Le F-35

[Bon Plan]

Il y a 23 heures, DEFA550 a dit :

 

Il y a 22 heures, DEFA550 a dit :

C'est juste un oubli. Du primaire anti-corrosion il y en a partout, il est appliqué à différents stades de la production, et le gain à attendre de sa non application ponctuelle¹ est quasi nul dans tous les domaines (poids, coût, temps) et en tout cas très loin des conséquences prévisibles.

¹ On parle là du traitement de quelques trous sur une plaque.

"juste" un oubli de primaire.  Chez LM?  à l'heure de l'usine 4.0 ?   

Ca ne tient pas trop la route.

Ils sont débordés c'est tout.

Modifié le 22 décembre 2017 par Bon Plan

[pascal]

Voici les extraits exact de l'article incriminé, histoire de poser le débat qui une fois de plus semble démontrer qu'on a de plus en plus tendance à enculer les mouches dans ce sulfureux dossier: déjà en anglais malfaçon se dit "defect" ici il n'est est pas fait mention on parle de "glitch" = pépin ... ou de "flaw" = défaut de réalisation.

En clair dans le process de fabrication certains systèmes de fermeture de trappe (des ferrures) en alu n'ont pas reçu de primer, un problème d'organisation de la prod (savoir quand ces pièces doivent recevoir un coup de peinture) ...

On est toujours dans la même problématique sur ce programme le moindre aléa mineur et normal en industrie sera pointé du doigt, je n'ose imaginer ce qui se dira lors d'une éventuelle épidémie de gastro parmi les ouvriers de la chaîne d'assemblage.

Citation

The Pentagon’s F-35 program office is weighing how to fix to a newly discovered glitch in the fighter --

The problem was linked to a primer that’s supposed to be applied as a protective layer on aluminum fasteners to prevent corrosion.

“After a thorough government and industry investigation, it was discovered that Lockheed Martin had not applied the required primer in fastener holes on F-35 substructures during the aircraft production process,” Pentagon spokesman Joe DellaVedova said in an email. “This is a production quality escape issue and, though it needs be corrected to prevent potential future corrosion, it does not pose a safety of flight risk to the F-35 fleet or affect current operations.”

Discovery of the flaw came after the Pentagon already has taken delivery of about 250 F-35s to date and plans to accelerate production to include a block purchase by U.S. allies of as many as 211 jets starting with the 12th production lot.

In the interim, “primer will be applied to fastener holes of fielded aircraft as panels are removed during routine F-35 maintenance operations.,” he said. “Lockheed Martin has taken action to correct the production line work order error to ensure primer is applied to all fastener holes on future aircraft.”

Je rappelle qu'en sortie de chaîne y compris chez Dassault AUCUN avion n'a EXACTEMENT la même masse le plus souvent en raison de différence d'application des peintures et des enduits ...

[DEFA550]

fastener = attache, système de fixation. En général une vis, un boulon ou un rivet.

fastener holes : trous de fixation

Du coup, il est fort possible qu'ils aient appliqué la protection sur les pièces assemblées alors qu'il aurait fallu traiter les pièces nues afin d'en recouvrir toutes les parties, y compris l'épaisseur du métal dans les différents trous.

[Espadon]

Ça doit être tout con, je ne sais pas si la visserie est en titane, mais pour l'avoir déjà constaté. Ce métal à tendance à bouffer l'aluminium. Qu'ils aient oublier de mettre du Mastinox sur les vis avant de les poser, ne m'étonnerait pas. Les dégâts peuvent être considérables, cela peut aller jusqu'à la destruction du support de fixation.

Modifié le 22 décembre 2017 par Espadon

[Ponto Combo]

South Korea reportedly looking to buy additional F-35s

Citation

The Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF) is planning to acquire 20 additional Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter aircraft, the Joongang Ilbo newspaper reported on 21 December.

http://www.janes.com/article/76587/south-korea-reportedly-looking-to-buy-additional-f-35s?utm_content=buffer259b2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Teenytoon]

il y a 31 minutes, Ponto Combo a dit :

to buy additional F-35s

J'ai lu Su-35s avec ce foutu "s" à la fin ! J'ai fait trois tours de bocal avant de comprendre comment la Corée du Sud pouvait avoir des Su-35s...

Puthym @Dorfmeister, sort de ce corps !

[Invité Dorfmeister]

il y a 5 minutes, Teenytoon a dit :

J'ai lu Su-35s avec ce foutu "s" à la fin ! J'ai fait trois tours de bocal avant de comprendre comment la Corée du Sud pouvait avoir des Su-35s...

Puthym @Dorfmeister, sort de ce corps !

Ah non hein! Je n'ai rien à voir avec tes perversions non-assumées!

[Ponto Combo]

The F-35 and F-22 Teach Each Other New Tricks

The new F-35 helmet offers a wealth of information—and options—to pilots. Michael McCool/USAF

Révélation

At the outset of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, there were high expectations that it would benefit from lessons learned from its elder stablemate, the F-22 Raptor, also made by Lockheed Martin.

Now, a dozen years after the F-22’s operational debut and two years after the F-35 was declared ready for combat, the flow of lessons learned is running both ways. The two fifth generation fighter programs are working together to reduce costs and make both systems more effective.

The F-22 has been a pathfinder for the F-35: Its formations and methods of employment are a model for the junior fighter. In return, the small F-22 fleet is gaining economy-of-scale benefits by getting in on parts buys with the far larger—and growing—F-35 fleet. More advanced and hardier stealth features on the F-35 are working their way back to the F-22, the two aircraft share radar features, and operational and manufacturing experience with the F-35 are helping define upgrades for the Raptor.

“The F-35 and F-22 were always meant to operate alongside one another, so it makes a lot of sense to apply that same logic to the programmatic side of both platforms,” said Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager Jeff A. Babione. “We’re constantly taking advantage of newer, more advanced technologies and processes. If we can apply the same advances to the F-35 and F-22, we drive costs down and pull schedules to the left on both programs.”

The F-22 pioneered fifth generation tactics and those are being applied straight to the F-35, according to Col. Paul “Max” Moga, commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla. The 33rd trains new F-35 pilots, but Moga spent years in the F-22, as an instructor and demonstration pilot and later as a squadron commander, after starting out in F-15s.

Regarding employment techniques on the F-22 and F-35, “I would describe them as a direct transfer,” Moga said. In the F-22, the key to employment is “managing signature, sensor, and what we refer to as ‘flow,’ ” which he explained is how the plane and pilot sense the battlespace, steer between threats, and get into the optimum position to engage. That same concept applies to the F-35, he said.

Though fourth generation aircraft pilots have to manage visual and infrared signatures, “it’s not until you get in the fifth gen world that you really concern yourselves with radar signature management. … That is a core competency of any fifth gen platform, and that is a direct transfer over from the F-22 to the F-35.” Pilots of both jets must “manage our signature as we employ the aircraft and optimize our survivability and lethality,” Moga said.

The F-22 was a “generational leap” over fourth gen fighters such as the F-15 and F-16, and it took a conscious shift in culture to shed old tactics that were no longer relevant when the F-22 came online, he noted.

In a fourth generation jet, a wingman must provide “mutual support” within visual range, “welded” to the flight lead just a few miles away. But “pretty early on in Raptor tactics development, we realized that, based on the capabilities of the airplane, we didn’t need visual mutual support. We needed a mutual support by presence, which, for us, can be upward of 10, 15, 20 nautical miles away from one another,” said Moga.

For a former fourth gen pilot who has always depended on someone close by having his back, “it takes a while to get used to that,” Moga said.

GROWING UP FAST

Now, in the F-35 as well as the F-22, “we train our younger wingmen to operate outside the visual  [support] environment, which means they have more responsibilities on their shoulders.” They have to grow up fast, Moga said.

In both jets, “our young wingmen are making tactical decisions and executing accordingly at a level that historically, in our fourth gen fleet, we would not expect out of them until they were a seasoned flight lead, if not a mission commander or instructor pilot,” he assessed.

Fifth gen pilots have to “get up to speed a lot quicker because when they’re by themselves, the consequences can get dire if they make an improper or incorrect tactical decision.” There’s no “safety net” of “somebody being two miles away from them that can clean somebody off their six o’clock,” he noted.
This is all made possible by the extraordinary sensor capability in both aircraft that draws information from both onboard and offboard sensors and from the sensors of their wingmen’s jets. “You no longer need four  … or eight sets of eyeballs to scan the horizon and look for threats and put together the tactical picture that you need to execute. … The aircraft does all that for you,” he explained. In fact, it’s so much data that sometimes “it’s more than you need.”
The airplanes’ missions are complementary. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter with ground attack capability, while the F-35 is optimized for attack, with dogfighting capability as well. By remaining unseen and undetected, the F-35 can use the stealth dogfight tactics already well-established by the F-22, though perhaps not to the same speeds and altitudes.

One mission not shared between the two is close air support. Moga said CAS is a new one for him to learn. Though early on the F-22 units did try to practice CAS, Moga admitted that “we kind of got off track back in those years.” Since then, the F-22 operators “got back in our lane and realized there were other platforms that were really optimized for that mission far more efficiently and effectively.”

The F-22 has been a success story in Operation Inherent Resolve, Moga asserted. Though its high-end dogfight capabilities have never been tested in combat, “I think the F-22 has performed tactically better than most people thought it was going to in theater.” When not “gainfully employed,” dropping bombs or escorting packages of other aircraft, the F-22 has proved stellar in other ways, putting together “the electronic order of battle, … the airborne order of battle,” and then conveying that information “back to the platforms it may be more applicable to.”

A lesson learned—and one certainly being applied on the F-35—is “the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date mission data files,” Moga noted. This is another area where exhaustive information on regional threats is applicable to both airplanes. The software facility that loads both aircrafts’ mission data files is at Eglin. USAF and partner nations collaborate to populate the databases with every threat known to intelligence.

“There’s a lot of work to be done, and it’s a fast-moving ball game, but we’re making a lot of progress,” he said. Still, “we’ve got a little ways to go before we can raise the flag and say we’re where we want to be,” Moga added.

The F-35 pilot wears a helmet that shows practically all aircraft, environment, and target data, but this capability came along after the F-22 was designed. While it would be impractical and expensive to backfit the F-22 fleet with the “see through the floor” electro-optical systems on the F-35, “most of the pilots flying [the F-22] would like … some version of a helmet” that displays data and allows the full use of more advanced weapons, Moga asserted. Both jets can carry the AIM-9X short-range dogfight missile, for example, but only the F-35 can aim the missile far off-boresight (at a high angle off the nose of the airplane), because the missile can be cued by the pilot simply looking at the target and designating it. Lacking a targeting helmet, the F-22 can’t employ that tactic.

The F-35 helmet is “a game-changer,” Moga asserted. Besides offering the off-boresight shooting capability, “there’s also other utilities they can use it for now that they have an air-to-ground-mapping SAR (synethetic aperture radar) … capability.”

The helmet and cockpit displays in the F-35 also offer “many more options” for calling up and displaying information. Though for an “old guy” like him, the wealth of displays and information can be “overwhelming,” Moga said, young pilots take to it quite naturally.

“When I watch their tapes in the debrief and I see how quickly they’re changing their displays from this to that and spending half a second to get just what they need and then flipping back … it’s pretty phenomenal.” The young pilots were reared on “Windows and Playstation,” he noted. A new helmet is on the short list for F-22 upgrades.

STEALTH ARMOR

The stealth coatings transfer between the jets is “one of the larger success stories” in the crossplay of the F-22 and F-35, Moga said. “The coatings and surfaces on the F-35 are a direct result of the lessons we learned with the …LO (low observability) management on the F-22.”

The coatings on the F-22 were “very problematic” for a number of years because the F-22’s stealthy surfaces still require a degree of putty and tape to smooth the surfaces. On the F-35, though, the stealth treatments “are exponentially easier to maintain, sustain, and restore,” he pointed out.

“It’s easier for the maintainers to fix the aircraft, it’s quicker, and we have a much more accurate tool” to assess the normal degradation of stealth surfaces and its effect on signatures. Now, Lockheed is looking at ways that it can apply the F-35’s resilient stealth coatings to the F-22. If successful, it could sharply reduce maintenance man hours per flight hour and result in more jets being available for action at any given time; a significant benefit considering the smallness of the F-22 fleet, which numbers only 187 airplanes, including test and training birds.

“We’re now making a more concerted effort to apply what we’ve learned on the F-35 to the Raptor,” Babione said, “as we continue to develop and upgrade both platforms.”

The F-35’s stealth coatings have held up far better than those of the F-22 in the “salt spray, ocean environment, high humidity” conditions of the Florida coast, said Ken Merchant, Lockheed’s vice president for the F-22 program, in an interview with Air Force Magazine.

“We’re looking at taking Jeff (Babione’s) topcoat from the F-35 and bring that over to the F-22,” he said. This would “add a bit of weight, because it’s a little heavier material, but it’s spread evenly over the airplane so it doesn’t cause me a CG (center of gravity) issue.” Whether the Air Force will approve the change in materials is still “pre-decisional,” Merchant said, but it offers  a potential payoff  in substantially reduced maintenance costs.

Though the F-22 would still need some caulking and taping, it’s already benefitting from a new leading-edge material. The old stuff “got real brittle over time,” Merchant said, but the new material is “just more flexible and durable.” It goes by the name “maximum toughness boot.” It was partly developed at the F-35 program, “and they’ve got something very similar.” Lockheed has opened a “speed line” at its Marietta, Ga., facility to replace the old material with the new.

Getting the F-22 and F-35 sharing technologies is “a drum I’ve been beating since I got here,” said Merchant, who retired from the Air Force as a major general in 2014. He worked on F-22 utilities development in the mid-1990s and headed the Air Armament Center at Eglin AFB, Fla., among many program management duties in his career.

He sees opportunities in common software—made possible by an open systems architecture for both the F-35 and F-22—new common processors, the new radar waveform, and in economies-of-scale on parts.

“When I got to Raptor, if I go to a vendor and say, ‘Hey, I need 187 of these [parts], plus spares,’ I get a price tag that’s pretty high,” he said. “And when Jeff goes to them and says, ‘Hey, I need 2,000 plus spares, the price comes down a lot.’ ” Combining orders for parts on things like “auxiliary power units, … environmental control systems,” and many other basic utilities can save big dollars, Merchant asserted.

On every new order, he asks, “Is there a way we can get a lift off each other, here?” The opportunities to do so are multiplying, he said, because of diminishing manufacturer syndrome: An increasing number of cases where the original vendor pulled out of the business to pursue something more lucrative or just because technology has moved on. In those cases, the two programs are looking for common replacements.

The benefit of adding the F-22’s parts needs to those of the F-35 approaches “10 percent,” Merchant reported.

Both programs are pursuing open mission systems with sharing of parts in mind. “At some point,” he said, the aircraft may be able to swap circuit cards and both use the software that drives them. An upgrade to the software-based radio on one, for example, could, with little or no tweaking, work on the other. Eventually, “everything’s plug-and-play, for the most part.” They will also be able to use commercial cards, which will drastically reduce the cost, again, because of the economies of scale.

“The radar’s probably the biggest win we’ve had so far,” Merchant said. The two jets using a common waveform, but he could not go into detail except to say that they now share “some software and functionality” of the radars, particularly in ground-mapping mode.

The two jets still have different electronic architectures, but “the stuff that’s pumping out of those TR (transmit/receive) modules is very much the same.” Electronic warfare capabilities are similar and eventually could use the same hardware as well.

In self-protection, the aircraft can share common flares and magazines, “common EW,” or electronic warfare systems, but mostly in the utilities, such as avionics, subsystems, hydraulics, and interfaces for weapons.

Merchant also said  a new helmet will advance the F-22’s capabilities, and he’s looking to redo the cockpit as part of an F-22 “midlife update.”

The flat panels in the F-22 cockpit were cutting-edge when they were built, but compared to modern flat screens, they are thick and bulky. Merchant sees a chance to replace them with an F-35-like display thin enough that the new processors could fit right behind them, allowing easier service and freeing up space elsewhere on the airplane for growth mission hardware.

“It’s lighter, and I have a shorter wire run” to do the new displays, he said. “I have a team looking at what the pilot interface would look like” in an upgraded Raptor cockpit.

NOT EVERYTHING TRANSFERS

One thing the jets could not share is the F-35’s electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), the diamond-shaped wedge under the F-35’s “chin” that provides many of the visual and infrared sensors other jets must carry in pods. Though the Air Force is considering an infrared search and track (IRST) system for the F-22 to help it better see stealthy adversaries, Merchant said, “we really don’t have the real estate” in the same location on the F-22. “We’re looking at other options.” He was unable to elaborate due to classification.

In cooperation with the Air Combat Command, Merchant said, Lockheed is looking at trying out some new capabilities for the F-35 on the F-22 first.

“I can get things on the jet much quicker,” he said, “because I don’t have to do the negotiations with the foreign partners” to wedge an improvement into the already-robust F-35 Block IV program. Babione can lend Merchant some engineers “that would work on my team with the uniqueness … maybe there’s … an extra connection, some bit of software,” that would have to be finessed, but both jets could use the result.

A small number of F-35s could then be tested with the improvement, and if it works, it could be deployed on the F-22 first as the F-35 production line is adjusted. “And you save a whole lot of money,” Merchant insisted. Otherwise, with two engineering and production teams—unlikely to come to a common solution—“the Air Force is spending twice to get that same capability on two jets.”

Babione said the fifth gen synergy doesn’t stop between the F-22 and F-35.
“There will absolutely be more technology sharing across various Air Force programs,” he said, noting that fifth gen technologies are migrating to the company’s T-50A candidate for the new Air Force trainer, its JSTARS recap offering, “and other Skunk Works efforts,” referring to the company’s advanced technology shop. Merchant said that, although Lockheed has not yet been asked, it’s possible the Air Force will request it to collaborate with Northrop Grumman on the service’s other fifth gen aircraft, the B-21 bomber. An antenna designed for the F-35, for example, proved a perfect “drop-in” fit for the B-2 and will soon be fitted to the F-22.

“We’ll see more of that moving forward,” Babione said.

“There are incentives—financial and otherwise—for everyone involved here to find more synergy across programs. Synergy between the F-35 and F-22 is a good example, but certainly not the only one,” according to Babione.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/February 2018/The-F-35-and-F-22-Teach-Teach-Other-New-Tricks.aspx

[Nenel]

http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2017/12/28/un-rapport-anglais-critique-le-programme-f-35-864959.html

[Teenytoon]

Et dans les commentaires encore un naïf qui pense que le F-35 est le seul chasseur occidental furtif sur le marché et donc seul capable de faire face à une bulle A2/AD... J'y suis allé de ma réponse pédagogique sur l'active cancellation, etc...

[Picdelamirand-oil]

La pensée du jour:

Citation

Les Russes auraient voulu tenter de ruiner les USA par un bluff genre « guerre des étoiles  » qu’il n’ y seraient pas arrivés aussi efficacement que Lockeed.

En savoir plus sur http://www.opex360.com/2016/12/22/agence-federale-americaine-propose-darreter-le-programme-f-35/#55CGax6R0DkMXT1o.99

[Bechar06]

J'avoue que je viens pratiquement jamais sur ce fil F-35, mais je trouve étonnant que le fil  //  Marines nationales >  Amérique >  [F35C Lightning II la version chasseur embarqué]                                                           vivote à côté du présent fil F-35, qui de fait porte surtout sur le A et le B   ...   Comme si tous les PBS étaient vraiment génériques aux 3 et... pas un pour rattraper les 2 autres !

Etonnant aussi que le B ne soit pas / n'ait aucun fil ( apparemment ) en Marine, comme le Rafale-M

[herciv]

Un mode beast très contreversé : 

- LM vient de publier un mode beast pour le F-35

mais d'après miratnews il n'est même pas dans les tablettes

https://mirastnews.net/2017/12/29/lockheed-martin-commercialise-le-mode-bete-f-35-qui-nexiste-pas/

D'après SNAFU c'est le COMBAT RADIUS qui n' pas varié entre le STEALTH MODE et le BEAST MODE qui pose problème.

http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/12/so-this-is-graphic-that-has-everyone.html 

Pourquoi publier ça maintenant : pour le contrat belge ?

Modifié le 30 décembre 2017 par herciv

[Teenytoon]

14 AMRAAM + 2 SIDEWINDER, c’est possible ça ? 

[Patrick]

Il y a 2 heures, herciv a dit :

- LM vient de publier un mode beast pour le F-35

Ils les mettent où les 14 AMRAAM ? Ils ne peuvent en mettre que quatre en soute et avec les pylônes actuellement dispos 2 par point d'emport de voilure.
Jusqu'ici l'illustration en vigueur c'était celle-là, soit 2 Amraam de moins.

Ces pylones doubles existent déjà sur le F-18E/F mais il faut les intégrer sur F-35.

Après rien d'interdit de rêver à des pylones quadruples, comme sur cette image de synthèse en quelque sorte :

Edit : 

Il y a 2 heures, herciv a dit :

http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/12/so-this-is-graphic-that-has-everyone.html 

J'en profite au passage pour noter qu'une ambiance festive règne dans les commentaires :

Révélation

Je crois que Solomon n'est pas très content. 

Modifié le 30 décembre 2017 par Patrick

[herciv]

Avez-vous remarqué l'unité dans laquelle a été publié le Combat Range pour le "beast mode" ? C'est pas en Miles habituellement ? 

[mehari]

52 minutes ago, Patrick said:

Ils les mettent où les 14 AMRAAM ? Ils ne peuvent en mettre que quatre en soute et avec les pylônes actuellement dispos 2 par point d'emport de voilure.
Jusqu'ici l'illustration en vigueur c'était celle-là, soit 2 Amraam de moins.

N'oublie pas qu'ils prévoient de mettre 6 AMRAAM dans les soutes (à partir du Block 4 je crois).

30 minutes ago, herciv said:

Avez-vous remarqué l'unité dans laquelle a été publié le Combat Range pour le "beast mode" ? C'est pas en Miles habituellement ? 

A part les US, personne n'utilise le Miles. Du coup, vu que ce truc est clairement orienté communication (parce qu'aucune personne saine d'esprit ne marketerait un "Beast Mode" à des militaires (sauf si ils ne sont pas non plus sain d'esprit)) et que les US sont acheteurs de toute façon, c'est écrit en km.

[Toratoratora]

il y a 42 minutes, mehari a dit :

N'oublie pas qu'ils prévoient de mettre 6 AMRAAM dans les soutes (à partir du Block 4 je crois).

[mehari]

2 hours ago, herciv said:

mais d'après miratnews il n'est même pas dans les tablettes

https://mirastnews.net/2017/12/29/lockheed-martin-commercialise-le-mode-bete-f-35-qui-nexiste-pas/

Je ferait attention avec celui-là: le site se présente comme présentant des "informations capitales, stratégiques et véridiques" (et quand un site d'info se sent obligé de présenter ses infos comme véridiques, tu sais qu'il y a un problème) mais il s'est pour le coup contenté de traduire un article de Sputnik (et ne s'en cache pas)...

Bien que je sois totalement d'accord sur le fait que cette config soit pour l'instant complètement hypothétique (car probablement non budgétée avant des plombes), le reste des infos n'est pas forcément à prendre à la lettre...

[Patrick]

Il y a 1 heure, mehari a dit :

Je ferait attention avec celui-là: le site se présente comme présentant des "informations capitales, stratégiques et véridiques" (et quand un site d'info se sent obligé de présenter ses infos comme véridiques, tu sais qu'il y a un problème) mais il s'est pour le coup contenté de traduire un article de Sputnik (et ne s'en cache pas)...

Et au passage ils sont pas foutus de traduire l'expression "Jack of all trades master of none"...

[herciv]

Pour ceux qui veulent savoir comment le f-35 pourrait évoluer dans le futur voici un lien très détaillé datant de 2014.

https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/upgrades/

[Teenytoon]

@Dany40, jusque là je m'evertuais à penser que tu étais réellement un peu objectif bien que des fois maladroit sur le programme F-35. Mais au vu de ton commentaire sur http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2017/12/28/un-rapport-anglais-critique-le-programme-f-35-864959.html?c ça frôle le trollage... Ton seul premier paragraphe est édifiant :

Citation

1) Le Rafale n'est absolument pas furtif ... une fois équipé de ses bombes/missiles/bidons sa Surface Equivalent "discrète" (donc déjà fortement supérieure à celle d'un F-35) se dégrade par un facteur 10 (SER x par 10). Donc, si le Rafale dispose en effet d'excellentes capacités de furtivité active, il est totalement dépourvu de furtivité passive.

 

[Invité Dorfmeister]

Il y a 23 heures, Teenytoon a dit :

ça frôle le trollage...

Parce que les autres commentaires ne frôlent pas le trollage? Mention spéciale pour la "sous-qualité chinoise" et les "couvertures des moteurs du Su-57"...

Dany (et les autres) pensent ce qu'ils veulent (c'est leur bon droit): mais au milieu d'un combat de sourds, il est difficile de déterminer qui est le plus sourd de la bande

Modifié le 1 janvier 2018 par Dorfmeister

[Teenytoon]

C'est pas faux

 

[Bon Plan]

Les parlementaires britanniques déplorent le manque de transparence sur les coûts de l’avion F-35

http://www.opex360.com/2018/01/04/parlementaires-britanniques-deplorent-manque-de-transparence-couts-de-lavion-f-35/

le ministère de la Défense refuse de divulguer au Parlement et au public ses estimations pour le coût total du programme et qu’il suggère plutôt que nous devions attendre le milieu des années 2030 (lorsque les 138 F- 35 auront été achetés) pour être en mesure de calculer un coût unitaire complet