Le F-35

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Tout va très bien madame la marquise

[Phacochère]

Ça ressemble de plus en plus à un jeu de bonneteau Porte de la Chapelle.

[Teenytoon]

Je préfère le R2D2, bien plus fiable...

[Benoitleg]

Il y a 5 heures, Bon Plan a dit :

Lu ce jour dans le DSI de mai-juin (page 23-24) :

- Tous les F35 a produire jusqu'en 2024 seront au standard 3F.

- Ce standard n'est pas totalement qualifié à ce jour (on le savait) .

- Les 998 avions fabriqués d'ici 2024 DEVRONT être amené au standard 4, désormais appelé C2D2 (Continuous Capability Development and Delivery).

- Ce retrofit pourrait coûter plus de 16 milliards $ (à ajouter au 55 milliards déjà dépensés dans le développement).  Les pays partenaires seraient mis à contribution à hauteur de 3.8 milliards$

- Vu le cout des opérations de maintenance au jour le jour, l'USAF envisage sérieusement, si ceux ci ne baissent pas de 38%, de couper sa commande de 590 exemplaires, sur les 1763 ambitionnés.

et aussi :

Le coût de production des F35 fabriqués au Japon dépasse de 53% les estimations de départ.  Il ressort désormais à 137.6 millions $.

La parité yen/dollar en explique une partie, mais c'est surtout la variabilité des couts de l'appareil qui est prégnante.  Et il faudra y ajouter la quote part pour passer au C2D2....

Too big to pay  ?

[Patrick]

Il y a 9 heures, Benoitleg a dit :

Too big to pay  ?

C'est intéressant comme concept. J'ajouterais "too big to bail (out)". Trop gros pour en sortir.

Ce qui nous donnerait:
Too big to fail > too big to bail > to big to pay

Ça ferait un bon titre d'article.

[DEFA550]

il y a une heure, Patrick a dit :

Ce qui nous donnerait:
Too big to fail > too big to bail > to big to pay

Ça ferait un bon titre d'article.

Tu as oublié "Too pig to fly". C'est étonnant... 

[rendbo]

il y a une heure, DEFA550 a dit :

Tu as oublié "Too pig to fly". C'est étonnant... 

C'est aussi méchant que gratuit :  il vole !

Révélation

 

 

[kalligator]

Méchant ? il est le plus lent et le moins manoeuvrant de tous les avions auquels il pourrait être opposé, alors il vole certes mais mal

[herciv]

il y a 3 minutes, kalligator a dit :

Méchant ? il est le plus lent et le moins manoeuvrant de tous les avions auquels il pourrait être opposé, alors il vole certes mais mal

C'était de l'ironie Kalli.

[kalligator]

Ironie ? désolé quand on parle du F35 j'ai tendance à mettre mon casque antibruit et a sortir une tronconneuse

[Benoitleg]

Il y a 12 heures, Patrick a dit :

C'est intéressant comme concept. J'ajouterais "too big to bail (out)". Trop gros pour en sortir.

Ce qui nous donnerait:
Too big to fail > too big to bail > to big to pay

Ça ferait un bon titre d'article.

Y en a d'autres :

"Park away cost : 85 m$ for one F-35"

"Ponzi fighter"
a Lockheed Martin'people said me this the worldest best fighter, the one, the first. Me, a USAF'people, i trust him. I said a RAF'people this fighter is the best, the one and he... etc., etc.

PS : désolé pour l'anglais de cuisine, c'est un peu rouillé. Je m'en vais troller ailleurs, c'est plus facile que de tirer sur le pianiste =>

[herciv]

BOn tout le monde rève que les UK arrète le f-35 mais apparemment c'est pas demain la veille.

Britain to slash F-35 orders? Erm, no, scoffs Lockheed UK boss

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/14/lockheed_f35_uk_order_numbers/

[Bon Plan]

Il y a 11 heures, herciv a dit :

BOn tout le monde rève que les UK arrète le f-35 mais apparemment c'est pas demain la veille.

Britain to slash F-35 orders? Erm, no, scoffs Lockheed UK boss

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/14/lockheed_f35_uk_order_numbers/

Y a aussi cette news :

http://www.opex360.com/2018/05/14/royaume-uni-investit-plus-de-27-milliards-deuros-programmes-de-marins-nucleaires/

"Le ministère britannique de la Défense [MoD] s’est fait épingler par le comité des comptes publics de la Chambre des communes qui, dans un rapport publié le 11 mai, a estimé qu’il « n’a tout simplement pas assez d’argent pour acquérir tout l’équipement dont il a besoin. »

...

Or, le comité des comptes publics a mis en garde contre une déficit de financement « inquiétant », avec des écarts par rapport aux coûts de prévisionnels allant de 4,9 à 20,8 milliards de livres. 

 

Il y a peu la question de la commande du 7eme SNA Astute s'est posée...

 

Donc la perspective d'avoir 138 x F35 relève du pur fantasme.    Sutout qu'il y aura encore des couleuvres à avaler. Sur le F35 mais pas que.

 

Allez, j'y vais de mon petit pronostic : ca va se terminer dans la fourchette 72 - 96.

Modifié le 15 mai 2018 par Bon Plan

[herciv]

Il y a 1 heure, Bon Plan a dit :

Y a aussi cette news :

http://www.opex360.com/2018/05/14/royaume-uni-investit-plus-de-27-milliards-deuros-programmes-de-marins-nucleaires/

"Le ministère britannique de la Défense [MoD] s’est fait épingler par le comité des comptes publics de la Chambre des communes qui, dans un rapport publié le 11 mai, a estimé qu’il « n’a tout simplement pas assez d’argent pour acquérir tout l’équipement dont il a besoin. »

...

Or, le comité des comptes publics a mis en garde contre une déficit de financement « inquiétant », avec des écarts par rapport aux coûts de prévisionnels allant de 4,9 à 20,8 milliards de livres. 

 

Il y a peu la question de la commande du 7eme SNA Astute s'est posée...

 

Donc la perspective d'avoir 138 x F35 relève du pur fantasme.    Sutout qu'il y aura encore des couleuvres à avaler. Sur le F35 mais pas que.

 

Allez, j'y vais de mon petit pronostic : ca va se terminer dans la fourchette 72 - 96.

Il est vrai que le simple fait d'en parler montre que la question est posée publiquement. Evidemment le DoD repousse l'échéance le plus loin possible et avec LM font ceux que les questions budgétaires ne sont que de la broutille par rapport au gain de performance.

Moi pour ce qui touche les pronostique concernant le f-35 je ne m'y colle pas. Je ne peux qu'espérer. Dans le même ordre d'idée le DoD US parle de baisser sa cible de 500 f-35 si les coûts de "sustainment" (logistique + entretien + support + mises à jour) ne baissent pas.

[zx]

Il y a 23 heures, rendbo a dit :

C'est aussi méchant que gratuit :  il vole !

  Révéler le texte masqué

 

 

effectivement, dans tous les sens du terme. :P

[Bon Plan]

Il y a 2 heures, zx a dit :

effectivement, dans tous les sens du terme. :P

et là, il vole bien...

(les contribuables)

[herciv]

L'ambassadeur au UK est obligé de mouiller la chemise pour le f-35 :

US urges UK to push ahead with F-35 fighter jets deal

 

[Bon Plan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut

 

***

 

Il y a 21 heures, herciv a dit :

L'ambassadeur au UK est obligé de mouiller la chemise pour le f-35 :

US urges UK to push ahead with F-35 fighter jets deal

 

On ne peut l'ouvrir...

Tu nous en met l'essentiel en clair?

Modifié le 16 mai 2018 par Bon Plan

[dark sidius]

En même temps l'UK est en train de sombrer militairement, L'Europe n'est pas loin derrière a l'heure des USA, de la Chine et de la Russie l'Europe n'est plus un nain militaire c'est un Liliputien militaire , voilà la conséquence de plusieurs décennies de laxisme budgétaire au niveau des dépenses militaires. A l'heure ou Les USA, la Chine et la Russies présentent des bombardiers nouvelle génération furtifs et des missiles hypersoniques , un pays comme l'Angleterre n'est même plus capable de financer une flotte d'avions de combat nouvelle génération c'est lamentable.

[herciv]

Il y a 2 heures, Bon Plan a dit :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut

 

***

 

On ne peut l'ouvrir...

Tu nous en met l'essentiel en clair?

Save to myFT David Bond in London May 14, 2018 Print this page 43

Révélation

Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to the UK, has urged British ministers to increase defence spending and push ahead with the F-35 programme, echoing Donald Trump’s warning that America’s allies had to become more self-sufficient. UK defence officials are carrying out a wide-ranging review of the UK’s military capabilities. The review is expected to be finished in July, in time for a Nato summit in Brussels that Mr Trump will attend.

Gavin Williamson, the UK defence minister, is pushing chancellor Philip Hammond to increase the amount of money the UK spends on defence from the current level of 2 per cent of GDP, or just over £37bn a year. Military chiefs have feared they could face further spending cuts to pay for a funding shortfall of up to £20bn over the next decade.[Donald Trump] wants everybody involved in mutual defence, not just the US doing everything.

Woody Johnson, US ambassador to UKSpeaking to reporters in London, Mr Johnson said: “You’re going to have to make trade-offs and go through the emotional and practical and philosophical arguments in terms of what you want to do, what you want to be, how important is defence, how you want to be perceived, by the US, but also by Russia and others.“I know the president has stated that he doesn’t want to pay for everything. He’s going to rely on our allies,” he added. “He wants everybody involved in mutual defence, not just the US doing everything.” Mr Johnson was speaking ahead of the arrival in the UK this summer of the first batch of US-made F-35 fighter jets.The programme to build the first 48 of a potential total of 138 F-35s is costing the UK over £9bn.

While the UK government says it remains committed to buying the full quota of 138 jets from US defence company Lockheed Martin, there has been speculation that Britain could reduce the size of the final order to cut costs. Recommended Analysis UK defence spending UK army unease mounts after decade of ‘underfunding’ Such a move would ease the strain on the finances of the Ministry of Defence. But it could have a knock-on for UK defence companies that form a vital part of the F-35 global supply chain.“The UK is going to make a lot of money. There are going to be a lot of jobs,” Mr Johnson said about the F-35 programme.“To me, as an American, I would be looking at where do we want to be in the future, 10, 15, 20 years from now,” he added. “How important is it to defend yourself? My mission is security and prosperity, and you really can’t have prosperity unless you have security.”

 

Modifié le 16 mai 2018 par herciv

[zx]

Should U.S. Block F-35 Deliveries To Turkey?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/should-us-block-f-35-deliveries-turkey

si pb d'accès

In 2019, Turkey is scheduled to receive two major new pieces of military equipment: the U.S.-made F-35 stealthy fifth-generation fighter and the Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

Deployment of both systems in the same country has already made U.S. and NATO officials so concerned about security that the Pentagon and the State Department are trying to halt S-400 deliveries to Ankara. However, U.S. lawmakers are divided over exactly how they should respond.

One bipartisan group of senators is moving to block the transfer of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Turkey, even as Lockheed prepares to deliver the first Turkish aircraft to Luke AFB, Arizona. And a contingent of House lawmakers is considering a provision in a fiscal 2019 defense policy bill that would stop short of restricting F-35 deliveries but could impede shipments of other U.S. exports there.

State Department tries to hinder installation of a Russian air defense system in Turkey

NATO official worries about Russian access to data from allied weapons

The back-and-forth on Capitol Hill adds another layer of complexity to the controversial geopolitical situation that the Pentagon and State Department have been grappling with. But it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will ultimately take any concrete steps to prevent the sale. 

The U.S. has $9.7 billion in active Foreign Military Sales (FMS) with Turkey, the last of which was a $70 million deal for laser-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), which Congress was informed of in 2015. Between 2013 and 2017, the U.S. made another $1.7 billion in direct commercial sales there. Turkey is also an original production partner making key components for the F-35, “a testament to the strength of our defense trade partnership and continued potential for future growth,” a State Department official notes. 

U.S. lawmakers have proposed legislation to block the transfer of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Turkey as U.S. and NATO officials try to halt deliveries of Russia’s S-400 to Ankara. Credit: U.S. Defense Department

The U.S. has long tried to sell Turkey air and missile defense systems such as Raytheon’s Patriot. But Ankara ultimately opted for the Almaz Central Design Bureau’s S-400 in a $2.5 billion deal. The systems were originally scheduled for delivery in 2020, but that date has since been accelerated.

“In pursuing a U.S. air and missile defense solution, Turkey would benefit from top-of-the-line technology, as well as NATO interoperability,” the official says. “In contrast, an S-400 acquisition could potentially trigger actions under the Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (Caatsa) and have serious ramifications for U.S.’ ability to do business with Turkey across the defense trade spectrum.”

But as the date for deliveries nears, lawmakers may take additional action.

Standalone legislation proposed by Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) would prohibit the use of U.S. government funds to transfer F-35 aircraft, intellectual property or technical data related to maintenance support to Turkey, according to the text of the bill.

Because the sale is not by the U.S. government but by the international F-35 consortium, Congress does not have the legal authority to block it. Ankara is a development partner on the program and plans to purchase 100 F-35As in total, the first of which will soon be delivered to Luke AFB. 

Given the limitations, lawmakers appear to have realized the best approach to preventing Ankara from receiving the Joint Strike Fighter is to eliminate funds for the planned transfer of the jets from Luke to Turkey in 2019.

Blocking the transfer of intellectual property and technical data would also mean Ankara could not perform maintenance on U.S. engines or service their own aircraft. Turkey has been chosen to be the hub of F135 engine depot overhaul for all the European operators. Engine production and maintenance would take place at the First Air Supply and Maintenance Military Center in Eskisehir, which already services F-16 engines, among others.

Turkish industry stands to make $12 billion through F-35 work, Lockheed estimates.

Under the senators’ bill, President Donald Trump could waive the limitation, but the terms are stringent. Trump must certify to Congress that Turkey is not taking steps to degrade NATO interoperability; exposing NATO assets to hostile actors; degrading the general security of NATO member countries; seeking to import or purchase defense articles from a foreign country under U.S. sanctions; or unlawfully detaining U.S. citizens.

Officials are likely concerned that if Turkey operates both the S-400 and the F-35, the fighter’s security could be compromised. And NATO allies, including the U.S., see the S-400 as a security issue for NATO’s wider missile defense network.

Czech Army Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, says the S-400 is not just a sophisticated target-acquisition radar. Even more important is that it is a database, he says, and Russian experts who come to install the system in Turkey could populate the database with NATO data. “There is a big challenge,” Pavel cautions.

The House provision stops far short of prohibiting the sale of F-35s, because such a restriction would hurt the U.S. and its allies more than it would affect Turkey, according to a House Republican aide.

Rather, the legislation seeks a report on the impact that “increasing strains” between the U.S. and Turkey, “caused by provocative actions taken by the Turkish government over the past year, will have on all U.S. military and diplomatic activities currently conducted in Turkey, including joint operation of the F-35 and other military platforms.” Other FMS sales, such as JDAM deliveries, could also be delayed.

Despite recent congressional moves, experts say it is unlikely the U.S. will take punitive action against Turkey over the S-400 purchase.

Kate Kizer, policy director of The Center for International Policy’s Win Without War program, says the U.S. government’s “paranoia” about losing market share to China and Russia is “a little bit overblown.

“The paradox of the U.S. being the largest arms exporter, I think, is that there is a paranoia, particularly in Congress, about losing the market share in some way. If we don’t sell these weapons to [Turkey] then China and Russia are going to move in and do it and then we will lose our ally,” she says. “The whole baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.”

Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, says Russia has not been successful in marketing its technology to the rest of the world. There is a big difference, he says, between the one or two S-400s Turkey will receive from Russia and the more-than-100 F-35 buy.

“They haven’t really shown that they are very good in transferring technology and helping other states to build up their arms industry,” says Wezeman. “I really doubt if we are going to see a very big change in the arms transfer relationship between the U.S. and Turkey.”

 

[Lezard-vert]

Il n'y a pas dans le F35 une petit matos de fabrication française qui permettrai de mettre notre veto sur la vente du F35 en reprenant à notre  compte la règlementation ITAR ?

[Bon Plan]

il y a 41 minutes, Lezard-vert a dit :

Il n'y a pas dans le F35 une petit matos de fabrication française qui permettrai de mettre notre veto sur la vente du F35 en reprenant à notre  compte la règlementation ITAR ?

Les pneus?   

 

[zx]

batteries, air liquide, rien de transcendant.

[rendbo]

une partie de l'OBOG ?