US Air Force

[DEFA550]

les USA ont refusés ce concept. En effet, ce concept ne répondait pas à la fiche-programme qui disait « Le nouveau missile doit fonctionner sur tout avion qui tire le Sidewinder sans travaux d’intégration ni adaptateur ».

Il ne correspondait pas non plus à certains critères de performance (pas de poussée vectorielle, par exemple).

Ceci dit, je crois me souvenir qu'il y avait déjà eu un précédent où la collaboration avec les USA s'était terminée par un cavalier seul des USA : l'AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Conclusion : L'Oncle Sam n'est clairement pas disposé à utiliser des missiles A/A dont il n'aurait pas la maîtrise totale.

[actyon]

America Needs To Develop A New Bomber Now

The existing bomber force cannot cope with new challenges indefinitely. As countries like China pursue anti-access strategies and more agile air defenses become available to potential adversaries, the U.S. must recapitalize its aging bomber fleet. Failure to do so could eventually result in major military setbacks, since future enemies will doubtless attack the joint force where it is weakest. Defense analyst Lauren B. Thompson comments in a recent report published by the Lexington Group. .

Bombers have played a vital role in recent conflicts. From the Balkans to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, the Air Force’s fleet of long range, heavy bombers has proven highly useful in defeating diverse adversaries. Bombers typically deliver a disproportionate share of the munitions expended in air campaigns, and the advent of precision-guided weapons has enabled them to hit many targets in a single flight — day or night, in good weather or bad.

Heavy bombers are uniquely versatile and cost-effective. The defining features of heavy bombers are long reach and large payloads. These features have allowed them to adapt to changing threat conditions in a way that smaller tactical aircraft — manned or unmanned — could not. For instance, the B-52 bomber debuted as a high-flying nuclear bomber, but later became a low-level penetrator, then a conventional bomber, and today a mixed-use strike aircraft that can launch cruise missiles.

AUS&R 300x250

The newest planes in the U.S. heavy bomber fleet were designed over 30 years ago. The current bomber force is capable but aging. The heavy bomber force includes 76 B-52 Stratofortresses averaging 50 years of age, 63 B-1 Lancers averaging 28 years, and 20 B-2 Spirits averaging 20 years. Each of the bombers can deliver a mixed payload of precision munitions to an unrefueled range of 6,000 miles or greater. The B-52 is the only standoff cruise missile carrier in the fleet, the B-1 is the only supersonic bomber, and the B-2 is the only stealthy bomber. All three are facing age-related issues.

The world has changed in fundamental ways since they were first conceived. The Soviet Union has fallen and China has risen. The information revolution has transformed commerce and culture. Old technologies of mass destruction have spread to new nations, and new technologies have empowered extremists of every stripe. In sum, virtually every feature of the threat environment has changed since America last commenced development of a new bomber. At some point, it will no longer be feasible to deter and/or defeat emerging threats with combat systems designed for another time.

Although America has encountered unexpected threats in this new age, it continues to enjoy global air dominance. Non-traditional enemies such as the Taliban have lacked the means to challenge U.S. forces in the air, or at sea, or in conventional combat on land, and so have resorted to asymmetric strategies. The legacy bomber fleet and tactical aircraft in the joint inventory have proven highly adaptable to the demands imposed by new kinds of warfare, mainly because there was so little that irregular adversaries could do to deny access to their airspace. As a result, military planners have been under greater pressure to upgrade ground combat systems than their counterparts in the air.

As the long-range bomber force ages, it will gradually come to present an opportunity for rising powers or movements that think they can carve out sanctuaries by denying U.S. air power access to those areas. If they can force U.S. aircraft carriers to remain far away and hold at risk the nearby land bases used by U.S. military aircraft, then the bomber force becomes the sole impediment to their plans short of America launching ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles will seldom be a cost-effective, proportionate or even credible response to the threats America faces.

Thus, developing a Long Range Strike Bomber that can gradually take over the most demanding missions of America’s fading Cold War bomber force is an indispensable step in preserving the nation’s security through mid-century. A new bomber will strengthen nuclear deterrence by allowing U.S. leaders to hold at risk the most valued assets of aggressor nations with a strike system that can be quickly recalled or retargeted as conditions dictate. A new bomber will enable the joint force to deliver tailored effects against a wide array of conventional threats at distances beyond the reach of tactical air power, in circumstances where reliance on standoff munitions would be either unaffordable or simply unexecutable.

Most importantly, though, a new bomber would be a hedge against the uncertainty military planners face during a period of unprecedented change in human civilization. Having failed to anticipate most of the major threat developments over the last hundred years, it would be foolish indeed for U.S. leaders to think they have a better grasp of the future now that every facet of human experience is subject to simultaneous change. What they can know, though, is that being able to reach anywhere on earth with survivable, versatile air power will continue to be a crucial feature of U.S. military capability. Failure to preserve that capability by developing the Long Range Strike Bomber could have fatal consequences for U.S. warfighters, and many other Americans.

Efforts to buy a new bomber have been repeatedly delayed. When the Cold War ended, the defense department terminated production of the B-2 and ceased development of new bombers for the first time since the 1920s. Plans to pursue a next-generation bomber were delayed by changing threat conditions and the appearance of new technologies that could bolster the performance of aging planes. As a result, the U.S. has not developed a new heavy bomber in three decades.

The Air Force has plans to develop a new bomber. The Air Force has budgeted $6 billion for development of a Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) between 2013 and 2017. The service says it will buy 80-100 aircraft at an average cost of $550 million each, with initial operational capability in 2025. Although details are secret, experts predict the new bomber will be able to operate autonomously in hostile airspace, carrying a mixed payload of precision munitions over intercontinental distances.

Existing strike capabilities must be upgraded as a new bomber is developed. It will take 20 years to develop, produce and deploy LRS-B. During that time, the Air Force must continue sustaining legacy strike aircraft to deter aggression and defeat aggressors. Each of the bombers in the current fleet requires upgrades to enhance connectivity with other friendly forces, expand the range of munitions that can be delivered, and cope with age-related maladies such as metal corrosion.

Failure to develop a new bomber could have fatal consequences.

http://defense-update.com/20130727_america-needs-to-develop-a-new-bomber-now.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=96272&utm_campaign=0

[actyon]

Commercially Certified, ScanEagle Head for Alaska to Track Icebergs, Whales

A major energy company plans to fly the ScanEagle off the Alaska coast in international waters starting in August. Plans for the initial ship-launched flights include surveys of ocean ice floes and migrating whales in Arctic oil exploration areas.

The release of two ‘restricted category type certificates’ to a pair of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) represents a milestone that will lead to the first approved commercial UAS operations later this summer, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced. Certificates were issued to two types of unmanned systems – the Scan-Eagle built by inSitu and X200 and AeroVironment’s PUMA AE. Issuing the type certificates is an important step toward the FAA’s goal of integrating UAS into the nation’s airspace. These flights will also meet requirements in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that define Arctic operational areas and include a mandate to increase Arctic UAS commercial operations.

Both are categorized as ‘small UAS’, weighing less than 25 kilograms (55 pounds). Each is about 1.37 meter long (4.5 feet), with wingspans of ten and 2.75 meter (9 feet). The PUMA is expected to support emergency response crews for oil spill monitoring and wildlife surveillance over the Beaufort Sea.

The major advantage of having type-certificated UAS models available is that they can be used commercially. The ScanEagle and PUMA received Restricted Category type certificates that permit aerial surveillance. Until now, obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate – which specifically excludes commercial operations – was the only way the private sector could operate UAS in the nation’s airspace.

http://defense-update.com/20130727_scan_eagle_certifie.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=96272&utm_campaign=0

[actyon]

Aller quelques belles photos :oops:

]

[actyon]

Why do mid-air collisions between fighter jets occur?

Two F-16C Falcon single seat aircraft, assigned to the 113th Wing, D.C. Air National Guard, were involved in a mid-air collision Aug. 1. The aircraft were on a routine night training mission off the coast of Chincoteague, Va., approximaley 70 miles southeast of Washington. The accident occurred over water at 10:28 p.m.

One pilot ejected from his aircraft safely and inflated his emergeny raft. He was recovered by members of the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City at 12:30 a.m. Aug. 2. The second pilot and aircraft was able to return to Joint Base Andrews without further incident.”

Image credit: U.S. Air Force

Following the above news of a midair collision, many readers of The Aviationist asked how this kind of incidents may happen.

There is always the risk of a midair collision when two or more aircraft fly close to one each other. Even if some collisions in the past took place because of failures or during engaments, air-to-air combat maneuvering, many (more) have occurred as perfectly working aircraft were rejoining the formation.

That phase of the flight can be extremely dangerous, especially at night: the two pilots, flying in a tactical spread formation, have to tighten the formation. The lead aircraft is reached by the wingman, with the latter initially forced to keep a higher speed (otherwise it would not reach the leader) and then to suddenly reduce his speed to match the leading plane’s airspeed. A distraction can be fatal.

And don’t forget how close the aircraft fly from the moment until landing: once again, a sudden move, a distraction, hence a human error could cause the midair.

 

http://theaviationist.com/2013/08/05/mid-air-collision-f16/#.R4VZ9srxrIU

[DEFA550]

En général ça arrive pendant un virage lorsque le coéquipier rejoint son leader. La configuration de vol peut conduire à une perte du visuel, surtout si les paramètres attendus ne sont pas respectés (vitesse et facteur de charge), et donc à l'impossibilité d'éviter une éventuelle collision.

Modifié le 19 août 2013 par DEFA550

[collectionneur]

Perte d'un B-1b du 28e escadron de bombardement stationné sur la base d'Ellsworth en Dakota du Sud qui avait 28 bombardiers avant le crash lors d'un exercice au Montana. L'équipage s'est éjecté, une photo d'associated press montre un gros tas de débris noir, on dirait qu'il à fait un piqué, pas de débris éloigné du lieu de l'impact à première vue. C'est plus grave pour l'USAF que la perte de F-16...

http://www.lapresse.ca/international/etats-unis/201308/19/01-4681295-un-bombardier-b-1b-secrase-dans-le-montana.php

C'est le 8e B-1b détruits depuis 1984, mais comme l'USAF a réduit le parc en ligne a 65 en 2010, même avec 8 exemplaires au musée sur les 100 construit, il y en a encore quelqu'uns sur les 17 stockés qui peuvent prendre la relève.

Modifié le 20 août 2013 par collectionneur

[Chris.]

C'est plus grave pour l'USAF que la perte de F-16...

 

Au niveau opérationnel, pas forcément.

 

De la triade de bombardiers US, le B-1B est celui qui est le plus souvent sur la sellettes:

pour les missions risquées ou stratégiques, il y a les B-2.

pour les missions où le risque est faible et/ou où il faut juste balancer des missiles de croisière à longue portée, le B-52 est largement suffisant, et moins cher à opérer et entretenir.

Le B-1B, lui, se retrouve un peu le cul entre deux chaises, au point qu'il n'a, sauf erreur, plus aucune capacité nucléaire, là où le B-52 est encore utilisé pour le lancement de missiles de croisière aéroportés nucléaires.

 

Quant au F-16, avec les retards consécutifs du F-35, chaque perte compte, surtout s'il s'agit d'un appareil moderne, car les cellules sont de plus en plus usées (idem au niveau des F-15 d'ailleurs).

[alexandreVBCI]

L'armée américaine peine à former suffisamment de pilotes de drones, faute de volontaires pour cette spécialité, constate un colonel de l'Air Force dans une étude rédigée pour le compte de la Brookings Institution, un centre de réflexion de Washington. Le manque s'expliquerait par des perspectives de promotion moindre que pour les pilotes "traditionnels" et des "exigences opérationnelles" éprouvantes.

En 2012, l'Air Force était censée entraîner 150 pilotes à diriger depuis le sol les Predators, Reapers et autres Global Hawk. Seuls 82 % des postes ont été pourvus, d'après le rapport. Le quota de 1 129 pilotes "traditionnels", par contre, a été rempli sans problème.

 

Suite : 

http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2013/08/21/l-armee-de-l-air-americaine-manque-de-volontaires-pour-piloter-ses-drones_3464064_3222.html#xtor=AL-32280515

[pascal]

Concernant les pilotes de drones il est certain que c'est moins ébouriffant de piloter assis dans un shelter climatisé un engin volant à 150 nœuds que de prendre place dans un baquet de F 16 avec 2.5 tonnes d'armement sous voilure ...

 

Je ne pense pas que ce soit la même charge de stress non plus en terme d'intensité lors des vols; même si a priori certaines contraintes semblent assez lourdes à gérer (durée des missions notamment). Il y a de forte chance aussi que ce ne soient plus les mêmes personnalités dans le cadre d'une filière "drones" dédiée; bref tout fout le camp ma brav'dame et que dira-t-on le jour où le Chef d'État Major de l'USAF sera un 5 étoile avec 12 000 heures de vol "sur" drones ?

[Chronos]

Concernant les pilotes de drones il est certain que c'est moins ébouriffant de piloter assis dans un shelter climatisé un engin volant à 150 nœuds que de prendre place dans un baquet de F 16 avec 2.5 tonnes d'armement sous voilure ...

 

Je ne pense pas que ce soit la même charge de stress non plus en terme d'intensité lors des vols; même si a priori certaines contraintes semblent assez lourdes à gérer (durée des missions notamment). Il y a de forte chance aussi que ce ne soient plus les mêmes personnalités dans le cadre d'une filière "drones" dédiée; bref tout fout le camp ma brav'dame et que dira-t-on le jour où le Chef d'État Major de l'USAF sera un 5 étoile avec 12 000 heures de vol "sur" drones ?

 

Niveau stress apparemment ça serait pire en fait. Ton pilote de drone vivant aux USA se retrouve à passer des opérations militaires à aller chercher les gosses à l'école et se disputer avec madame pour recommencer le tir de missiles de 9 à 17... La confusion des environnements aurait un impact certain.

[Raoul]

 

 

Au niveau opérationnel, pas forcément.

 

De la triade de bombardiers US, le B-1B est celui qui est le plus souvent sur la sellettes:

pour les missions risquées ou stratégiques, il y a les B-2.

pour les missions où le risque est faible et/ou où il faut juste balancer des missiles de croisière à longue portée, le B-52 est largement suffisant, et moins cher à opérer et entretenir.

Le B-1B, lui, se retrouve un peu le cul entre deux chaises, au point qu'il n'a, sauf erreur, plus aucune capacité nucléaire, là où le B-52 est encore utilisé pour le lancement de missiles de croisière aéroportés nucléaires.

 

Quant au F-16, avec les retards consécutifs du F-35, chaque perte compte, surtout s'il s'agit d'un appareil moderne, car les cellules sont de plus en plus usées (idem au niveau des F-15 d'ailleurs).

 

Oui, le B1-b n'a plus de mission nuke. D'ailleurs, je pensais même que son retrait du service était imminent ??? 

[actyon]

Vigilant Eagle continues closer U.S.-Russian cooperation
Beginning Aug. 27, fighter jets from the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the Russian air force will scramble to track and intercept "hijacked" aircraft during an air defense exercise viewed as a steppingstone toward closer military-to-military cooperation in additional areas.

Vigilant Eagle 13 kicked off Aug. 26, with scenarios that present the United States, Canada and Russia with a common enemy: terrorist hijackers, Joseph Bonnet, director of joint training and exercises for NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, said during a telephone interview with American Forces Press Service.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466969/vigilant-eagle-continues-closer-us-russian-cooperation.aspx

[actyon]

Air Force Special Operations Air Warfare Center Commander Brig. Gen. Jon Weeks and 745th SOS Commander Lt. Col. Rick Seymour officially deactivate the squadron by furling the unit's colors. The 745th SOS was activated in May 2007 to support AFSOC missions. (U.S. Air Force Photo / Senior Airman Naomi M. Griego)

[actyon]

A US Navy With Only 8 Carriers?

The Drastic Consequences of Hagel's Fleet Options

WASHINGTON — At first, the statement is shocking. “Reduce the number of carrier strike groups from 11 to 8 or 9, draw down the Marine Corps from 182,000 to between 150,000 and 175,000.”

But those words July 31 from US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel brought into the open some of the behind-the-scenes discussions that have been going on at the Pentagon for months. Senior Defense Department officials continue to stress no decisions have been made out of the Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR), but the everything-is-on-the-table nature of the discussions is becoming clearer.

Or is it? Beyond top-line statements, hardly any real details were released, leaving those outside the inner circles to speculate on the immediate and far-reaching effects of sequestration. One reason, many observers feel, is that talking about a specific potential cut could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even acknowledging that an eight-carrier fleet is on the table, some fear, could turn that once-unthinkable idea into a reality.

And it’s not just about cutting carriers — it’s air wings with seven or so squadrons of aircraft, it’s a cruiser and three or four destroyers, and it’s the crews. Substantial savings would be found from reducing nearly 10,000 personnel billets with the elimination of each strike group.

Reducing the air wings would ease carrier acquisition, maintenance and recapitalization. The fleet of legacy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft – mostly C models — could be swiftly retired, leaving an all-Super Hornet fleet of Es and Fs that itself could be smaller than what exists today. Retirement of older SH-60 helicopters could also be accelerated.

Dropping the carrier fleet could be done several ways. Two or three ships could simply be ordered to go — likely the oldest ships that have not undergone a refueling overhaul. The older Nimitz-class ships — Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson and Theodore Roosevelt — are likely safe, having completed their reactor refueling. Abraham Lincoln, which has just begun its overhaul at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va., is likely safe, as the three-year effort has already been largely paid for. But the George Washington, set to begin its refueling overhaul in 2015, would likely go, along with the John C. Stennis and possibly the Harry S. Truman.

Spreading out the current five-year carrier building schedule is dangerous, and could actually lead to increased costs that would cancel out any savings. Significant portions of the carrier supply base are barely sustainable under the current schedule, and some suppliers can be expected to go out of business should the building time be stretched any further. Newport News, faced with the loss of the refueling overhauls and a longer building time, would be forced to lay off several thousand workers, again increasing costs for new ships.

Carriers also have a significant disposal cost. The eight-reactor Enterprise, now in the early stages of a multiyear disposal process, will likely cost more than $1.1 billion to ultimately dispose of. Nimitz-class carriers have only two reactors and could cost less to dispose of, but the bill still will be significant and, with inflation, would likely exceed the Big E’s cost.

Even laying up the carriers in mothballs will entail major costs. Reactors, once shut down for a significant time, cannot be restarted due to changes in their metallurgy, so the ships cannot be completely shut down and maintained in reserve.

Rather, the reactors would be set to a minimum level and the ships kept at a secure facility, like an active naval base. The Navy already has a significant backlog of seven decommissioned conventional carriers to get rid of, and the nukes would likely sit for some years before actually going away.

Fate of the Warships

The Navy’s 22 remaining Aegis cruisers are on the back-half of their projected 30-35 year careers, and the service already is trying to decommission seven.

The first Arleigh Burke-class destroyer entered service in 1991, and the Aegis ships are still being built. Complicating the decision about which ships would be cut are expensive modernization upgrades to the older ships, most of which have already received a ballistic-missile defense (BMD) capability — a key requirement among most regional combatant commanders.

For littoral combat ships, contract options to build them run through LCS 24, and the Navy is considering how to approach the rest of the planned 52-ship force. Options include eliminating one of the two LCS variants or ending the program at 24.

Cutting the Navy Department means cutting the Marine Corps, which inevitably leads to fewer amphibious ships. While the Navy seeks a 10 or 11-ship big-deck amphibious force, nine are in service today. Peleliu, the oldest assault ship, already is to be replaced by the new America. A reduction to eight big decks would likely mean the Wasp — about to begin a sorely-needed $110 million modernization overhaul — would be decommissioned.

Construction of the eleventh and last of the highly capable LPD 17 San Antonio class of amphibious transport docks has begun at HII’s Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., and the ships are nearly as effective as the bigger assault ships, so they would likely survive.

But the older dock landing ships of the Whidbey Island class would be on the chopping block — as would be their LSD(X) replacement.

Submarines

Pentagon support for the nuclear attack submarine force seems to be stronger than ever, and the number of SSNs is not likely to diminish. But the Navy’s desire to incorporate a Virginia Payload Module (VPM) with four large weapon tubes into Block V Virginia-class ships is threatened. Each VPM would add about $350 million to the cost of each sub, but without the modifications the four SSGN guided-missile submarines will retire in the 2020s without a replacement.

Also to be decided is the fate of the Ohio-class replacement submarine, a major acquisition effort sitting squarely in the middle of future shipbuilding budgets. The first ship isn’t scheduled to be ordered until 2021, but development costs are significant.

Future modernization programs also are at significant risk under the various SCMR options. The Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to be installed in an Arleigh Burke Flight III version beginning in 2016 is threatened and could be delayed, despite urgent requirements for the BMD mission.

As for infrastructure, a fleet that would drop below 250 or 230 ships would also need fewer bases or support facilities. With the shift to the Pacific, whereby 60 percent of the fleet will be Pacific-based, several facilities could close. Targets would likely include the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, and Mayport Naval Station in Florida, as well as lesser facilities.

The shipbuilding industry could shift as well. The most striking change could be a joining of the two biggest shipbuilders, HII and General Dynamics. Such a move would probably mean the closure of one or two of the five major yards operated by the two companies. The upshot would mean less competition for Navy contracts, something the service would not welcome.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG02/308040012/A-US-Navy-Only-8-Carriers-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World%20News|p

[actyon]

A U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress from the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron leads a formation of two F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft assigned to the 18th Aggressor Squadron, a F-16CJ Fighting Falcon from Misawa, Japan, a F-15J Eagle from Chitose, Japan, two Japanese Air Self-Defense Force F-2 attack fighters from the 6th Tactical Fighter Squadron, two U.S. Navy EA-6B Prowler aircraft from the Electronic Attack Squadron, a U.S. Navy E-2C Hawkeye aircraft and a Japanese E-2C Hawkeye on a flight over Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 21, 2011, during the Cope North exercise. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Angelita M. Lawrence

Aircraft from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Japan Air Self-Defense Force, and Royal Australian Air Force fly in formation Feb. 5, 2013, over the Pacific Ocean in support of Exercise Cope North 2013 at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. During this event, the aviators trained on war-fighting integration tactics. Cope North is a multilateral aerial and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise, held annually, designed to increase the combat readiness and interoperability of the U.S. military, JASDF and RAAF. While talking extensively of overcoming future anti-access and area-denial challenges, the Air-Sea Battle Concept avoids naming specific countries. U.S. Air Force photo

A U.S. Air Force F-16C Fighting Falcon leads a formation of F-15 Eagles and F-22 Raptors as they fly in formation over the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) sailing through the Sea of Japan, July 27, 2010. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Charles Oki

[actyon]

AC-130 gunship

 

 

[actyon]

Le Reaper va t-il devenir un avion de chasse

General Atomics est en pourparlers avec Raytheon pour équiper le MQ-9 Reaper de missiles air-air et d’un radar AESA.

 

 

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) est en discussions avec Raytheon pour armer son drone MQ-9 Reaper avec des missiles AIM-9X Sidewinder de Raytheon, des AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) et des AGM-88 High-Speed ​​Missile Anti-Radiation (HARM).

« Nous n’avons pas l’intention d’effectuer des essais, mais nous faisons la revue de conception initiale, » a commenté le 15 Août Chris Pehrson, directeur du développement stratégique chez GA-ASI. « C’est juste une piste d’exploration ».

Il a ajouté que l’entreprise utilise ses fonds internes pour équiper le MQ-9 d’un radar actif à balayage électronique (AESA), comparable à celui utilisé à bord des avions de combat les plus sophistiqués au monde.

http://info-aviation.com/?p=15561

Modifié le 4 septembre 2013 par actyon

[actyon]

Que pour le plaisir des yeux

 

 

[DarkSablo]

F-18 dans la section Air Force -> ban

 

qui plus est australiens ?

Modifié le 4 septembre 2013 par DarkSablo

[Castor]

F-18 dans la section Air Force -> ban

 

qui plus est australiens ?

 

Par contre tu laisses passer les F35 ? (Pourant ils sont pas USAF)

C'est parce que le F18 est moche c'est ça? J'en etais sur, c'est de la discrimination =D

[DarkSablo]

Par contre tu laisses passer les F35 ? (Pourant ils sont pas USAF)

C'est parce que le F18 est moche c'est ça? J'en etais sur, c'est de la discrimination =D

 

 

Ca s' appelle la partialite, pas eu l oeil assez vif pour voir qu ils n etaient pas usaf.

Mais les F-18... no way

 

Par contre le F-18 j aime, surtout en version A et C

[actyon]

Boeing a lancé la production des ravitailleurs de l'armée de l'air américaine

Boeing a commencé à assembler les avions ravitailleurs KC-46 destinés à l'armée de l'air américaine dans le cadre d'un contrat historique de 52 milliards de dollars, après avoir réussi un test clé durant l'été, a annoncé mardi un dirigeant du groupe.

"Je ne sais pas combien de personnes croyaient que nous serions capables de suivre le programme au tout début, il y a quelques années, mais nous avons respecté chacune des échéances", a dit Dennis Muilenburg, directeur général de la division Défense du groupe, lors du Sommet Reuters consacrée à l'aéronautique et à la défense.

Les 18 premiers exemplaires du KC-46, développé sur la base du Boeing 767 civil, devraient être, comme prévu, livrés en 2017, soit six ans après la signature du contrat. La livraison des 161 autres exemplaires commandés doit s'étaler jusqu'en 2028.

Les nouveaux ravitailleurs sont destinés à remplacer les KC-135, des appareils dont l'âge moyen avoisine 50 ans.

Ce contrat, l'un des plus importants jamais octroyés par le Pentagone, a opposé pendant plusieurs années Boeing à l'européen Airbus et son attribution a été retardée par de multiples rebondissements dans les procédures d'appels d'offres.

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/boeing-a-lance-la-production-des-ravitailleurs-de-l-armee-de-l-air-americaine.N204030

[actyon]

Image du simulateur du Tanker de Being

[actyon]

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III addresses Airmen during a speech Aug. 30, 2013, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Eielson was the final stop on a two-week long tour of the Pacific region in which he discussed Air Force key issues and opportunities and challenges in the region. Welsh, along with his wife, Betty, and Athena Cody, wife of Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James Cody, met with Airmen and their families at various locations on the base to thank them for their dedication and sacrifice. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Zachary Perras/Released)