BPCs

LA solution est de recourrir au système SKYSAILS : un parachute plutôt qu'une voile qui est rétractable à la proue du navire. Je le verrais très bien sur les FREMM ou les FLOREAL. La rentabilité revendiquée est de 10 à 30 % de l'énergie dépensée : la variation étant due aux conditions de vent. Mais c'est dans une optique commerciale civile où le navire doit aller d'un point à un autre dès qu'il a déchargé Et non pas dans une optique militaire où la MN doit faire naviguer un certain nombre de jours ses navires, ou bien doit envoyer à quelques jours près un BPC au Havre pour représentation publique : Pour dire qu'il serait possible de fixer les jours de départ en fonction du Vent prévu : Comme au bon temps de la Marine à Voile... Bien sur à relativiser avec le peu d'unités disponible et des quais toujours désert. NEANMOINS AVEC UN BUDGET CARBURANT D'ENVIRON 92-96 m€ VOIRE PLUS QUAND LE PETROLE EST HAUT ET QUE LES NAVIRES RESTENT A QUAIS, LE SKYSAILS ECONOMISERAIT UNE TRENTAINE DE MILION CHAQUE ANNEE SOIT DE QUOI RENOUVELER LES AVISOS http://www.skysails.info/english/products/skysails-for-cargo-ships/ SkySails for cargo Ships Wind power used profitably Depending on the prevailing wind conditions, a ship’s average annual fuel costs can be reduced by 10 to 35% by using the SkySails-System. Under optimal wind conditions, fuel consumption can temporarily be cut by up to 50%. Succees requires flexibility Maritime shipping is entirely dependent on oil. Over the past 20 years, crude oil prices have risen annually by 10% on average. This development places tremendous financial pressure on the shipping industry as fuel costs account for more than half of a ship's operating expenses already today. Irrespective of the current economic crisis, there is no end in sight to this trend: The IEA (International Energy Agency) projects an average oil price level of US-$ 100 per barrel over the period 2009 to 2015 and expects prices to double to approx. US-$ 200 by the year 2030. According to the IEA report the main reason for this price increase is the continuing decline in oil production rates (6.7% p.a.) facing a growing demand of 1% per year. Without massive investments, this development will ultimately lead to a widening gap in supplies and further price increases. Virtually all existing cargo vessels and new builds can be retro- or outfitted with the SkySails auxiliary wind propulsion system. Currently, SkySails is offering towing kite propulsion systems for cargo vessels with an effective load* of between 8 and 16 tons. SkySails with an effective load* of 32 tons are planned to be available in 2011. The planned product program comprises towing kite propulsion systems with an effective load* of up to 130 tons. An effective tractive force of 8 tons by a SkySail corresponds to approx. 600 to 1,000 kW installed main engine power on average - depending on the ship‘s properties (propeller efficiency degree, resistance, etc.) The SkySails-System is used parallel to and for relief of the main engine, if wind conditions allow. The main engine's propulsion power remains fully available if required.

En choisissant un motoplaneur comme base et en y mettant un radar SAR allemand, est ce que par hasard SAGEM n'aurait pas envie de s'inviter dans la question du Drone MALE pour lequel les Allemands n'ont pas l'intention de sélectionner l'Advanced UAV d'EADS ...

Vu les soucis avec le programme EMALS, il semble peu probable que l'on prévoit cela pour le moment : certains parlent du futur CVN comme le plus grand porte hélicoptère au monde... :lol:

Sur la question du Porte Avions, un point de vue US : " Troubling disconnect The problem is more fundamental than the inability to move from the Navy’s current 283 ships to its previously stated goal of 313 ships (it was as high as 568 during the Reagan administration). Regardless of what the right number of ships might be, the real questions are: Is the composition of the Navy in line with the new maritime strategy, and are both in line with actual future requirements and threats? Central to that question is the Navy’s culture, which remains fixated on the aircraft carrier and a strategic concept of combat against peer navies derived from World War II and war gaming against the Soviet Navy during the Cold War. And therein lies the troubling disconnect. The document states that in the future, peer navies and rogue actors “will almost certainly rely on asymmetric attack and surprise, achieved through stealth, deception or ambiguity.” In an appearance at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Mullen called for all U.S. forces to become “more adaptable,” “less footprint” and “more agile.” Yet the maritime strategy does not make that leap from a “great white” blue-water Navy to (using Mullen’s term) an “expeditionary force” that is able to operate effectively in green and brown water. The aircraft carrier is an enormously expensive platform requiring an enormously expensive entourage of escort and support ships and aircraft. The new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier alone will cost $14.5 billion, not factoring in overruns. The aircraft carrier, however, presents a very large and visible signature. Carrier groups can be trapped by mines and sunken ships. Carriers are also vulnerable to quiet and maneuverable diesel submarines, such as those employed by the Russian and Chinese navies. The vulnerability is amplified by the Russian Navy’s development of super-captivating torpedoes, which travel at 200 knots, and by supersonic cruise missiles such as the Russian Sunburn and Sizzler and the Chinese Yingji. Although the Navy maintains that the aircraft carrier is invulnerable, Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of the Pacific Fleet, admitted that our ability to defend against these missiles is uncertain. The Navy will not even be capable of doing a test of our defenses against these missiles until 2014. The fact that since 1996, three U.S. aircraft carriers (Independence, Kitty Hawk, Carl Vinson) have been “sunk” in war games by the Australian, Chilean and Dutch navies (not relying on any of those advanced technologies) does not give much comfort. In addition, in that same time period, the most recent being in 2006 ,when a Chinese Song-class sub surfaced in the middle of the Kitty Hawk’s carrier group. Add to this that in one war game, the 5th Fleet sustained heavy losses from very low tech gunboats armed with anti-ship missiles, and the need for a wake-up call is clear. A new standard As a maritime superpower, America must have a Navy that is second to none, but that standard cannot be measured in dollars spent ineffectively, or in tonnages or in glitzy Top Gun images. We need to catch up with the strategic environment in which surface ships are highly vulnerable and in which speed, maneuver and stealth are the keys. We need to reverse the decline in anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasure capabilities. We need the ability to insert and remove Marines and other ground forces quickly. We also need to make certain we are investing in capabilities to secure our ports and coastal waters. The time must come to an end when expenditures on large, outdated ships, over-reliance on complicated and temperamental technology, and cost overruns crowd out the funding and development of a mission-effective and cost-effective craft for use in the littorals — a need demonstrated in the recent piracy attacks off Somalia. When the crew of a single Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is equivalent to the entire Foreign Service corps, we should stop and ask whether the face we present to the world and our approach to national security are out of skew. We have to ask whether spending $14.5 billion on the new Ford-class aircraft carrier is the best return on investment in combating terrorism and in promoting true national security, rather than its illusion? Do we have the right weapons for the future, and do we have a coherent national security policy that leverages and integrates all the tools at our disposal?" http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/06/4034155

Lockheed: F-35 budget strategy may add billions to development costs http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/lockheed-f-35-budget-strategy.html FORT WORTH, Texas -- The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter faces a series of multi-billion dollar annual cost overruns if the US Department of Defense continues a shift to a more conservative budgeting stance. The Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the F-35 contains a hidden cost overrun worth $480 million. The extra money was not requested to cover a specific cost growth, but instead what programme officials consider to be an overly cautious budget estimate reported by a relatively new internal auditing group called the Joint Estimating Team (JET), says Dan Crowley, Lockheed's executive vice-president and general manager for the F-35. The Obama administration has called for an updated JET analysis to inform the FY2011 budgeting process, and Crowley fears that a similarly conservative approach to estimating development and production costs could lead to dramatic new overruns. "We think the government is smart to pay out [cost] growth and [additional] schedule as we need it, rather than adopt some two-year, multi-billion dollar, conservative position," says Crowley, speaking on the sidelines of a roll-out ceremony for the US Navy's first F-35C at Fort Worth, Texas on 28 July. "It's like giving up before you even have a chance to demonstrate what you can do." The issue began to develop after separate estimating teams formed by the US Air Force and USN were consolidated into a single group to analyze the F-35's cost structure, Crowley says. The JET's first report last year identified four areas where the F-35's programme estimates are overly optimistic, including software coding, engineering staff reductions, the pace of flight tests and manufacturing schedule. In response, Crowley says that the programme can show progress on each area except the flight-test phase, which has completed only 2% of its planned 5,000 sorties. Lockheed will not be able to offer a reliable estimate for the flight-test phase until its surpasses the 10% mark at the end of next year, he adds. But the original JET report last year prompted the DoD to adopt an annual review process, in which the programme's budget could face significant increases. "We're okay with that strategy because it gives us time to prove that we in industry don't want that [extra] money," Crowley says. "If we have an over-target baseline and they give us that money we get no fee on it and it comes at the price of jets, so that's not where we want to be." However, he adds that Lockheed is optimistic that the JET will adopt a less conservative position in its next review. But F-35 programme executive Brig Gen David Heinz says the JET's estimate is not likely to change until Lockheed can complete more flight test hours. "We are still different in our opinion," he says. "The ultimate to the [JET] estimate is flight tests."

Sauf que ce devrait être plus une mission dévolue aux futur F-35B de la Joint Fleet Arm. Comment en justifier encore l'acquisition de 150 F-35B si les Typhoons (dont l'achat de la tranche 3B serait contractuellement obligatoire) peuvent remplir une partie de cette mission... :lol: :lol:

Patroller on Patrol Posted by Robert Wall at 7/30/2009 7:20 AM CDT Sagem has finally released some pictures of the Patroller unmanned aircraft that undertook flight trials last month in Kemijarvi, Finland. The long-endurance UAV is a joint development between Sagem and light-aircraft maker Stemme. The goal is to qualify the system next year. The longest of the flights ran 10 hours. Eventually, the Patroller is supposed to achieve 30 hours of autonomous flight, with an operating altitude of 25,000 ft. and max-speed of 300 km/h. The converted manned aircraft is designed to carry Sagem’s Euroflir 410 electro-optical payload as well as a synthetic aperture radar pod from Germany’s OHB Technology. Eight flights were completed in Finland, which focused on exploring the basic flight characteristics of the vehicle and potential for long-range missions. Sagem says the vehicle is compatible with its Sperwer tactical UAV. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a84954da7-6d33-4d22-a1dc-1c58da7865d0

24/07/09 SOURCE:Flight International Boeing prepares for lethal ScanEagle test By Rob Coppinger The first flight of Boeing's ScanEagle Compressed Carriage (SECC) unmanned air vehicle is planned for 24 August, with an air launch event to follow later this year. Designed for box launch from air and sea craft, the SECC has a lethal capability with submunitions stored in its fuselage centre. The UAV has a 3.3m (11ft) wingspan, cruise speed of 78kt (144km/h), up to 24h endurance and maximum take-off weight of 48kg (106lb) with 17kg of munitions. "We have completed risk-reduction activities and windtunnel testing for lift and drag co-efficients," says Boeing, which is now assembling a prototype for imminent ground tests. A Boeing programme manager, speaking at the Shephard UV Europe 2009 conference in Newport, Wales, says the UAV's wing and rudder deployment has already been tested. Issues with the SECC's engine control module have delayed its first flight from the second quarter of this year until into the third quarter. The air vehicle uses a heavy fuel engine that has passed a start from cold soak test. As well as submunitions, the SECC could be used to deploy a small vertical take-off and landing UAV.

Je te le disais mon philou ! ;) les 2 PA pourraient faire partie des coupes (en plus ils avaient aussi pour fonction d'apporter du travail dans les zones électorales d'élus travaillistes). (j'imaginerais plutôt la non mise sur cale du 2ème et un étirement en longueur du QE2)

Et l'autre réponse de surface à côté du ssgn, c'est le frappeur de rené loire abordé sur près de 17 pages dans ce topic : http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php/topic,3942.0.html (Merci philippe pour m'avoir fait lever les yeux plus haut... :lol:) Il représente l'alternative ou le complément low-cost au ssgn : un cout de 100 m€ et un boost en entrée de conflit à l'action de l'aviation : Là où le premier jour d'un conflit l'aviation est sensée faire 100 sorties (dont 40% de CAP pour un PA) soit au mieux 60 x6 ASMP, un frappeur permettra un boost instantané du double de coups au but, facilitant d'autant l'action de l'aviation De plus la question du "blindage" y est résolue d'une façon plus légère que sur un cuirassé. Enfin, tant qu'il n'y aura pas de canon électrique à très longue portée, le frappeur a un bénéfice de portée liée à celle des MdCN Enfin c'est le moyen le moins cher de booster notre projection de puissance pour les années qui viennent en permettant pour 100 m€ (prix d'un seul frappeur) de délivrer d'un coup tous nos 200 MdCN, ce qui ne sera pas matériellement possible tant que nous n'aurons pas au moins toutes les 11 FREMM disponibles plus 2 à 3 Baracuda...en 2020 et qq ... Et à supposer encore que toute la flotte soit regroupée au même endroit...

Obama Administration Directs Update of JSF JET Estimate DefenseAlert, July 27, 2009 -- The Obama administration has directed a new review of the Joint Strike Fighter program, directing an "independent" Pentagon team -- that last year found the F-35 program needed two additional years of development and more than $15 billion over the next six years -- to update its findings in order to support Defense Department leaders preparing the fiscal year 2011 budget request.

Je crains que le super cuirassé de 200.000 t ne soit défoncé si on lui tire au nuke dessus ...et que vu la SER il soit plus facile à repérer au radar qu'un super carrier US pour lequel les chinois ont développé des IBCM ... On arrive déjà pas à avoir des 127 mm au lieu du 76 mm sur les Fremm ni plus de 16 MdCN en silo (avec une dotation dérisoire de 200...) .

Mais un gros CFT ventral à la place du bidon de 2000 l ? En descendant aussi bas que le 2000 l et en rejoignant les 2 réacteurs latéralement, on devrait soit avoir un très gros réservoir de de 3 à 4000 l permettant une augmentation de la distance franchissable, soit une soute comparable aux CFT du Silent Eagle pour y recevoir des munitions. Par ailleurs il y a eu des essais en soufflerie de soutes furtives à mettre sous les ailes pour le F-22 : N'y aurait il pas une possibilité avec une "forme" dérivée d'une coque de Scalp ?

Farfaitement ! Et merci Philippe pour ces belles images qui déclinent les différents modèles de la famille X2 de Siko. Par contre quand je vois l'extrapolation gros porteurs avec ces deux moteurs latéraux propulseurs, je me dis qu'a contrario une version Monomoteur du concept X3 d'Eads est tout aussi faisable comme suggérée dans le pdf du brevet.

Il y a aussi tout le topic sur le Frappeur de René Loire (dont je ne peux coller le lien, ne trouvant plus la touche " rechercher" :-[ :-X :lol:

Un de plus... http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qU19kmTVJM&feature=related It Attacks. It Lifts. Will it Happen? - Joint Multi Role Posted by Graham Warwick at 7/22/2009 9:08 AM CDT It's still a long way in the future, but the US Army has canvassed industry ideas on potential configurations and technologies for the Joint Multi Role (JMR), a notional common platform to replace AH-64Ds and AH-1Zs, UH-60Ms and UH-1Ys, and MH-60R/Ss in the attack, reconnaissance, utility and cargo missions. Companies were invited to to give individual briefings to an Army study team at Ft Rucker last week. Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky were there, as were Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Also invited to present their ideas were Baldwin Technology, Karem Aircraft and Piasecki Aircraft. By all accounts, the smaller firms were delighted at the chance to pitch their ideas. Baldwin even produced a video of a proposed armed version of its Mono Tiltrotor. Video: Baldwin Technology The JMR concept has been around for a while, and it's one of very few potential new programs for a rotorcraft industry increasingly starved of research and development funding. But JMR development is not planned to get under way before 2023 at the earliest, with the initial attack version to replace Block 3 Apaches beginning in 2030 and the utility version to replace M Upgrade Black Hawks after 2038. That's a long time to wait. The JMR industry "session" was organisation by the Concepts and Requirements Directorate (CRD) of the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Ft Rucker. The CRD is conducting a three-phase JMR aircraft analysis study. The nine-month first phase, to be completed in September, is evaluating the feasibility of combining multiple missions in a common platform. In the absence of specific requirements for JMR, the CRD gave industry some advisory targets: vertical takeoff and landing capability from ships and unimproved sites; 6,000ft/95ºF hot-and-high capability; cruise speed exceeding 170kt with full mission payload; 424km mission radius with 2h on station for attack/recon missions and 0.5h for utility/cargo missions; autonomous capability for optionally manned operations; plus all the usual -ilities: survivability, reliability, affordability, etc. The goal of the CRD's study is not yet clear to me. But a parallel Pentagon-directed future vertical lift capabilities-based assessment is trying to build the case for a significant R&D investment modelled on the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) effort that preceded the Joint Strike Fighter program. Perhaps the intent here is to create a JAST-like precursor to JMR that can help industry mature the required technologies ahead of a post-2020 development launch. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5d216f18-9399-4cdc-9029-68f7d4be46d9

US Air Force looks beyond the Reaper http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/us-air-force-looks-beyond-the.html By Stephen Trimble on July 17, 2009 2:07 PM The General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc MQ-9 Reaper will rule the US Air Force fleet of medium-altitude unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) through the middle of the next decade. The USAF's newly-released UAS flight flight plan shows the Reaper's capability will steadily expand with the arrival of new payloads, such as the Gorgon Stare sensor in 2010. The USAF also revealed plans to test the Reaper next year as a replacement for the US Navy EA-6B, which is retired in FY12. The Reaper will be augmented during the next decade with the MQ-X, which is pictured in the flight plan as a stealthy, jet-powered aircraft. It retains the surveillance and close air support mission of the MQ-9, and adds an electronic warfare mission. In many ways, this recalls the objectives of the joint unmanned combat air systems (J-UCAS), which was cancelled after 2005. The MQ-X also opens the door to a very ambitious future. By the middle of this century, the USAF anticipates follow-on versions of this type to rule the skies. These aircraft will function as combination dogfighters, intelligence collectors, strikers and even tankers.

Il ne faut pas se leurrer : on est tout à fait capable de payer le renouvellement de la flotte de SNLE , chacun au prix d'un PA, des missiles M51 dont le programme aura couté entre 3 à 4 PA , et sinon des 6 SNA pour le prix de 3 PA. De même on est capable de financer le programme A400m à env 2 PA et je ne parle pas du programme Rafale à 15 PA (nouvelle unité de compte monétaire : le PA :lol:). La vérité est que par rapport à tous ces programmes le PA est listé comme priorité 2 La question va donc être soit de n'avoir plus de programme de priorité 1 à financer à ce moment (notamment on aura fini de payer les M51) mais quid de l' ATBM des drones furtifs de l'Aster 30 Block II etc ?

Voire que de 1985 à 2000 elle n'avait déjà plus que du Canada Dry de GAN puisque depuis les Malouines en 82 , un GAN sans AEW allait dans le mur (ou plutôt au fond de l'eau) Et de surcroit quand les Intercepteurs embarqués étaient obsolètes...

Tu l'as dit "plus grand" :lol: :lol:mais pas obligatoirement plus long : Sinon concernant le CVF-Fr on avait déjà un différentiel de tonnage entre la version GiBi et Française : "A report in La Tribune newspaper on 29 August 2006 claimed that the MOPA2 had "made recommendations to the specifications" for PA2 from the baseline CVF design, the French Ministry of Defense confirmed the report on the 31 August. The proposed changes would apparently increase displacement from about 65,000 tonnes to 74,000 tonnes (this is probably the end of service life limiting displacement, other reports have since referred to 70,000 tonnes), increase maximum flight deck width by 4 metres( to 73 metres) increase draft by 2 metres (to 11.5 metres) and reduce speed from 26.3 knots to about 25.0 knots (DCN says 26 knots). The increase in displacement was primarily due to Marine Nationale requirements related to the airgroup; including the fitting of heavy steam catapults and associated boilers, changes to the hanger space, increased fuel storage, the storage and handling of air launched nuclear weapons, and the fitting of a sophisticated anti-roll system. There were also substantial changes to the ships internal layout to conform to French practices. " http://navy-matters.beedall.com/pa2-2.htm

Bah tu troques du blindage haute densité antiradiation de peu de volume, contre des soutes de carburant de plus de volumes : Tu auras du mal à faire tenir tes 4000t de plus dans le même volume et donc sans augmenter les dimensions, et donc a priori la longueur... (à moins de partir d'un modèle de BPC, plus haut de 1 m, ce qui bien sur ne sera pas le cas :lol:) Surtout si l'on rappelle que la forme de coque du CdG est reprise telle quelle du Foch/Clem, un PA conventionnel avec ses soutes à carburant qui ne faisait que 36000t en charge ;)

Un CdG de 40000 t à propulsion conventionnelle serait plus long puisqu'environ 4000t du CdG sont du aux surblindage de sécurité du Nuke. Donc 4000 t de plus = un peu plus de longueur Mais peut être suffisamment pour homogénéiser mieux la taille des hangars pour des Rafales SANS ailes repliables : les ascenseurs du CdG avaient été prévus pour monter 2 rafales ensembles, ailes repliées : on peut penser que le hangar n'a pas été bien calculé car on prévoyait de pouvoir emporter plus d'appareils initialement. Et grapiller de la place pour au moins une des 2 catapultes portée à 90 m : Dans le projet CVF-Fr, les 2 catapultes prenaient beaucoup de place... Mais aussi les espaces de vie assez confortables, dans la lignée de ceux des BPC, où pour la petite histoire les australiens avaient demandé de passer les chambre à couchettes à 4 en 6 voire 8... Bref il y aurait sans doute matière à un projet couplé avec le Brésil, "intelligemment" conçu tant pour mieux gérer la surface que les couts via une coopération...

C'est une idée séduisante vu les capacités STOL de l'A400m. Mieux qu'un ATR-72! Mais je crois qu'il y a eu une version civile du C-130 qui n'a pas bien marché ? Mais

Et encore le chinook est plus un Piasecki, rachetée par Boeing Vertol , comme les Bananes de l'armée Française...

Les enchainements prédéfinis des techniques orientales servent de mémoire de la technique, de "tradition orale" à des systèmes largement pratiqués par des hommes peu lettrés. L'autre élément utile des enchainements prédéfinis et de pouvoir entrer dans la technique, et de s'abstraire des pensées parasites. J'imagine que "l'assaut tous contre un" est un moyen efficace d'oublier ses soucis du jour...