Le F-35

[jackjack]

zx

I think that anyone that uses air power australia as a source has already lost the debate, they have no credibility.

the missile range they show of the aim-120 and r-27 is very funny and even the Russians do not claim that

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0000%22

"Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information."

google translate

Je pense que toute personne qui utilise la puissance aérienne en Australie comme une source a déjà perdu le débat, ils n'ont aucune crédibilité.

la portée des missiles qu'ils montrent de l'AIM-120 et R-27 est très drôle et même les Russes ne prétendons pas que

"Critiques Airpower l'Australie et la revendication RepSim que le F35 ne sera pas compétitive en 2020. Airpower Australie principalement centre autour de la performance aérodynamique F35 et capacités de furtivité. Ces sont incompatibles avec des années d'analyse détaillée qui a été entrepris par la Défense, le bureau du programme JSF, Lockheed Martin, les services des États-Unis et les huit autres pays partenaires. Alors que les développements d'avions tels que le PAK-FA russe ou le chinois J20, comme l'a soutenu par la puissance aérienne en Australie, montrent que les menaces que nous pourrions être confrontés sont de plus en plus sophistiquée, il n'ya rien de nouveau en ce qui concerne le développement de ces appareils pour changer l'évaluation de la Défense. je pense que l'Australie et l'analyse Airpower est fondamentalement viciée RepSim par des hypothèses erronées et un manque de connaissance de l'information classifiée F-35 performances. "

[BPCs]

C'est leur dedefensa.org  à eux  :lol:

[zx]

Je vois que cela fait réagir  :lol: même en anglais,  si je comprend bien, le gars du site est un jon lake australien anti f35.

Pour qu'une info soit intéressante, il faut toujours que cela soit confirmé par d'autres sources.

ok, autre source, qui date de février, qui demande du f22 à la place de F35.  En clair si les Australiens achètent du F35, ça sera essentiellement politique, comme pour les Canadiens, Japonais, Israéliens et d'autres. L'avion n'entre pas en ligne de compte qu'il soit bon ou mauvais.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/09/aussies-modest-proposal-sell-us-f-22s-mate/

For F-35 proponents, every sunrise brings new reasons for unease about the future of the program. It regularly gets bad headlines in the U.S. The Brits now say they’ll wait until 2015 before committing to buy any more jets. And as we’ve talked about before, there are rumblings Down Under that suggest the Australians may be losing their patience.

But proponents in the U.S. and Australia can take heart about one thing — these are the guys they’re up against:

   Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee. Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

   By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.

   Remaining committee members, including Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston, were told the JSF program was a failure, the planes only had limited stealth capability and that they were compromised by the use of a core design to produce three different variants; a conventional land based plane, a short take off and landing variant that will replace the US Marine Corps’ Harrier jets and a carrier version.

   Air Power Australia wants the Australian Government to abandon the JSF and, instead, exert pressure on the US Government to scrap the program in favour of having Lockheed Martin re-open its F-22 Raptor production line and make that plane, arguably the world’s best air superiority fighter, available to the international partners.

Yeah, that’s gonna happen. You can’t blame them for taking what they believe is the best position for their government — and, after all, they’re standing upside down on the bottom of the planet, so the blood is probably rushing to their heads. But if Lockheed’s own Amur’kun advocates in Congress couldn’t save the F-22, the chances are even more remote that Canberra can do it.

All other things being equal, an export version of the F-22 could be a great idea for the U.S. On the What’s-Good-for-Lockheed-is-Good-for-America front, the company resumes cranking out airplanes down in Marietta. The Australian and Japanese air forces start flying the world’s greatest super-jet from their own fields in the Western Pacific. Lockheed comes back to the Air Force and says, hey, we’re so good at building these things in volume now, we’ll sell you a whole batch for fifty bucks apiece. The waves upon waves of F-22s in the skies block out the sun.

But this schoolboy fantasy will never be. As defense commentator Loren Thompson wrote this week, the U.S. has a spotty track record in dealing with potential export customers for military airplanes. He set up his post as an explanation of why India might have chosen France’s Dassault Rafale over the F-35:

   New Delhi is a complicated place, and there were probably multiple reasons for the decision. But here’s one factor that hasn’t been reported. India made three different requests for information to the U.S. government over the last several years about sea-based versions of the F-35,and somehow nobody in Washington ever managed to answer any of them . Not surprisingly, the Indians eventually went away, but the lack of a U.S. response can’t have made a good impression.

   This situation is reminiscent of the way Japan, another first-tier Asian power, was treated when it made repeated inquiries concerning possible purchase of the twin-engine F-22 fighter. Military planners in Tokyo felt the F-22 was uniquely suited to Japan’s geostrategic circumstances, and therefore were seriously contemplating its purchase. Their inquiries weren’t just ignored in Washington, but bluntly rebuffed. Tokyo eventually decided to buy the single-engine F-35 instead, which is just as stealthy but not as agile in the most demanding engagements (it’s still far superior to any foreign fighter).

So it seems the Aussies should not feel particularly slighted about either their membership in Club F-35 or a few peoples’ F-22 aspirations. Dealing with the U.S. apparently is a headache for everyone.

traduction auto

http://www.systranet.com/fr/turl/?systrangui=www.systran.fr%3B/snetfr/web&systranbanner=1&systranuid=aHR0cC13d3cuZG9kYnV6ei5jb20vMjAxMi8wMi8wOS9hdXNzaWVzLW1vZGVzdC1wcm9wb3NhbC1zZWxsLXVzLWYtMjJzLW1hdGUvL2VuX2Zy

edit: fin 2008, liveleak, mais cela reste toujours actuel

F35 inferior to Russian and Chinese planes?

A sensitive report prepared in the US by Rand Corporation says Australias biggest defence purchase, the joint strike fighter will be inferior to Russian and Chinese rivals.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3cc_1228919444

J'attends les évaluations des Canadiens, pour voir si cela converge avec la vue des Australiens.

PS! les turques semblent se réveiller, ils s'aperçoivent du coût astronomique que représente l'achat de F35, c'est assez rigolo  :lol:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1336844221

Senator McCain & So, Admiral Venlet, who oversees the JSF program for the Pentagon  12/2011: Si les républicains reviennent, le jsf risque fort de subir le sort du f22.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=0fdcc4cc-ea5c-882c-25a3-de5218aacb05

Mr. President, in so many different respects, the F-35 program truly represents is a tragedy.  The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps desperately need new aircraft to take the place of the current strike and fighter jets that have been at war for most of the last 10 years.  These well-worn legacy aircraft are coming to the end of their service lives.  But, we are saddled with a program has little to show for itself after 10 years and $56 billion in taxpayer investment that has produced less than 20 test and operational aircraft, a bill for three-quarters of a billion dollars, and the promise of considerable ‘heavy learning’ yet to go.

[jackjack]

It is fine that you think the f-35 is rubbish, just don't base your opinion on APA and their work or you will look silly.

the RAND exercise you mentioned was done by APA

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42891479/Air-Combat-Past-Present-and-Future

This infamous exercise and the distortions around it has caused much discussion, RAND even issued a rebuttal. RAND went on further to claim that material within the power point that APA and Repsim did was an unauthorised analysis which does not represent the views of Rand

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-24/new-us-bought-air-force-fighters-inferior/520278

“Editor's note: Following a complaint, this report has been found to lack proper context on the nature of the Rand report, which the company has claimed is an unauthorised analysis which does not represent the views of Rand.”

[Arka_Voltchek]

Interesting.

[laurent simon]

Le dernier rapport du GAO (cour des comptes us) sur le F-35 :

http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/14/gaos-latest-f-35-report-2011-performance-mixed/

avec le PDF d'environ 50 pages :  http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/industry/96036e8b842055918b4e1a3e5c59748d/gaojointstrikefighterreport.pdf

En parcourant le document en diagonale, il y a des précisions que je n'avais pas vues ailleurs,

même si l'essentiel avait déjà été publié.

[alexandreVBCI]

La Norvège a annoncé vendredi (15 juin) l’achat des deux premiers chasseurs F-35 suite à l’accord des américains, reçu plus tôt dans la semaine, sur l’intégration de missiles JSM (Joint Strike Missile) à ces avions. C’était une condition pour la Norvège, qui développe ces missiles. Le ministre de la défense norvégien, Espen Barth Eide, a donc autorisé la commande des avions à l’industriel américain Lockheed Martin.

Les missiles JSM, produits par l’entreprise norvégienne Kongsberg, sont complémentaires du JSF F-35 puisqu’ils permettent de viser à la fois des cibles navales et terrestres. Un marché qui représenterait au total entre 3,3 et 4,2 milliards de dollars pour ces JSM.

Les deux premiers chasseurs commandés correspondent au modèle à atterrissage et décollage « conventionnel » (F-35 A). Ils devraient être suivis par une seconde paire en 2016, puis 47 autres à partir de 2017.

L’augmentation de budget que représente le financement des F-35 a été approuvé par le parlement norvégien jeudi (14 juin), notamment grâce aux fonds qui vont être redistribués suite au désengagement en Afghanistan.

http://www.bruxelles2.eu/breves/la-norvege-achete-ses-deux-premiers-f-35-grace-au-retrait-dafghanistan.html

[Philippe Top-Force]

Corée du Sud : le Typhoon d'Eurofighter opposé à Boeing et à Lockheed Martin. L'appel d'offres concernant la fourniture de 60 avions de combat à la Corée du Sud s'est achevé hier. Le Typhoon d'Eurofighter se trouve en concurrence avec le F-15 SE de Boeing et le F-35 de Lockheed Martin. Le choix du gouvernement coréen sera connu en octobre. La Corée du Sud a également prévu d'acquérir 36 hélicoptères d'attaque. Sont en concurrence le Tigre d'Eurocopter, le T129 turc et l'Apache de Boeing.

18 juin 12 - usinenouvelle.com

Séoul pouvant être le second pays à être doté de F35 après le Japon.

[g4lly]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/

ou’ve heard what Congress’ watchdog has to say about the F-35 program – it’s crazily over budget; outrageously behind schedule; and it has a lot of technical catching up before it can perform as advertised.

So what does Lightning II-builder Lockheed Martin say?

Steve O’Bryan, the vice president for F-35 business development, went into granular detail with reporters Tuesday at Lockheed’s annual media day outside Washington. It will not surprise you that his view of the world’s biggest defense program is slightly different from that of the Government Accountability Office.

O’Bryan acknowledged that F-35 is not where it should be, but he presented a series of data-rich slides and tried to make the case that all other things equal, this program is on track and doing well. Herewith, we’ve broken O’Bryan’s hour-long brief into a smaller set of digestible questions and answers, using his latest data and details.

Q: What kind of performance have you demonstrated on the three F-35 variants?

A: The jets have made 546 flights so far this year, compared to 401 planned, plus the jets continue to stay ahead of their scheduled test points. The Air Force’s F-35A has been flown through much of its performance envelope, all the way out to Mach 1.6; above 40,000 feet; and out to 9 Gs. Testing with “clean wings” – absent external pylons, stores or weapons – is going pretty well, and that’s important because that’s the configuration in which they’ll almost always fly in the real world.

“I have to tell you, as we see the future of the F-35 and look at the use case, clean wing is how we’re going fly this airplane 90 percent of the time,” O’Bryan said. “That is with internal weapons and internal air-to-air missiles – where we are right now is approaching 60 percent of clean wing full envelope test points. We are moving along; we are hitting all parts of the envelope; we are seeing a high-performing fifth-generation airplane.”

The Marine Corps’ F-35B is not quite as far along as the A, Lockheed says, since it’s the middle sibling, but it too has demonstrated much of its performance envelope. It has flown up to Mach 1.5, around 49,000 feet, and pulled up to 7 Gs. It has marked off more than half of its clean wing envelope test points.

The Navy’s C model, as the baby, is the least far along, though O’Bryan said “it’s fair to say we’re ahead of plan on flights and test points.” The C has flown at Mach 1.4, up toward 40,000 feet, and been taken to 7.5 Gs.

Q: What about weapons?

A: The F-35 has begun “weapons separation tests,” with the goal of building up to an actual, no-kidding weapons release later this year.

Q: What about the F-35’s onboard sensors, electronic warfare capabilities, targeting and pilot systems?

A: “As you can probably imagine, it’s very difficult for me to get an unclassified public release on the electronic warfare system, on the electronic attack, or other things, but I’ve tried to get as much as I possibly can,” O’Bryan said. He showed video that came from the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System and its Electro-Optical Targeting System, as well as a sensor picture from its synthetic aperture radar.

The F-35’s sensors and targeting capabilities are world-beating, Lockheed says, and O’Bryan gave one example: “What’s unique about the F-35 is the resolution that I can’t talk about, but what it enables is auto target recognition and auto target locating. So you get the ability to see and classify tanks, [armored personnel carriers], double-digit [surface-to-air missile] launchers that are unique. No other airplane has that capability. It’s able to do it through the weather and because of the computer power of the F-35 it is something unique to the F-35.”

In addition to its radar and laser targeting, the jet has six mid-wave infrared cameras that feed video right into the pilot’s helmet, enabling her to look anywhere, including through the floor of the airplane. The IR video is incredibly detailed, O’Bryan boasted. He showed video of an F-16 from the DAS perspective, and pointed out that even though it was not a conventional TV image, you could see the rivets on the fuselage and even the tail markings that showed the Viper was from Edwards AFB, Calif.

Q: Sounds pretty high speed, but isn’t the helmet the pilot needs to use all this jacked up?

A: Lockheed wouldn’t use that term – O’Bryan said the company believes it can make its original pilot helmet work as promised. He detailed the three major problems it has faced: “Latency” — a lag between what DAS sees and what it shows the pilot; “jitter” — the effect a jet’s natural shaking has on the image the pilot sees; and “night acuity” – how sensitive an F-35’s sensors are in total darkness.

O’Bryan said Lockheed believes new software – ah yes, software; we’ll get to that in a moment – can eliminate the latency problem. As of now the lag between what DAS sees and what a pilot sees is “measured in milliseconds.” Engineers think they can solve “jitter” by incorporating “inertial stabilization units,” like the ones you might find in a digital camera lens. And a new camera will enable Lockheed to improve an F-35’s night acuity, to the point where you can land a B on an amphib at midnight, in the middle of the ocean, with no lights.

In the meantime, as you read here last week, the program is also pursuing a second, less wham-o-dyne helmet in case the first one doesn’t materialize as promised. But could it take advantage of the cameras and sensors built into the F-35? O’Bryan said he didn’t know. The original helmet has flown “successfully” more than 2,000 times, he said, and Lockheed believes it can bring it into spec.

Meanwhile, the GAO report said it’s costing $80 million to both improve the original helmet and pursue a second one in parallel.

Q: Government watchdogs have said the F-35 software situation “is as complicated as anything on earth.” What’s the latest?

A: O’Bryan talked about it very carefully. He said 87 percent of the software the F-35 needs is flying on airplanes today, including test versions of the next major block due out this summer. He said 94 percent of it has been developed in the lab.

“The variance is small and it is contained,” he said. “Lockheed Martin and [DoD F-35 program executive officer] Vice Adm. David Venlet agree the schedule is adequate to support the software build and funding is adequate to complete the software build.”

O’Bryan said that Lockheed has added a “$100 million lab” to work on F-35 software and added “200 heads” to the software effort. He said Lockheed and the program are “recovering schedule” on the software, and he laid down a marker for when we’ll be able to see how it’s going.

“The test of that will be when we release the complete Block 2A software to flight test – that’s where I’d be able to give you a metric to demonstrate that,” O’Bryan said. It should appear “this summer. I’d ask you to measure us to that.”

O’Bryan did not discuss — and in fairness, no one asked him about — the Autonomic Logistics Information System, the software that F-35s and their crews will use to manage parts and maintenance. GAO has said that is even further behind than the airplanes’ software.

Q: All right, we’ve talked about the helmet and the software. What about the C’s tailhook redesign?

A: Here’s what O’Bryan said: “The distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook on the F-35C is the shortest of any naval aviation carrier airplane that we’ve had. Because we have to hide the hook — because if you had a hook exposed you wouldn’t be as stealthy airplane, that distance is tighter than any other. So it means when you roll over the wire when you land on the deck, the wire goes flush to the deck, and then you have to pick that wire up as it’s generally on the deck. So what we’ve had to do is re-design the hook shank.

Every airplane’s hook shank — as you’d imagine, you ground those things down, dragging it around, so it’s a remove-and-replace kind of thing. It has a bolt through the back of it and it holds on to the hook and we’ve redesigned that to have a lower center of gravity, or in a more mundane way, to make it a sharper hook point. And that allows us to pick up the wire. And we’ve already done testing on that. We’ve done it at 80, 90 and 100 knots and we’ve got a good design for the hook point now.

The other thing we need to do is, we need to make sure that the hook stays flush on the deck. So what you don’t want — and I was a Navy pilot, so I apologize if I’m using a lot of vernacular here – you want to keep that hook on the deck so it doesn’t bounce, or the words we used was skip. It can do that a couple different ways. It can move laterally and it can hit other stuff and just bounce, if you will. Another technical term. So what we’ve done is we’re going to modify what’s called the hold-down damper, kind of a good name for a thing because it does exactly that, it holds the hooks down, it dampens any oscillation. We’ll increase pressure on hook to do that.

The whole thing is a remove-and-replace assembly so any modifications we make to it is an easy fix.”

Q: So when will we actually see an F-35C make its first trap aboard an aircraft carrier?

A: O’Bryan: “We’re accumulating loads; we’ve done rolling arrestments; we’ll do field arrestments next year and the plan is to go to the boat in early 2014, well in time to make the US Navy [initial operational capability].

Q: Wait a tick – according to the Joint Program Office, there is no official IOC for these jets right now. Is that an internal Lockheed IOC or one the Navy uses internally?

A: O’Bryan: “Why can I say that? I think you’ll see the amount of margin I have to say that means it’s reasonable to assume that. The Navy stated IOC publicly as post-Block 3F software, which the [F-35]A completes before the B, which completes before the C. On that, we’re not scheduled finish Block 3F testing until after 2016. So going to the boat in 2014 – they’ve said IOC is post-Block 3F, so there’s some margin there.”

Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Force’s refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter – in this case, on the A’s spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?

A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”

So if you’re keeping score at home, you could almost count this as a fourth variant of the F-35 – because this program wasn’t complicated enough.

[2020]

ah maintenant il tien  9g le f35a ........ je pige plus rien moi ! lol

[jérôme]

cherche pas a comprendre le jsf utilise une technologie que t'imagine même pas dans t'est rêve ! et que même si on te l'explique tu ne comprendrai même pas

[Chaps]

oui ca s'appelle "ingénieurs + temps + argent" et ca marche très bien aux USA.

[amarito]

Finalement ils ont l'air de s'énerver chez LM et de mettre les moyens financiers et humains pour y arriver à temps.

En tout cas, ça a l'air d'être un super-ordinateur volant.

[syntaxerror9]

Je ne trouve pas qu'ils s'enervent chez LM.

Ils répondent de façon politique à des questions précises.

En gros, si on les écoute, tout va bien et/ou tout va bien finir.

[MH]

Test d'emport asymétrique sur le BF-2.

http://www.aviationnews.eu/2012/06/21/first-asymmetric-weapons-load-test-for-f-35b/

[spiralus]

Une bien belle bete quand même! Mon petit doigt me dit qu'il est moins pataud que certains le pensent

[2020]

il est beau cet oiseau ! mais seulement sous certains angles !

en revanche config asymétrique... c'est light quand même comme config

j'avais jamais remarqué que les rails d'armement étaient aussi monstrueux !

c'est koi le pod au centre ????

[MH]

Pod canon...

[pascal]

les pylônes d'emport ne sont pas que des supports, dedans on trouve de l'électronique, du câblage, de la pyrotechnie, de l'hydraulique, des relais ...

[maminowski]

au fur et a mesure que le Pakfa/J20 se dévoilent pourrait on créer un nouveau fil dédié à leur comparaison avec le F35 ?

[Chevalier Gilles]

qu'il est crade

[g4lly]

qu'il est crade

C'est la rouille ... on peu pas etre furtif est sexy ... tant pis pour toi :lol:

[Kiriyama]

Il rouille le F-35 ? 

[Chevalier Gilles]

et le pod canon est totalement immonde

[glitter]

Une bien belle bete quand même! Mon petit doigt me dit qu'il est moins pataud que certains le pensent

Sous cet angle en tout cas, il est pas mal. meme le pod canon est hyper design  =D

Par contre, la dysimetrie ne doit pas etre tres marquee avec cette config.