Le F-35

[prof.566]

Tiens au fait Herciv, ils viennent de perdre un nouveau procès contre thales-visionix. Cette fois ci ils essayaient de faire jouer la clause d'obviousness.

Modifié le 12 avril 2018 par prof.566

[herciv]

Tu as un lien ? C'est le topowl qui fait foi ?

[herciv]

C'est culoté une clause d'obviousness dans le cadre d'un brevet surtout quand il s'agit d'une société oeuvrant dans le secret des dieux.

heureusement qu'ils ont perdu sur une telle stratégie de défense ça rassure sur la justice.

[pascal]

Il y a 5 heures, herciv a dit :

A quel moment as-tu eu l'impression que je contestait ton propos ou même ceux de @bubzy ou de @DEFA550 ? J'ai même mis un like à bubzy quand il a évoqué l'espace contesté. Jusqu'à preuve du contraire je n'ai jamais contesté l'avantage du stealth ni les objectifs du programme f-35, seulement que le produit est très loin de l'objectif.

 

 

 

 

Mon propos n'était guère polémique il n'y a pas mort d'homme après tout on ne parle que d'un avion  !

[Patrick]

Il y a 6 heures, prof.566 a dit :

Tiens au fait Herciv, ils viennent de perdre un nouveau procès contre thales-visionix. Cette fois ci ils essayaient de faire jouer la clause d'obviousness.

Il y a 4 heures, herciv a dit :

Tu as un lien ? C'est le topowl qui fait foi ?

Il y a 2 heures, herciv a dit :

C'est culoté une clause d'obviousness dans le cadre d'un brevet surtout quand il s'agit d'une société oeuvrant dans le secret des dieux.

heureusement qu'ils ont perdu sur une telle stratégie de défense ça rassure sur la justice.

https://www.fr.com/alice/thales-visionix-inc-v-the-united-states/

Citation

 

“it is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is ‘directed to.’” Rapid Litig., 827 F.3d at 1050. Just as a natural law can be utilized to create an improved laboratory technique for preserving liver cells, id. at 1048, so can the application of physics create an improved technique for measuring movement of an object on a moving platform. Just as claims directed to a new and useful technique for defining a database that runs on general-purpose computer equipment are patent eligible, Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337–38, so too are claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform. That a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction.

For the purpose of evaluating patent eligibility, the ’159 patent claims are nearly indistinguishable from the claims at issue in Diehr. . . .

We hold that the ’159 patent claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to an abstract idea. . . .

 

https://www.knobbe.com/news/2018/02/elbit-systems-america-llc-v-thales-visionix-inc

 

Citation

Elbit sought inter partes review, challenging various claims of Thales’s patent as being obvious.  In response, Thales argued that the limitation of calculating the “relative angular rate signal” was not explicitly disclosed in the prior art.  Thales’s expert explained that this limitation is a two-step method and the prior art uses a three-step method.  Elbit’s expert testified that two- and three-step methods are “mathematically equivalent” and have no practical difference.  However, the PTAB found that Elbit’s expert testimony was unsupported and entitled to little weight because he did not address this limitation anywhere in his opinion.  In contrast, the PTAB credited the testimony of Thales’s expert and concluded that Elbit had failed to meet its burden of proving the asserted claims were unpatentable.

 

[prof.566]

Voilà. Ils ont déjà perdu (en cour suprême) en attaquant la brevetabilité (lois naturelles). La le circuit s'engage mal pour eux pour leur nouvelle tentative, ayant perdu sur la nouveauté. Je me demande entre temps (le brevet est valable pour l'instant) ce que Thales demande. Sinon Herciv, non pas le topowl, mais le Scorpion de Thales visionix. (le futur casque du Rafale Fr à priori).

Modifié le 13 avril 2018 par prof.566

[zx]

c'est vendredi

F-35 Completes Flight Trials, Now On To Final Test

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-completes-flight-trials-now-final-test

Citation

The developmental flight tests cleared the way for the JPO to deliver Block 3F capability to the warfighter this year, allowing U.S. Air Force F-35 pilots, both stateside at Hill AFB, Utah, and overseas in the Pacific, to finally employ the stealth fighter’s full suite of lethal air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons in combat.  The U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35Bs and the U.S. Navy’s F-35Cs will be able to deploy with their full 3F capability in May and June, respectively.

Citation

In the meantime, there is no rest for the developmental test team at Edwards and Pax River. The pilots and engineers are now moving on to testing the early “block 4” capabilities to be included in the F-35’s follow-on development, called Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2).

si pb accès

 

Lt. Col. Tucker Hamilton, F-35 Integrated Test Flight director at Edwards AFB, California, finally became a believer in October 2017 when eight Joint Strike Fighters flew together in a complex test scenario, seamlessly passing information back and forth.

The so-called eight-ship mission was a capstone event, designed to prove the offensive counterair capability of Lockheed Martin’s controversial new fighter in a large-force exercise.

“It proved to me that the F-35 was indeed the aircraft we needed it to be. It’s come a long way,” said Hamilton, who is also the commander of the 461 Flight Test Squadron, during an April 12 media call. “I don’t know if I would’ve said that a few years ago, but the jet is really capable right now.”

The F-35 has indeed come a long way since the first flight of the F-35A, AA-1, on Dec. 15, 2006. More than 11 years later, the JSF finally completed flight testing on April 11, 2018, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The final flight-test event, executed by U.S. Navy test aircraft CF-2, was a mission to collect loads data while carrying external, 2,000-lb. GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and AIM-9X Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles.

Completing the flight test is the culmination of years of hard work and dedication from the joint government and industry team, Vice Adm. Mat Winter, F-35 program executive officer, said in a statement. Since that fateful first flight, the developmental flight team has conducted more than 9,200 sorties, accumulated 17,000 flight hours and executed more than 65,000 test points—all without a single mishap, Winter said.

Andrew Maack, chief test engineer at the F-35 Pax River ITF who has been on the program since the first flight of the X-35 on Oct. 24, 2000, recalled the deliberate, high-risk development of the aircraft’s vertical operations capability. He described the months of testing the team undertook to ensure that the 40,000-lb. thrust-class vertical propulsion system worked safely, without damaging other aircraft or the deck of the ship with the hot gas being blown out of the engine, and that the aircraft could be controlled in a hover.

“It was a great day when we finally got there. It worked, and the airplane was rock steady in the air,” Maack said, adding that the first vertical operations on the USS Wasp amphibious ship “were just fantastic and spectacularly thrilling to watch.”  

The developmental flight tests cleared the way for the JPO to deliver Block 3F capability to the warfighter this year, allowing U.S. Air Force F-35 pilots, both stateside at Hill AFB, Utah, and overseas in the Pacific, to finally employ the stealth fighter’s full suite of lethal air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons in combat.  The U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35Bs and the U.S. Navy’s F-35Cs will be able to deploy with their full 3F capability in May and June, respectively.

For Lockheed Martin test pilot Billie Flynn, the most surreal experience working on the F-35 was taking the aircraft into the climactic chamber to see how it fared in the most extreme environments.

“Freezing it down to 40 below and baking it up to 120 degrees, firing ice at it through these one-of-a kind ice-maker jet rockets, and all the while hovering an F-35 inside a hangar with the doors closed,” Flynn said, describing the climactic tests. “We have crushed all the preconceived notions about what this jet is capable of ... it is survivable and lethal above any of our expectations.”

But while completing flight tests is a significant milestone, the F-35’s $55 billion development phase, called System Development and Demonstration (SDD), won’t be over until the aircraft successfully completes its final exam, initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), and the Pentagon approves Lockheed to begin full-rate production.
IOT&E is scheduled to begin in September 2018.

In the meantime, there is no rest for the developmental test team at Edwards and Pax River. The pilots and engineers are now moving on to testing the early “block 4” capabilities to be included in the F-35’s follow-on development, called Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2).

C2D2 is designed “to provide timely, affordable incremental warfighting capability improvements to maintain joint air dominance against evolving threats to the United States and its allies,” a Lockheed statement said.

Modifié le 13 avril 2018 par zx

[SharkOwl]

Le troisième et quatrième F-35A livré aux usines de Lockheed Martin aux pilotes de marque de la Royal Australian Air Force qui font ici transiter ces deux appareils vers la base aérienne de Luke AFB pour la poursuite de l'entrainement des pilotes et techniciens Australiens détachés aux USA. 

Comme pour les A35-001 et A35-002, le A35-004 porte l'insigne de tradition de dérive du No.2 Operational Conversion Unit, RAAF Williamtown, Australia.

Toutefois, le A35-003 porte lui, l'insigne de tradition de dérive du No.3 Squadron dont la base d'attache opérationnelle est aussi RAAF Williamtown, Australia.

SharkOwl

 

 

 

 

   

[zx]

F-35 delivery pause indicative of more stringent Pentagon standards, Lord says

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04/13/f-35-delivery-pause-indicative-of-more-stringent-pentagon-standards-lord-says/

[Alexis]

Allez, un petit intermède comique, voire bouffon.

Could the F-35 Go to War in Syria?

[French Kiss]

Le 12/04/2018 à 14:52, herciv a dit :

Un petit commentaire de Thud sur bestfighter4canada : 

- le problème de corrosion semblait intéressant et emmerder le pentagone mais je ne comprenais pas pourquoi maintenant j'ai une explication : 

"Fiber to aluminium points? At fasteners?"

"Metallurgy fail.
The fasteners are reacting to the aluminium.That is a major fail that should never have happened.
There have to be some major quality control issues from the design up for that to ever happen."

Bon en gros LM s'est vautré et pas qu'un peu sur cette partie.

 

Bof ca n'arrive pas qu'a LM de se planter sur ce genre de "detail", meme si ici, l'echelle est colossale pour reparer le probleme. On peut aussi evoquer NHI, consortium responsable du design et de la fabrication du NH-90, et qui semble ne pas avoir pris la peine de considerer que ces helicos auraient a operer en environnement naval, ou du moins n'a pas pris toutes les mesures pour que les cellules resistent a la corrosion de maniere satisfaisante par rapport a leur emploi...

[Full Metal Jacket]

Le 12/04/2018 à 19:14, Bon Plan a dit :

QUE PENSER DE CA ?

 

Exclusive: Pentagon stops accepting F-35 jets from Lockheed over...
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Defense has stopped accepting most deliveries of F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) because of a dispute over who will cover costs for fixing a production error found last year on more than 200 of the stealthy jets, three people familiar with the matter said.

Last year the Pentagon stopped accepting F-35s for 30 days after discovering corrosion where the carbon fiber exterior panels of the planes were fastened to the airframe. Once a fix had been devised, the deliveries resumed, and Lockheed hit its target aircraft delivery numbers for 2017.

Deliveries were paused again over a dispute as to who will pay for what will likely be a complex logistical fix that could require technicians to travel widely to mend aircraft based around the world, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

When the Pentagon stops taking delivery of F-35s, foreign customers can also be affected. So far at least two foreign governments have stopped accepting F-35s as a result of this issue, two of the sources said.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A Lockheed spokeswoman said on Wednesday: “Production on the F-35 program continues and we are confident we will meet our delivery target of 91 aircraft for 2018. While all work in our factories remains active, the F-35 Joint Program Office has temporarily suspended accepting aircraft until we reach an agreement on a contractual issue and we expect this to be resolved soon.”

It was not clear when the suspension of deliveries began.

Shares of Lockheed erased a 2.7 percent gain on the day after the news, and were trading flat at 3.32 p.m. (1932 GMT).

The delivery pause is the latest of several production issues that have arisen in the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, and comes at a time when the administration of President Donald Trump has criticized the cost of the fighter.

In 2016, a fix for insulation problems in the fuel tanks and lines of the jets caused a slowdown in deliveries.

Two jets were received by the Pentagon despite the suspension because of specific needs in the field, one of the people said.

During routine maintenance at Hill Air Force Base in Utah last year, the Air Force detected “corrosion exceeding technical limits” where the carbon fiber exterior panel is fastened to the aluminum airframe. A lack of protective coating at the fastening point that would have prevented corrosion was identified as the primary problem, the Pentagon said at the time.

Reporting by Mike Stone; Editing by Chris Sanders and Rosalba O'Brien

si le pentagone se met à refuser des F35, ou va on ?  

LOL

[zx]

Donc si il a son block 4 en 2025, ca lui fera 10 ans de vie  avant de passer à son successeur, gnarf! 

Le Pentagone pourrait tuer le JPO F-35, mais pas avant 2035

http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-could-kill-f-35-jpo-not-until-2035

si pb accès

 

The Pentagon is laying the groundwork to dissolve the F-35 Joint Program Office, which has been the single hub for management of the global Joint Strike Fighter program since its inception.

But the transition to separate, service-run program offices won’t be complete until 2030-2035, according to a comprehensive Department of Defense study obtained by Aerospace DAILY.

At the direction of Congress, the Department of Defense examined several alternatives to the existing F-35 management structure, the gargantuan operation called the JPO that currently spans three U.S. services and 12 nations. The full report, recently delivered to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, lays out the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, and makes the case for a phased approach to transitioning management of the F-35 program to a service-run structure.

Based on the study’s recommendations, the Pentagon will gradually dissolve the JPO over a period of nearly two decades, while moving to establish two separate U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy-run program offices that report to their respective program executive officers (PEO)/service acquisition executives (SAE). The department hopes the deliberate, phased approach laid out in the report enables the services to take on a greater role in program oversight while minimizing cost and risk.

The study applauds the existing JPO structure for driving commonality, interoperability, shared costs and economies of scale. But the size and complexity of the JPO organization limits management effectiveness and makes it difficult for the U.S. services to have adequate insight and voice, it found.  

“The JPO organizational structure is not optimized for any single customer or variant, but is instead focused on the common enterprise-level solution,” the report says. “This focus at the enterprise level comes at the expense of focusing on individual customer needs that often do not align perfectly (or at all) with the organization’s current enterprise-level focus.”

Now is the right time to begin the transition to a service-run structure, the report argues. The recent overhaul of the Pentagon’s acquisition oversight structure actually presents a unique opportunity to restructure management of the F-35 program. While many of the department’s major defense acquisition programs are being pushed down to the service level, the F-35 is the ideal candidate at this point in its life cycle to be a primary focus for the new undersecretary of defense (OUSD) for acquisition and sustainment (A&S), Ellen Lord, and whoever comes after her.

“The new OUSD (A&S) has an opportunity to introduce a flatter oversight structure that provides greater strategic direction, continuity and leadership for the program, while at the same time equally integrating the perspectives of the SAEs from both Military Departments,” the study says.

On the acquisition front, the current structure of reporting through the SAE of just one of the services impedes both departments from participating in strategy development and decision making, the report found. As the fleet expands, including both the Air Force and Navy SAEs in the chain of acquisition authority will be critical, it concludes.

To move to a service-centered structure, the study recommends implementing a “measured” restructure of the JPO in the near term. This will include establishing “leads” for each of the three variants—the Air Force F-35A, Marine Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C—inside the JPO who report to the program executive officer, as well as “service deputies” co-located with the JPO who report back to their respective departments. The Pentagon also should establish service-led fleet management offices (FMO), located at the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Naval Air Systems Command, that report to their respective departments.

At the same time, the Air Force and Navy will evaluate disbanding their respective F-35 Integration Offices (IO), currently located in the Pentagon to support initial fielding of each variant. The services initially envisioned that the need for the IOs would diminish soon after reaching initial operating capability—the F-35B and F-35A already have completed this milestone, and the F-35C is set to do so in 2019.

The Pentagon also will conduct an audit of billet structure across the JPO. This could result in eliminating many legacy JPO positions: the audit should seek to “assess and align the skill mix of personnel across all JPO billets to meet the evolving needs of modernization, production and sustainment,” the report says.

These near-term measures set the stage for a lower-risk transition to the next step: merging the variant leads and FMOs to form two fully functioning, service-run program management offices (PMO) that report to a joint PEO.

The timing of the transition is not yet set, but should be based on the maturity and stability of the F-35 follow-on development effort, C2D2; achieving full-rate production, planned for April 2019; and improving sustainment, the report urges.

In the final stage, the department will disband the joint PEO and establish two service PEOs that will oversee the U.S. and international fleets over the remaining life of the program. The study team believes the transition could be completed as early as fiscal 2030-35, but the timing should be based on getting to peak F-35 production and the primary focus shifting to sustainment.

The transition will come with a price tag, though not a very large one given the cost of the overall F-35 program. The cost estimate is $552-596 million per year from fiscal 2020 to planned F-35 retirement in 2071, or $63-107 million above the cost to maintain the existing JPO structure.  

The department determined that this cost was acceptable.

“The Study Team assessed that the increase in manpower, and associated PMA cost, for each of the alternatives to be a minor discriminator compared with the other assessment areas,” the report said.

Modifié le 16 avril 2018 par zx

[Arka_Voltchek]

Le 12/04/2018 à 23:10, herciv a dit :

C'est culoté une clause d'obviousness dans le cadre d'un brevet surtout quand il s'agit d'une société oeuvrant dans le secret des dieux.

heureusement qu'ils ont perdu sur une telle stratégie de défense ça rassure sur la justice.

Surtout que la clause avait déjà dû être vérifiée au premier procès (en tout cas à l'OEB on fait simple : peu importe la raison à l'opposition, on refait tout les articles du règlement dans l'ordre et on revérifie tout, même ce qui n'a pas été notifié, à un procès auquel j'ai assisté, le brevet a été invalidé pour une antériorité qui n'avais même pas été décelée par l'attaquant)

[zx]

South Korea’s F-35 purchase under probe

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04/20/south-koreas-f-35-purchase-under-probe/

[zx]

UK’s Royal Air Force Debuts First F-35 Squadron

http://aviationweek.com/defense/uk-s-royal-air-force-debuts-first-f-35-squadron

[herciv]

Le f35 fabrique en Italie sous les feux de la polémique. 

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/04/22/strike-planned-at-italy-f-35-assembly-line/

[1foismax]

Sanctions contre Turquie pourrait bloquer les F35 en Europe

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/23/sanctions_of_usa_affect_on_supply_turkey_f35_euro_engine_supply/

Les US ne sont pas content que le Turquie achète des S-400, et donc pourrait lancer des sanctions. Le Turquie serait le contre european pour la maintenance des moteurs. Moi je pensais que l’Italie était le centre de maintenance pour les F35 en europe?

 

[zx]

Je pensais que l'italie était chargé de la maintenance, tous les autres doivent passer par eux.  Les anglais ont quelques trucs à part.

Mais la Turquie, ils n'ont rien. mais les USA ont du soucis à se faire, si ils souhaitent garder leur petits secrets.

A moins qu'ils fassent un vrai coup d'état pour installer son rival.

Modifié le 23 avril 2018 par zx

[Bon Plan]

il y a 39 minutes, zx a dit :

A moins qu'ils fassent un vrai coup d'état pour installer son rival.

installer un rival a Erdogan?   ouh la ....   c'est du lourd.

Y a des fois y aurait fallu le faire !   (cf Adolphe, Joseph, Pol...)

[herciv]

Ben en fait ça a peut-être déjà été tenté. 

Ce qui est marrant c'est que les Turques tiennent le f-35 par les cou.... 

[herciv]

Il semble qu'un F-35B aurait fait un atterrissage d'urgence au Japon. 

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/lnews/kitakyushu/20180424/5020000364.html

 

Modifié le 24 avril 2018 par herciv

[Delbareth]

Pour ceux qui auraient du mal avec le japonais :

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180424_27/

 

[herciv]

Et que veut dire (pas la traduction française). 

"The ministry says the jet may have had problems involving part of its body during flight. No injuries or damage have been reported"

[neoretro]

Le ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2018 à 20:13, Bon Plan a dit :

installer un rival a Erdogan?   ouh la ....   c'est du lourd.

Ils l'ont tenté. Il y a bien eu coup d'état il y a quelques mois.

Mais quand Erdogan leur a coupé l'électricité sur la base qui conserve leurs bombes nuc et autres joyeusetés, ils ont lâché les insurgés et tout est rentré dans l'ordre avec la purge qu'on connaît. On a bien aidé Erdogan à faire le ménage avec plus personne en face pour 20 ans.