canada sur la valeur d'acquisition.

=)

SharkOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le partage de 100 % des codes sources de l'appareil

100 % de l'entretien de cette flotte effectués par des partenaires de Boeing au Canada

et

130 % de compensations économiques au Canada sur la valeur d'acquisition.

Rien que pour ca, ca serait bete de dire non...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

De nombreux raffinement aérodynamiques ;

( fini les pylones d'emports désaxés vers l'extérieur )

Sait-on pour quelles raisons ces pylônes sont désaxés ? C'est en raison d'une plus grande facilité et d'une plus grande sécurité lors de la séparation de la munition ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

130 % de compensations économiques au Canada sur la valeur d'acquisition.

Est-ce qu'un connaisseur de ces choses là voudrait m'expliquer comment une société privée peut gagner de l'argent sur un contrat incluant des compensations économiques supérieures à la valeur d'acquisition ? :O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Est-ce qu'un connaisseur de ces choses là voudrait m'expliquer comment une société privée peut gagner de l'argent sur

un contrat incluant des compensations économiques supérieures à la valeur d'acquisition ? :O

Il s'agit d'investissements additionnels que Boeing ferait au sein de l'industrie aérospatiale canadienne

mais liés à d'autres projets aéronautiques de Boeing que le Super Hornet, notamment pour la productions

de pièces pour l'avion civil Dreamliner et le transporteur militaire C-17 Globemaster.

=)

SharkOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sait-on pour quelles raisons ces pylônes sont désaxés ?

C'est pour ne plus interférer avec les flux aérodynamiques passant sous l'aile (donc pour diminuer la traînée).

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

    5,499
    Total Members
    1,550
    Most Online
    szymanski
    Newest Member
    szymanski
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    20,872
    Total Topics
    1,310,380
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    3
    Total Blogs
    2
    Total Entries