P4

D'une certaine manière le PA2 est mort avec la publication du livre blanc et de notre zone d'intervention limitée à "l'arc de crise", cet "arc" comprend des parties maritimes mais surtout terrestres avec des besoins spécifiques comme les avions/hélicoptères de transport. Plutot que de devoir envoyer un PA au large du liban pour faire réspécter l'intégrité de l'éspace aérien Libanais(c'est un example) je suis d'avis qu'un avion faisant le trajet France/Liban/France est bien plus intéréssant et dissuasif car on ne met pas en jeu la vie de 1800 personnes, avec un MRTT ce serait France/Iran/France et depuis les EAU/djibouti de nouveaux territoires sont en partie à porté(Chine/Inde).

En Corée et à Singapour c'est la classe de poids F-15 qui a gagné et c'est cette classe qui intérrèse(au minimum) les interdit de F-22 comme le Japon et l'Australie. Meme pour nous le Rafale devient "short", livrons les 60M à l'aéronavale et lançons nous dans ce Super Rafale sans nous préocuper de savoir si la future et hypothètique coopération Européenne sera gaché.

Méssieurs, s'il vous plait, auriez vous la gentillèsse de me dire l'intérét du PA2 (autre que le bla bla de la permanence op puisque pour ça il faut trois PA£££££££££ et deux groupes aéro$$$$$) sans savoir quel avion viendra remplacer les Rafale à mie vie.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/103419/eads-and-the-a400m%3A-the-real-story.html By Giovanni de Briganti ................. Finally, while focusing on the A400M’s short-term troubles is both necessary and salutary, it should not mask the program’s long-term significance for Europe: a unique opportunity not only to break the US monopoly on the tactical airlift market, but also to credibly compete for the real prize: the C-130 replacement market. Over 2,200 C-130s of all versions have been built over the past 50 years, and Lockheed Martin, its manufacturer, says it has delivered 171 of the 257 C-130J Super Hercules – the latest version - it has sold to date. Demand is such that Lockheed plans to double production by 2010. Based on the $1.6 billion that the here United Arab Emirates are paying for the 12 C-130J-30s ordered in February, the C-130 replacement market is worth well over $200 billion, in addition to the 20 billion euros in revenue that EADS will gain from developing and producing 180 A400Ms for its launch customers. And that’s not counting the airlift needs of countries which don’t operate the C-130, or which find the C-130J too small or too short-legged. Compared to this ultimate prize, the penalties that EADS may or may not have to pay for late delivery to its launch customers are a rounding error. But the very real risk is that the A400M will reach the market too late, or with delivery dates so far off into the future that they would dissuade potential customers. EADS now has a net cash position of 9 billion euros, and Gallois prudently says that conserving that cash as a safety net for the future is a major priority. But if the company really is as confident in the A400M as it says it is, he could do worse than invest some of that cash into getting the A400M to market as fast as humanly possible. EADS has already removed some obstacles by reorganizing Airbus Military and the Military Transport Aircraft division, and by replacing its management. It now needs to kick in the financial turbocharger without wasting months waiting for nations to renegotiate the A400M contract and to agree to higher payments. Both can be done in parallel. After all, when you’re playing for a $200+ billion prize, what’s the sense in hoarding a billion or three?

Pour moi le PA2 est MORT de chez MORT et l'aéronavale se satisfaira de sauver le maximum de Rafale M. La bosse budgétaire c'est du pipeau, il a été décidé de rentrer dans le rang c'est aussi simple que ça.

Quelqu'un( ou famille/potes) est sur place pour faire des photos?

Dire que la Suède a sortie le Gripen-NG, pourquoi sommes nous pas capable de sortir un Super-Rafale de 12/13t à vide et 2 M-88 poussant 11/12t avec pc?

Faire son Tony Blair?

Dans un contexte économique favorable l'idée est saugrenue encore que d'autres en ont eu de bien plus comme partager nos SNLE dans un pot commun avec les Brits. Hors le contéxte économique n'est plus favorable et les Brits vont se saigner pour terminer la constructionn des CVF(avec "cost overrun"). Et le problème des PA c'est qu'une fois la plate forme acquise à grand frais il faut encore payer l'AVIA qu'ils n'ont pas(F35).

EADS's A400M Worst Case Scenario: 5.7 Billion Euro Bill Posted by Robert Wall at 3/10/2009 2:21 AM CDT So how expensive could the A400M be to industry if things go really badly? A staggering 5.7 billion euros. That’s what the company would have to pay back in terms of pre-delivery payments and other costs if the military airlifter program is cancelled. And cancellation could come as soon as next month, hypothetically at least. EADS says the A400M is not expected to fly before the end of the month. At that point, the European defense procurement agency, Occar, has the right to terminate the launch contract. EADS, in announcing 2008 full year financial results, says it views that outcome as “very unlikely.” On that point, it is probably fair to say they are right. A cancellation decision has to be unanimous, and the French government, at least, has signaled it wants to stick with the program. Individual customers can still cancel their aircraft orders. However, even that’s not straight forward. A cancellation for cause can only be made of those aircraft actually “substantially delayed,” EADS says. So later delivery slots could only be cancelled with some restitution to industry.

Et dire que certains se sont gaussés de la proposition de SR de partager un PA Brits alors qu'il y a de plus en plus de chance que ça arrive.

C'est pas une photo prise en Suisse(url de l'image http://www.rafale-schweiz.ch/images/stories/photo_gallery/02.jpg)? edit: Informations partenariat industriel http://www.rafale-schweiz.ch/images/stories/pdf/rafale_industrial_f.pdf Production de lance-missiles MBDA a l’intention de confier à l’industrie suisse une part importante de la fabrication du système de missiles MICA du Rafale. Les activités proposées concernent le lance-missiles pour la production de pièces mécaniques, d’ensembles structuraux, de composants électro-mécaniques, d’électronique, de câblages, l’assemblage, l’intégration-test, puis la maintenance durant leur vie opérationnelle en Suisse. MBDA est déjà en discussion avec de nombreuses sociétés suisses sur ces sujets complexes dont Ruag Aerospace, Oerlikon Contraves, Huber+Suhner... SwissOptic AG, Heerbrugg SG « SwissOptic développe et produit des composants, modules, ensembles et systèmes optiques de haute précision. C’est grâce à sa réputation d’excellence et de haute qualité qui dépasse largement les frontières de la Suisse que SwissOptic a été récemment retenue pour le développement et la fourniture des éléments optiques de la nouvelle génération du système OSF ( « Optronique Secteur Frontal » ) de Thales qui équipera le Rafale à partir de 2009. Conforté par ce succès et à la demande et avec l’aide de Thales, nous travaillons activement à accroître encore notre part dans les systèmes optroniques du Rafale. »

http://bruxelles2.over-blog.com/article-28410311.html

a props de Chauprade. Les États-Unis contrôlent-ils le pétrole ? Mémoire de géopolitique du capitaine de frégate BUHE dans le cadre du séminaire « Géopolitique des ressources et environnement » Directeur : Monsieur Aimeryc Chauprade Mars 2008 7. résumé Les États-Unis ne contrôlent plus le pétrole, mais ils gardent une capacité d’influence à la mesure de leur puissance militaire et économique. Les partenariats de défense et le maintien des grands programmes d’armement maritime visent à conserver la supériorité en surveillant particulièrement sur mer les axes de ravitaillement, et sur terre les trajets des oléoducs. Mais les États-Unis doivent aujourd’hui affronter une redoutable adversité dans trois domaines : au traditionnel antagonisme des États (en particulier de la Chine), s’ajoutent les obstacles technologiques (financement, déficit de techniciens et ingénieurs), mais également monétaires afin de maintenir le dollar comme monnaie de référence dans les échanges pétroliers.

Le programme MARS est mis en suspend pour au moins trois ans, Funding worries halt warship support project.

Si on peut baser nos avions aux frontières est de l'UE l'intérét des PA diminue.

Est ce que ça permetrait a des pays non officiellement engagé d'etre présent?

Quelqu'un a une idée des impératifs qu'implique la guerre en réseau à partir de plate forme furtive pour les systèmes de communications?

Il y a marqué "70 avions de combat'. :'(

http://www.yabiladi.com/article-politique-1704.html L'information est on ne peut plus officielle : la France s'apprête à mettre sur pied une agence euro-maghrébine de lutte contre le terrorisme, baptisée Centre d'études maghrébines et de recherches stratégiques (CEMRS). C'est en tout cas ce qu'affirme le secrétaire d'Etat français à la Défense et aux Anciens combattants, Jean-Marie Bockel, à l'issue d'une visite officielle effectuée samedi à Tunis. Renseignement: Une agence euro-maghrébine en gestation Le projet ne date pas d'aujourd'hui. Il s'agit d'une idée lancée dans le cadre du forum de Défense dit 5+5 entre les pays du Maghreb et du sud de l'Europe (Espagne, Italie, France, Portugal et Malte). Sa mise en place a néanmoins été accélérée par le poids pris par l'Organisation Al-Qaïda au Maghreb islamique, non seulement au Sahel mais bien au-delà. L'objectif est justement de mettre en œuvre une plateforme de renseignements à même de garantir une coopération entre les pays concernés, en tête desquels le Maroc et l'Algérie, tout en permettant à la France, et à l'Union européenne, de surveiller de près un mouvement terroriste qui ne cache nullementses ambitions de s'exporter en Europe. Un moyen également de parer le peu de coopération signalée entre les deux pays concernés par cette lutte, le Maroc et son voisin de l'Est. D'où d'ailleurs le choix porté sur Tunis pour abriter le siège du centra Dans ce sens, il est question d'installer desbureaux de liaison du CEMRS dans tous les pays du Maghreb, au sein même des chancelleries françaises. Ces «bureaux» devraient être chapeautés par les attachés militaires des représentations diplomatiques françaises au Maghreb. Au cœur des priorités d'ores et déjà fixée, la sécurité maritime et la menace terroriste. La région du Sahel figure en fait parmi les zones du nouvel «arc stratégique» français évoqué par le Livre blanc sur la défense et la sécurité nationales. Invité de la dernière livraison de la revue française, Les Cahiers de Mars, le patron des renseignements français (DGSE), Erard Corbin de Mangoux, n'a eu aucune gêne à préciser que la zone figure parmi celles que son service «arpente» régulièrement. La démarche intervient a près l'échec de l'initiative américaine d'installation des forces de l'Africom au Maghreb mais aussi pour doubler Washington, pour qui Al-Qaïda et sa filiale maghrébine sont érigées en ennemis jurés. En septembre 2008, et en déplacement au Maroc, la secrétaire d'Etat américaine Condoleezza Rice sous le mandat Bush avait a été très claire : «Il faut une coopération antiterroriste entre les pays de la région, et avec les Etats-Unis». Tarik Qattab Source: Le Soir Echos

La vision des opposants étrangers au retour de la France dans l'OTAN. The U.S. and U.K. Must Oppose French Plans to Weaken NATO by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and Sally McNamara WebMemo #2285 The Obama Administration has announced it will back the full reintegration of France into the NATO command structure, with French officers reportedly in line to take two senior Alliance command positions: Allied Command Transformation (one of NATO's two supreme commands, based in Norfolk, Virginia) and Joint Command Lisbon (one of NATO's three main operations headquarters, which also commands the NATO Rapid Reaction Force).[1] This is a highly significant development that would put France at the heart of NATO military planning and reform proposals and represents an ill-thought-out and risky concession by Washington to the Sarkozy administration. In a major speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 7,[2] Vice President Joe Biden welcomed France's decision "to fully participate in NATO structures" and also made it clear that the United States will "support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, [and] a fundamentally stronger NATO-EU partnership." Biden's remarks echoed the views of British Defence Secretary John Hutton, who recklessly backed French plans for a European Union army last October.[3] Both the United States and Great Britain must take a step back and launch a fundamental, wide-ranging review of the long-term implications of French demands for the future of NATO. The U.S. Congress should hold hearings to assess the new Administration's strategy with regard to French reintegration in order to highlight any dangers posed to U.S. interests. It would be a huge strategic error of judgment by the new U.S. Administration and the British government to continue supporting French ambitions for restructuring Europe's security architecture. Such acquiescence would hand Paris an extraordinary degree of power and influence within NATO--power and influence well out of proportion to France's actual military role in Alliance operations. Providing France with such influence would also ultimately weaken the Anglo-American Special Relationship, shifting power away from Washington and London and toward continental Europe while paving the way for the development of a separate European Union defense identity--all of which will undermine NATO. French Reintegration into NATO When President Sarkozy first floated the idea of French reintegration into NATO's military command in June 2007, he outlined two preconditions: guaranteed senior command posts for French officers within the Alliance, and American endorsement of an increased EU defense identity (the latter of which he emphasized as the more important of the two).[4] To formally establish the principle of reintegration, Sarkozy commissioned an influential "White Paper on Defense and National Security," which was published in March 2008. Designed to promote an independent European defense identity, the French White Paper on Defense and National Security clearly states: The European ambition stands as a priority. Making the European Union a major player in crisis management and international security is one of the central tenets of our security policy. France wants Europe to be equipped with the corresponding military and civilian capability.[5] The paper endorses several key principles: * Redefinition of responsibility-sharing between America and Europe; * An explicit rejection of the idea that the EU act as a civilian complement to NATO; and * A strong preference for buying European defense technologies. In June 2008, President Sarkozy circulated an additional document outlining Paris's policy initiatives for European military integration. It presents the major elements of what an EU defense identity will entail, including: * A permanent operation headquarters in Brussels; * Common EU funding for military operations; and * European exchange programs for military personnel.[6] America Has Little to Gain--and a Lot to Lose It is likely that the Obama Administration will regard France's reintegration into NATO as a diplomatic masterstroke. The Administration will claim that it has rebuilt the Franco-American relationship in a mutually beneficial way, and Sarkozy will in turn claim that it tangibly demonstrates France's commitment to standing alongside America. However, the Administration must ask itself what the U.S. actually gains from such a quid pro quo. Such reintegration may extract a few hundred additional French troops for eastern Afghanistan and generate stronger French public support for the Afghan mission. But President Obama will find that he has rescued the furniture only to give away the house. Not only is France already able to commit as many troops as it wishes to NATO missions (as it proved last year when 700 additional French troops were sent to Afghanistan), but 10 years of EU security initiatives have actually seen a decrease in European defense spending. Washington continues to argue that supporting the European Security and Defense Policy is a means toward improving European defense spending and military capabilities. But after 10 years, such improvement has yet to occur and is not reflected in the projected defense budgets of any major European power. Since the EU and NATO operate in the same areas both militarily and geographically, the competition for resources will become fiercer, and Washington is likely to see its requests for military help increasingly rebuffed as France demands European commitments to EU missions.[7] Once the United States gives its blessing to the creation of a separate European defense structure, it will have no grounds to compel Europe to choose NATO over EU requests in the future. A Parisian Power Play Rather than genuinely attempting to increase Europe's contribution to defense on the international stage, France is seeking to expand both Paris's and the EU's power base. Sarkozy's proposal is largely political, not military. In practice, France is already involved with almost all of NATO's structures and operations, including all political bodies and the NATO Response Force. It also partakes in joint training exercises. French reintegration into NATO command structures offers little additional value to Washington but gives immense momentum to French ambitions for an autonomous EU foreign and defense policy. When French presidents talk about European foreign policy, they more often than not mean French foreign policy. Equally, when Sarkozy talks about increasing European security capabilities, he means decreasing American involvement in Europe. For instance, in January 2007 the EU established a military operations center in Brussels, which later that year conducted "a nine-day exercise involving the virtual deployment of 2,000 European soldiers to deal with a crisis in the fictional country of Alisia."[8] The operational center is without doubt a fledgling EU military headquarters that duplicates and will eventually compete with the NATO command. The French proposal for an independent European defense structure will build upon the foundations laid by this new EU military headquarters. If the United States agrees to the French plan, it will represent yet another reversal of the Berlin Plus arrangements and a further erosion of the supremacy of NATO in Europe. No Quid Pro Quo with France If the Obama Administration agrees to support an independent EU defense structure as part of the French plan for rejoining NATO's command, such backing would represent a major transformation in U.S. strategic thinking that would have a dramatic, negative impact on the future of the alliance. It would shift the political balance of power within NATO away from Washington and London toward the main centers of power within the European Union: Paris, Berlin, and Brussels. Far from encouraging European countries to spend more on defense, it would foster an even greater dependency culture within continental Europe upon NATO resources. Such a shift would also lead to a duplication of the NATO command structure without a doubling of manpower or materiel. It is vital that both the U.S. and U.K. reject any French proposal predicated on American and British support for an independent European defense organization. Paris should be welcomed back into NATO's leadership club only on terms that are acceptable to all NATO members, and without the doling out of powerful command positions to a country that is at best a half-hearted member of the alliance. Simply Unacceptable It is difficult to see how a greater EU defense capability will actually strengthen the NATO mission or the broader transatlantic alliance. Indeed, encouraging a bigger military role for the EU can only make NATO's task more complicated. NATO has been the most successful post-war multilateral organization precisely because it is a truly transatlantic defense and security alliance of independent nation-states with a single command. The French proposal to build up a separate EU defense structure--i.e., a competitor to NATO sucking up valuable NATO resources--is simply unacceptable and should be firmly rejected.

RETEX Tchadien?

On peut imaginer qu' en cas de grande tension un chantage serait possible sur l'Egypte pour que les navires de guerre transitent ailleurs que par Suez. edit pour Tomcat-2000: de la part de l'Iran, pas de la France ou de l'OTAN/US.

JSF Leadership Reins in EW Speculation The Israel Defense Forces are looking at an initial buy of 25 F-35As with an option for 50 more. They abandoned the idea of a short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing force when they saw its price, weight, range and payload penalties compared to a conventional takeoff aircraft.

Sauf que l'Egypte voit transiter une partie du commerce mondial ainsi qu'une grande partie des navires de guerre à déstination du Golfe.