Le F-35

[seb24]

De toute façon il ne faut plus rien attendre de l'Europe qui n'a plus aucune ambition de jouer un role sur la scène international et qui est en plein marasme économique. L'aviation de combat Européenne est en train de fondre comme neige au soleil que ce soit pour commander des F-35 ou même autre chose. Il va y avoir un décrochage complet dans la téchnologie aéronautique militaire d'ici peut, et même envisager un futur chasseur Européens dans l'Europe d'aujourd'hui est une utopie.

Des fois je me demande si tu n'es pas un BOT qui génère automatiquement des messages tellement c'est vide de sens et ça n'apporte rien au sujet en plus d’être répétitif.

[penaratahiti]

Rien que dans mon dr400, le fait de passer alternativement de ma carte sur les genoux a la recherche de repères extérieurs ça me donne parfois des vertiges au point de devoir être obligé de regarder dehors pendant un bon moment pour me reposer le cerveau... si en plus c'est en plein été journée bien chaude avec turbulence (j'ai même une fois envisagé l'atterrissage champêtre ou la ligne droite de Dijon-prenois tellement je me suis senti pas bien)...j'imagine dans un f-35 avec la DA ennemie aux fesses... ça risque de bien fatiguer le cerveau tous ces stimuli hétérogènes si il y a latence et collimation imparfaites.

Bon j'ai pas l'entrainement d'un pilote de chasse mais quand même ;)

[prof.566]

Oh tu as un Robin?

[Rémi87]

Un autre souci du casque, c'est son poids... Quand on commence à tirer des G, ça se sent dans les cervicales!!

[penaratahiti]

Oh tu as un Robin?

Non c'est celui de l'aeroclub

[prof.566]

Ah je me disais, comme c'est du coin...

[syntaxerror9]

Pour ceux qui n'auraient pas déja vu le fameux casque:

2 remarques m'ont sauté aux yeux en regardant cette photo la première fois, y'a un ou deux ans.

1/Beaucoup de fonctions au même endroit (les yeux du pilote).

2/Une sensation d'isolement par rapport au monde extérieur.

C'est à partir de cette photos et du constat ci dessus, que j'ai creusé un peu plus le sujet et tiré mes hypothèses sur ce casque.

 

Pourquoi cet acharnement à propos de ce casque me direz vous?

Tout simplement car beaucoup de choix techniques et conceptuels du F-35 ont été conçus à partir du mode de fonctionnement de ce casque.

Modifié le 25 septembre 2013 par syntaxerror9

[zx]

J'ai un vieux ppt qui parle du casque et du cockpit avec quelques vues, via mega 2,4M

 

https://mega.co.nz/#!uNc2SYRA!f7ewgB7auWoJZ9GFw2JD-3EzPgNTLABbYceSfvSjHes

 

http://www.gizmag.com/f-35-helmet-display-bae/20216/

 

la version en cours HMD 2

 

http://www.military.com/video/forces/air-force/afa-close-look-at-f-35-helmet/2680037917001/

 

comparison ancien/nouveau

 

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/f_35_hmd_04_1267828237_2643.jpg

Modifié le 25 septembre 2013 par zx

[zx]

Un long article, j'ai extrait la partie concernant le casque

 

Why it fly ?

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin?mbid=social_retweet

 

 

The helmet is pivotal to the F-35,” Johnston explained. “This thing was built with the helmet in mind. It gives you 360-degree battle-space awareness. It gives you your flight parameters: Where am I in space? Where am I pointing? How fast am I going?” But Johnston and Berke are prohibited from flying with the “distributed aperture system”—a network of interlaced cameras, which allows almost X-ray vision—that is supposed to be one of the airplane’s crowning achievements. The Joint Strike Fighter is still waiting on software from Lockheed that will make good on long-promised capabilities.

 

When I spoke with Lockheed’s vice president for program integration, Steve O’Bryan, he said that the company is moving at a breakneck pace, adding 200 software engineers and investing $150 million in new facilities. “This program was overly optimistic on design complexity and software complexity, and that resulted in overpromising and underdelivering,” O’Bryan said. He insisted that, despite a rocky start, the company is on schedule. Pentagon officials are not as confident.

 

They cannot say when Lockheed will deliver the 8.6 million lines of code required to fly a fully functional F-35, not to mention the additional 10 million lines for the computers required to maintain the plane. The chasm between contractor and client was on full display on June 19, 2013, when the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, Dr. J. Michael Gilmore, testified before Congress.

 

He said that “less than 2 percent” of the placeholder software (called “Block 2B”) that the Marines plan to use has completed testing, though much more is in the process of being tested. (Lockheed insists that its “software-development plan is on track,” that the company has “coded more than 95 percent of the 8.6 million lines of code on the F-35,” and that “more than 86 percent of that software code is currently in flight test.”) Still, the pace of testing may be the least of it.

 

According to Gilmore, the Block 2B software that the Marines say will make their planes combat capable will, in fact, “provide limited capability to conduct combat.” What is more, said Gilmore, if F-35s loaded with Block 2B software are actually used in combat, “they would likely need significant support from other fourth-generation and fifth-generation combat systems to counter modern, existing threats, unless air superiority is somehow otherwise assured and the threat is cooperative.

 

” Translation: the F-35s that the Marines say they can take into combat in 2015 are not only ill equipped for combat but will likely require airborne protection by the very planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.

 

 

 

IV. The Helmet

The F-35 is a flying computer tricked out with an impressive array of sensors and outward-facing cameras stitched together—through a process called sensor fusion—to give the pilot what Lockheed’s Bob Rubino, a former navy aviator, calls “a God’s-eye view of what’s going on.” Under Rubino’s guidance, I test-drove the helmet at the company’s Fighter Demonstration Center, located in Crystal City, Virginia—a stone’s throw from the Pentagon and home to scores of corporate contractors for the Defense Department.

 

For decades, American fighter pilots have achieved air dominance with the help of a heads-up display, or HUD. This is a sloping glass plate affixed to the dashboard that projects flight data as well as the bombsight and gunsight displays, called “pippers.” HUDs allow pilots to fly and fight without peering down at their instruments. They are ubiquitous. They appear in civilian and military aircraft, in video games, and in the recently unveiled Google Glass.

 

For fighter pilots, a HUD is not a gimmick. It is a lifesaver. Even so, when the time came to design the F-35’s cockpit, Lockheed Martin dispensed with the HUD in favor of a complex helmet-mounted display (H.M.D.), which in many ways is the centerpiece of the Joint Strike Fighter. The new system displays mission systems and targeting data inside the helmet’s visor and gives the pilot something akin to X-ray vision thanks to the “distributed aperture system” that weaves together disparate feeds from those outward-facing cameras embedded in the airframe and projects a single image inches from a pilot’s eyes.

 

It is impossible to wrap your head around the system until the system wraps itself around your head. Rubino helped me put on the helmet. It took time to adjust to the reality projected in front of my eyes. In an instant, I had left Crystal City and was flying over Maryland, close to Baltimore Washington International Airport. The world in front of me possessed a greenish glow and was “biocular,” meaning that instead of looking at an image through two separate eyepieces, inside the helmet my eyes had a circular view of the world.

 

Along with that artificial world I could see data: altitude, bearing, speed, and other information. Testing my newfound powers, I peered down at my legs and saw right through the floor of the aircraft. Looking down to my left I could see the runway at B.W.I. as though the interfering wing did not exist. The system wasn’t perfect, however. When I turned my head quickly from side to side, the stitching that weaves six cameras into a single portrait appeared to fray ever so slightly. When I removed the helmet after 20 minutes, I had the somewhat unsettling feeling you might get after a day spent riding roller coasters.

 

At first blush the helmet-mounted display struck Charlie and his colleagues as a major advance. But they were left with a nagging question: what happens if something goes wrong with the helmet? The answer: without a HUD as a fail-safe, pilots would have to fly and fight using the plane’s conventional heads-down displays.

 

Visibility is critical to pilots of every stripe. It has proven to be a problem for some F-35 pilots. In February 2013, the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, Dr. Gilmore, reported that the cockpit design impedes pilots’ ability to see their “six o’clock”—that is, directly behind them. According to Gilmore, who collected the bulk of his data down at Eglin, one air-force pilot reported on his evaluation form that lack of aft visibility in the F-35 “will get the pilot gunned [down] every time.” What is more, the distributed aperture system, which is supposed to compensate for structural impediments to visibility, itself has blind spots, which, according to Charlie and others, preclude its use during airborne refueling.

The helmets are manufactured by RCESA, a joint venture between the Cedar Rapids–based Rockwell Collins and the Israeli company Elbit, and they cost more than $500,000 apiece. Each helmet is bespoke: a laser scans a pilot’s head to ensure optical accuracy when his eyes interface with the display. To understand the sensory impact of an H.M.D., imagine if, instead of having a rearview mirror in your car, you saw the same imagery projected onto the inner surface of your sunglasses, along with data from the speedometer, tachometer, fuel gauge, and global-positioning system. Now imagine driving forward, and as your eyes glance down toward the pedals, the video feed in front of your eyes changes to reveal the road beneath the vehicle.

 

Like other parts of the plane, the helmet-mounted display—with its newfangled gadgetry—works better on paper than in practice. According to Charlie, some test pilots have experienced spatial disorientation in flight serious enough that they have disabled the data and video streams to the helmet and landed using the plane’s conventional flight displays. Spatial disorientation is a potentially lethal condition in which a pilot loses his bearings and confuses perception with reality. A 2002 joint U.S.-U.K. review of Class A mishaps in the U.S. Air Force between 1991 and 2000 found that spatial disorientation was implicated in 20 percent of cases, at a cost of $1.4 billion and 60 lives. (Class A mishaps are defined as incidents that result in a “fatality or permanent total disability,” destruction of an aircraft, or $1 million or more in damage.) The report’s authors worried that, with the advent of helmet-mounted displays, mishaps involving spatial disorientation “will continue to pose a significant threat to aircrew.”

 

 

Modifié le 25 septembre 2013 par zx

[penaratahiti]

Pour résumer, pour que le F-35 ait une valeur ajoutée, ils n'ont pas le droit de se rater sur le HMD, et doivent atteindre une fiabilité exceptionnelle du système, au risque de se retrouver avec un sérieux handicap en cas de défaillance au combat, sans HUD en back-up.

Et c'est un pari risqué sur la capacité des pilotes a gérer ce système d'un point de vue physiologique, en toute sécurité et sans accroissement de fatigue ou de désorientation potentielle

La tentation sera forte de n'activer le système qu'une fois derrière les lignes ennemies, ce qui sera peut-être une concession nécessaire en opérations

[syntaxerror9]

Bien résumé!

[Kiriyama]

Est-ce que les avions plus anciens (F-15, F-16, F-18...) pourraient ensuite être rétrofités pour utiliser ce système de casque ?

[French Kiss]

Clairement non, l'integration du HMD sur le F-35 est sans commune mesure avec ce qui existe deja par exemple sur les F-5EM bresiliens.

[seb24]

Clairement non, l'integration du HMD sur le F-35 est sans commune mesure avec ce qui existe deja par exemple sur les F-5EM bresiliens.

Perso je pense que ca pourrait etre fait mais avec surement beaucoup moins d'options.

[French Kiss]

humhum, rien que pour la collecte, la fusion et le traitement des donnees a afficher dans le HMD, les systemes de bord (centrale elec, databus, micro-controlleurs, calculateurs) des appareils d'ancienne generation seraient impossibles a adapter, ce serait comme essayer de brancher un DD externe USB2.0 sur un PC1512 :D

Sur les F5 bresiliens toute l'electronique a ete changee...

[actyon]

F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --

She didn’t have a smudge on her. Not a leak found anywhere. She even had that “new jet smell.” Skies were blue, everything was perfect. Those were the conditions on that July day in 2011 when Lt. Col. Eric Smith took off from the Lockheed facilities at Fort Worth, Texas, in the first operational F-35 to fly to its permanent home at Eglin Air Force Base, in the Florida panhandle.

  And the rest, according to Smith, who would go on to pick up three of the first six F-35s from the factory, is history.

 “It was just a great day – I was just a little bit nervous because I knew that if I messed it up it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the country,” said Smith. As he approached the runway at Eglin, he found bleachers full of people and a red carpet rolled out to signify the beginning of an era for not only the plane, but for the newly reorganized 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base and the future of Air Force air superiority for the 21st Century.

 

The pick of the 33rd Fighter Wing “Nomads” to transition the Air Force’s newest and most lethal fighter into this century and beyond was no accident.  With a history that dates back to World War II when the wing was a pursuit group, the 33rd showcased the F-4 Phantom during Vietnam and the F-15 Eagle through crises such as Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, and post 9/11,  when the Nomads provided armed over-watch throughout North America for Operation Noble Eagle, securing two presidents of the United States and multiple space shuttle launches.

 

“On Oct. 1, 2009, we stood up as an F-35 unit,” said Lt. Col. Matt Renbarger, 58th Fighter Squadron commander. “We were handed keys to an empty building, with five pilots, a technical sergeant, two lieutenant colonels and three majors.”

 

Renbarger and Smith both admitted that those early days, following the arrival of the first F-35, was a whirlwind of planning, creating policy and guidelines and putting together a training program with a syllabus, academics, and a completely new maintenance program.

 

Smith said that the early days with the first few aircraft were a challenge, not only for the pilots, but for the newly trained crew chiefs as well. “There was a lot of tech data that the technicians needed before they could work on the airplane, so the first six planes we delivered sat for about eight months before we were issued flight clearance.  We didn’t receive our first flight clearance until March of 2012. “

 

Renbarger said that, like anything brand new and right out of the box, there were a lot of things that had to be learned that weren’t known before.  He said that as a training unit, it was more Air Combat Command versus Air Education and Training Command. “It’s not a different mindset, but it’s more of a different mission.  Here we create new pilots and maintainers, so we don’t have the downrange focus.  Training pilots is our product.

 

“When test pilots at Edwards find something they tell us, and when we find something we tell them. When software is released they’ll come down here and tell us things they’ve learned. We’ll take new capabilities and bring them into our training syllabus.  The folks at Edwards bring us the latest so we can teach the people who teach the people. We teach the teachers and the teachers teach the students.”

 

Renbarger said there is a lot to like about the F-35, from the standpoint of the pilot, the maintainer, the trainer, down to the bottom line of mission success. “I’ve never seen a pilot come back from his first sortie without a huge smile on his face. It’s something new, and programs like this only come around every 30 years or so, and to be on the ground floor – it’s the perfect time.

 

“Most pilots come from the F-16, F-15 and A-10 legacy aircraft.  Sensors on the front of the F-35 allow us to have that 360-degree awareness. That was the big leap forward. Computer technology that is 30 years or more advanced than the legacy aircraft is what makes the F-35 so advanced.”

 

Lt. Col. Anthony Pelkington is the 33rd FW chief of safety and was one of the first of the legacy pilots selected for the F-35 program. He said that for pilots transitioning from those legacy systems, the F-35 is a huge deal.

 

“For 10 years in the F-16, I dealt with essentially monochrome cathode ray displays – approximately 6 inch square – and I’ve got two of them.  Now I move up to a contiguous 8 x 20- inch color display that is a huge step forward for the pilot’s situational awareness. Plus, there’s a lot more capability in the display itself.

 

“In the F-16, I had a radar display with a selectable, like turning pages in a book, something that would show my ordnances like I had a stick figure map with monochrome lines on a black background.  It would try to give us a semblance of where we were to maybe a weapons system. But I had to choose.  Every one of those displays was limited to the confines of that small 6-inch to 8-inch screen. 

 

“In the F-35, we now have this massive amount of screen real estate. I can now see multiple sensors at once, which is great because I don’t have to pick and choose.  I don’t have to take away my situational awareness with what the radar is telling me in terms of traffic to bring up situational awareness and what the target pod looks like. It’s all there available for me.”

 

Pelkington added that one of the best aspects of the fifth generation fighter is its ability to communicate with all aspects of the aircraft, as well as customize information to fit each pilot’s needs.  “The displays talk to each other, the sensors talk to each other, and a lot of information is displayed in sensible formats with other sensors in one combined picture.  Now I can bring up large formats on displays so I can see things easier – I can even bring up many formats if I want with a different orientation on how the displays will look. Whatever I want to do to aid my situational awareness I can do and the reality, as a pilot, is that I can customize that setup quite easily to a format that best suits how a pilot understands.”

 

The wing’s safety chief said that one of the biggest advantages to the F-35 over legacy aircraft is the growth in options. “Choosing between a pilot’s eye and ‘god’s eye are all in the system now and weren’t in the F-16. I had one particular display option for radar format for the F-16 – I couldn’t choose anything else. I had to learn to read it in that manner. Which didn’t necessarily match how somebody looking out on a battlefield could see the picture.  So you always had to do that conversion in your mind.  With the F-35 you can choose the display format that best suits your ability, and there are multiple options to allow you to see things from a ‘god’s eye’ perspective. It allows me to see from a much greater perspective than the F-16 ever allowed.”

 

The equipment

Tech. Sgt. Andre Baskin is the wing’s aircrew flight equipment NCOIC, responsible for equipping pilots with the specialized gear required to fly the world’s most state-of-the-art aircraft. He and his small staff of specialists agree that the differences between the F-35 helmet and the rest are many.

 

“One of the biggest differences the F-35 helmet has over the others is that the new helmet encompasses multiple gadgets such as night vision goggles, and for that function you would have to modify the pilot’s flying helmet and add the components on there,” said Baskin.  “With the F-35, it’s all encompassed in the helmet.  The cameras on the jet work in sync with the helmet and whatever the jet picks up visually will be displayed on the visor in the helmet.”

 

From a pilot’s point of view, Renbarger agrees that the nicest part of the new helmet is that everything is self-contained. “The best thing about the F-35 helmet is that it has a big visor with a big display, and we can display a night vision camera visual on the visor and then a distributor aperture system that is basically a set of cameras that are all over the airplane and work in the infrared spectrum. That can be displayed on our visor as well.

“When we get our helmet fit, there is actually a complicated scan process that takes an image of our heads and provides a laser cut-out foam insert for the helmet that is molded to our heads.  Then there’s ear cups that close the helmet around our head and a custom nape strap in the back that basically locks the helmet down on our heads. There’s very little, if any, motion in the helmet when we move our head around. Very well balanced, a very well fit and it feels great wearing the helmet. It’s very specific to each individual pilot.”

 

Pelkington also talked about the difference between the traditional G-suit, which offers pilots about a G and a half of protection, to the one used by F-35 pilots. “Some pilots acclimate to the Gs by genetic makeup, some by experience and can develop a tolerance for 5-ish Gs. With the new suit you can now go up to 7 or 8 Gs without ever having to strain.  When you’re focused on pulling Gs  -- on making sure your eyesight doesn’t gray out – your mind isn’t thinking about the adversary or the situation or the awareness of the battlespace. When you can pull 7 or 8 Gs without having to think about it, combined with the fusion of all the systems and the display on the glass set up the way you want to see it…it’s an amazing reduction in pilot workload.”

 

The maintainers

 

Senior Master Sgt. Paul Fulkerson is the production superintendent with the 58th Aircraft Maintenance Unit who is on the ground floor of maintenance for the F-35.  He said that for F-35 maintainers, the biggest element that sets them apart is the electronic maintenance program called ALIS. Standing for Autonomic Logistics Information System, ALIS, according to Fulkerson, has all of the forms needed to perform maintenance on the new aircraft.

 

“With ALIS, there are no paper forms and the system allows maintainers to pretty much manage the fleet with the information on the computer,” said Fulkerson.  “With the F-16s, we had to use paper tech data to perform maintenance, where you followed it step-by-step to do the task. With ALIS, our maintainers us ‘tough books,’ where they read the tech data on the screen.”

 

While a very young aircraft, Pelkington said the F-35, maintenance-wise, is very stable and makes a lot of information available to both the pilot and maintainer that isn’t available on the legacy aircraft.

 

“Oftentimes, in a legacy aircraft, you don’t know that something is wrong until you have a major systems failure that generates a warning in the aircraft. The aircraft can no longer perform to spec.  A lot of warnings in the F-35 tend to be advisory, that says ‘this is going to have to be worked on by maintenance when you land.’ In the F-35, there’s no mission degradation. When a pilot gets back, there’s a load of data on every aspect of how the aircraft performs.  From the maintenance standpoint, it gives them an awesome opportunity to catch issues before they become problems.”

 

Staff Sgt. Michael Sanders is an F-35 crew chief who has been with the program for the past three years and has more than a decade of experience on the F-16 and F-15 as a backshop engine maintainer.  He explained that while maintainers in the legacy aircraft normally specialized in one area, such as engines or avionics, in the F-35, maintainers do it all.

 

“My job is completely different now from in the past. We would handle all teardown and build-up required for the engine, whereas now, we perform maintenance on the F-35 as a whole. We’re trained on all maintenance tasks, including the engine. I traveled TDY to Connecticut where I performed teardown and buildup for the new aircraft.”

Training

The F-35 Academic Training Center, or ATC, is a sprawling complex responsible for every facet of F-35 training at Eglin. From pilots to maintainers to support Airmen, the ATC has developed, or is in the process of developing, the training syllabuses, procedures, guidelines, certifications and “textbooks” that will become the training standard for decades to come, according to Renbarger.

 

He said that for pilots, training in the F-35 simulator is by far, the best there is. “I’ve flown in F-16 simulators and F-22 simulators and the F-35 simulator is truly state-of-the-art.  They’ve got the best visuals, full dome coverage, 360-degree views, target set build-up, they have runways and very much replicates flying the airplane. I haven’t heard one pilot say it wasn’t the best simulator they’ve ever been in short of flying the airplane.”

 

Renbarger added that because the F-35 is a single-seat plane, the first time a pilot flies the F-35, he’s by himself, making the simulator even more critical.  “The operational flight software that runs the airplane – that same software is in the simulator,” said Renbarger. “In other aircraft I have flown, there have been differences between the simulator and the airplane. This is as close as I’ve ever seen between the simulator and airplane. Exact same cockpit.  The cockpit sits on a rail and you sit in the cockpit and it drives forward and raises up inside the dome and the screens you see are the exact same screens you see on the jet.”

 

On the maintenance side, students are confronted with a similar real-world view, with a weapons load trainer mock-up of the F-35 that contains everything but the tail and the cockpit.  Tech. Sgt. Adam Zakrzewski is an ATC instructor with Detachment 19 of the 372nd Training Squadron. He said that during training on the F-35, students will practice opening and closing doors, checking the hydraulics levels, oil levels, etc., but there’s a big difference between maintenance on legacy aircraft versus the F-35.

 

“There are a lot more steps in gaining access to the legacy aircraft than there are to accessing the F-35,” said Zakrzewski.  “I’m an old A-10 guy, where you have to unfasten 200 screws to get a door panel open.  On the F-35, there’s one interface connect and click two buttons.”

 

Tech. Sgt. Justin Weddle is an ATC instructor and flight chief with the field training detachment of the 372nd Training Squadron, who says that in normal maintenance training, instructors would give students a PowerPoint presentation, cover some TOs and give students hands-on training on the aircraft. 

 

“The maintenance group would have to give up an aircraft or whatever students were training on such as a weapons system, AGE, anything like that.  At the ATC, and in the F-35 training plan, we begin with an EML, or electronic mediated lecture, kind of like the traditional PowerPoint, but it’s done through an electronic system.” Weddle said the student will then transition, in the same classroom and setting, to more self-paced training on the computer.   “It’s just a reinforcement of what the instructor has said during his portion of the training.

 

“Students will then go through an ASMT, which is an aircraft systems maintenance trainer. It’s essentially an avatar, and from that you go and do whatever task you’re learning about. Whether you are installing a hydraulic pump or some other portion of the aircraft. On one side of the screen, students will have their avatar and on the other they’ll have their joint tech data laptop and they can follow all of the steps exactly. That way the training is not all front-loaded, it can be weaved in and out of the training course.”

 

F-35: Fighter of the future

In addition to the Air Force’s F-35A, the Marine Corps and the Navy have their own versions of the F-35. The F-35B will give the Marine Corps a short take-off and vertical landing capability, while the Navy’s F-35C will give them a carrier-based capability.

  Smith believes that for the future of the F-35, it may not change the way we fly, but it will make the U.S. and its allies the dominant air power for the next 30 to 50 years.

 

“That’s the beauty of the F-35. There are three variants out there, but all three are going to use the same system software. So as they develop something new for our country, our allies who fly the F-35 will get that same capability. That will make integration much smoother.”

 

Since Smith’s journey home with the first F-35 in 2011, Air Force, Marine, Navy and U.K. pilots have amassed more than 3,100 flying hours in the three versions, flying more than 2,300 sorties.

 

To those who have spent the past four or five years learning the intricacies of a new aircraft -- how to fly it, how to fix it and how to create a plan to teach it, the F-35 has become much more than an airplane showcasing state-of-the-art technology.  For the men and women of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin, responsible for getting the F-35 ready for its grand entrance as the dominant airpower for the 21st Century and beyond, it has spawned a completely new culture and way of life.

[SharkOwl]

Le Pentagon vient de décider de réduire les spécifications de performance des F-35A/B/C à l'équivalent

des performances des F-4E Phantom et autres F-5E Tiger II.

Wow !
Incroyable.

Au Canada, notre flotte actuelle de CF-18 basés à Cold Lake et Bagotville ont des performances supérieures.

À lire absolument.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

SharkOwl

[2020]

Ouch...

Je n arrive pas a comprendre qu il soit aussi limité. Ses lignes sont quand meme relativement pure. Sa motorisation est puissante.

Problème de commande de vol ? Ou structurel?

[Rob1]

Le Pentagon vient de décider de réduire les spécifications de performance des F-35A/B/C à l'équivalent

des performances des F-4E Phantom et autres F-5E Tiger II.

Ca date de janvier 2013.

[Kiriyama]

Est-ce que la petite taille du F-35 n'est pas un problème quand on sait la quantité d'électronique que doit embarquer cet avion ? Problème de miniaturisation des composants possible ?

[clem200]

Quelle petite taille ? ???

[bubzy]

Bon je reviens de Cognac, et j'ai longuement discuté avec le pilote du F-16 demo team. Super sympa, le gars est aussi un spécialiste de la guerre électronique, et un fin amateur de bière et d'ambiance (fallait voir, le soir. Seul stand sur lequel la playlist passait de Get Lucky à... On fait tourner les serviettes!)

 

Enfin bref. Je lui ai parlé des dernières actualités qui passaient en boucle concernant le choix très politique de certaines personnes de l'état major à s'orienter vers le F-35 pour des sombres histoires d'avancement au sein de l'OTAN. Ses réponses ont été surprenantes en regard de ma connaissance du domaine, certainement très limitées. Mais très concrète, et aussi empreintes d'un réalisme saisissant.

 

-Le F-35 est un choix opérationnel évident, en rapport avec les pays voisins, comme les pays bas, avec lesquels les armées belges sont opérationnellement étroitement liées. Tellement qu'elles sont très bien intégrées entre elles. Choisir autre chose que le F-35 remettrait en cause une partie de cette synthèse entre armées, et ce n'est pas de l'ordre du jour.

 

-le F-35 est un avion de science fiction (je confirme, mais pas pour les même raison, lol) il m'a notamment parlé d'une technologie embarqué qui me parait surréaliste, et c'est la raison principale pour laquelle je post ce message ici, et je n'aimerai pas que le débat soit porté sur le reste

 

  Le F-35 serait doté d'une technologie de radar dite passive, c'est à dire capable d'interpréter les signaux renvoyés par les différentes ondes électromagnétiques dans l'air, à savoir ondes radios, TV, satellite, etc. Il me semblait qu'il fallait avoir d'énormes super calculateurs ainsi que des antennes grandes et espacées pour pouvoir capter des signaux pareils... J'attends vos réponses.

 

- Le Gripen serait un très mauvais choix, faisant regresser, de part la taille de l'avion, les capacités opérationnelles de l'arme aérienne belge. Y compris le NG

 

- L'Eurofighter est, selon ses propres termes, une bouse. Dépassé en tout et incapable d'assurer la moindre mission de bombardement, sauf pour la version anglaise, et encore, c'est léger...

 

-Le Rafale ne serait pas un mauvais choix pour l'armée, mis à part la considération d’interopérabilité totale avec ses voisins. Ce serait même un choix qui aurait la préférence des politiques, ce qui m'a grandement étonné également, sachant ce que l'on sait de la position des francophones dans le pays, et de ce qu'il s'est passé dans les dernières décennies.

 

Les F-16, bien que réduit à une cinquantaine d'exemplaires, volent beaucoup plus, et se fatigues vite. Ils auront besoin d'un remplaçant pour 2025 environs. Il m'a fait le décompte "en gros" de tous les avions achetés et de ce qu'ils sont devenus. Impossible de prendre des vieilles cellules stockées pour les remettre au standard. Pas adapté et trop cher.

 

Voilà, j'en remet une couche pour discuter seulement technique autour de la question de la tech radar passif de l'éclair version 2. Pour le reste, on fera un copier/coller du reste de mon message dans les sections appropriées si nécessaire.

[bubzy]

Est-ce que la petite taille du F-35 n'est pas un problème quand on sait la quantité d'électronique que doit embarquer cet avion ? Problème de miniaturisation des composants possible ?

 

Au contraire, l'avion est énorme pour un monomoteur. Je n'ai pas trouvé de comparatif, mais pour ceux qui ont modélisés les avions, j'aimerai bien avoir un comparatif de leur volume...

[2020]

Au contraire, l'avion est énorme pour un monomoteur. Je n'ai pas trouvé de comparatif, mais pour ceux qui ont modélisés les avions, j'aimerai bien avoir un comparatif de leur volume...

pour moi le plus gros monomoteur c'était le mig 27 11t a vide (il y a peu être plus gros ?) le f35 c'est 13 a 15 t !!!

 

Pour en revenir au f35 de science fiction........ oui c'est de la SF en effet a mon avis comme tu le précise il faut des antennes énormes et fixes pour cela. En revanche rien n’empêche d'avoir accès a ces info par l16 par exemple

[jeansaisrien]

bonjour

 

le F-105 dépassait les 12 tonnes à vide et approchait je crois les 22 tonnes au décollage, mais avec un réacteur bien moins puissant que le f-35.