F-35 news

Je pense effectivement que les Growler seront pour la Navy, puisque comme indiqué dans l´article :

Navy officials had said previously that if the F-35 program slipped, they would press for more F-18s to mitigate a “fighter gap” caused by their aging, carrier-based jets.

Pilou a écrit

Je pense effectivement que les Growler seront pour la Navy, puisque comme indiqué dans l´article :

Navy officials had said previously that if the F-35 program slipped, they would press for more F-18s to mitigate a “fighter gap” caused by their aging, carrier-based jets.

Le lien n'était pas très clair

Mais si voyons !
Article intéressant :
Aircraft with advantages, or the next generation of wasted money?

January 10, 2010 (by Kent Harris) - The Air Force is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on two fighter jets that probably will never be used to support troops on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Congress has decided to cap production of the F-22, removing funding for the fifth-generation fighter from the 2010 military budget. And the F-35 — also known as the Joint Strike Fighter — won’t be ready for prime time before 2013, according to the latest estimates.

Critics of the new fighters say they are too expensive and not needed in today's warfare, while proponents argue that the current aircraft are not as advanced as the F-22 and F-35, both of which would help the U.S. maintain air superiority for decades to come.

The programs have come under heavy criticism, mainly for cost overruns.

Each F-22 — there are about 140 of them assigned to six stateside bases — will have cost about $350 million under current estimates. The U.S. is awaiting delivery of roughly 50 more of them.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and a vocal critic of both programs, predicts each F-35 might eventually cost almost $200 million.

Guy Ben-Ari, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the costs are "raising eyebrows left and right. At the end of the day, it comes down to resources, and they’re not endless."

Despite those concerns, the fighters’ advantages cannot be ignored, some officials say.

Maj. John Peterson, requirements officer for the F-35A at Air Force headquarters, said each fifth-generation fighter has four features that make it superior to fourth-generation models such as the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18. Some fourth-generation models might have some of the capabilities, but none has all four, he said.

Those four are the ability to evade enemy radar; maneuverability; the ability to take on varied tasks; and the ability to translate more data into usable information for the pilot.

A look at each aircraft:

F-22 Raptor

Christopher Preble, writing on the blog he maintains for the Cato Institute, said he believes the F-22 "likely never will" participate in actions over Iraq or Afghanistan. But Preble, director of foreign policy studies for the institute, said that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad aircraft.

"I have no reason to question the F-22's capability," he said in a recent telephone interview.

Ben-Ari, a member of CSIS’ Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group, agreed with that assessment.

He said the F-22 might be able to carry out missions to support ground troops, but said that other aircraft such as the F-16 and A-10 are better designed to do so. The F-22 is thought to be better suited for taking on enemy aircraft and anti-aircraft positions as opposed to enemy forces engaged with friendly troops on the ground.

But there is the cost factor.

Preble cited a Washington Post article that stated that the cost of flying an F-22 is about $40,000 per hour.

So using the F-22 for a mission that other aircraft could handle, Ben-Ari said, "would be in the same manner as a Lamborghini used to bring your kids to school. You could do it, but do you really need to?"

Maj. Clay Bartels, F-22 requirements officer for Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon, said he believes the F-22 could take on ground-support missions today if called upon. But he said its primary role — ensuring U.S. superiority in the skies — isn’t needed in today’s wars.

"Air superiority is achieved already," he said in a phone interview.

Supporters say the F-22 is so technologically superior to other fighters that it will use advanced detecting and targeting systems to take out enemy planes from miles away. In such cases, enemy planes might not have even known they were in a fight until it was too late.

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter

The Air Force expects to receive the first of its 1,763 aircraft in 2013 — if testing goes according to plan.

The Marine Corps recently took possession of the first versions of the F-35 from Lockheed Martin and has begun its own testing. Congress overrode Pentagon misgivings and decided to spend an additional $465 million on an alternative engine for the F-35.

The Air Force, which projects that the F-35 will make up half its fleet in 2025, is involved in a system development and demonstration phase that Peterson said is set to last until 2014.

Wheeler, who once worked for the General Accounting Office, said that means the service will have purchased a significant number of aircraft that haven’t been fully tested. And he said he believes too much of the current testing is in the form of simulated models and table-top theories. He said more tests must involve actually flying the F-35.

Peterson and Bartels said the F-35 and F-22 are designed to provide specific, complementary roles for the service. But they’re only part of the picture. The service projects that some of the current generation of fighters will be used for decades to come.

Ben-Ari said the Air Force needs to not only deal with conflicts today, but also plan for future ones. "For the missions we’re conducting today, the current fleet is capable," he said. "For future ones … I’m not so sure.

"You can’t just draw up a design for a new aircraft and produce it in six months," he said. "You’re hedging against future risk. No politician or military officer wants to be the one who, looking back through history, canceled a project or ignored a risk."

Published on January 10th, 2010 in the European edition of Stars and Stripes.
Used with permission from Stars and Stripes, a DoD publication.
© 2010 Stars and Stripes.

http://defense-archive.teldan.com/Article/Military-Deluged-in-Drone-Intelligence.aspx?&sID=451076


"As the armed forces scurries to deploy more spy drones over Afghanistan, the remote-controlled planes are producing so much video intelligence that analysts are finding it more and more difficult to keep up."

Tom Brown a écrit

http://defense-archive.teldan.com/Article/Military-Deluged-in-Drone-Intelligence.aspx?&sID=451076


"As the armed forces scurries to deploy more spy drones over Afghanistan, the remote-controlled planes are producing so much video intelligence that analysts are finding it more and more difficult to keep up."

Erreur de sujet ?

Je pense aussi. Sachant que j´ai déjà posté un article faisant état d´une volonté d´employer encore plus de drônes en Afghanistan.

MoD to Slash Jet Fighter Orders as it Struggles to Save Aircraft Programme

(Source: The Guardian; issued January 12, 2010)

Defence chiefs are preparing drastic cuts to the number of American [F-35 JSF] stealth aircraft planned for the RAF and the Royal Navy's proposed new carriers, the Guardian has learned.

They will be among the first casualties, with existing squadrons of Harrier and Tornado jets, of a huge shift in military spending being considered by ministers, officials and military advisers.

As they head towards their biggest and most painful shakeup since the Second World War, a consensus has emerged among the top brass that they cannot afford the 140 American Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) they have been seeking.

The JSF, or F35 as it is now called, has been subject to costly delays and the estimated price has soared from £37m each four years ago to more than £62m today.

One compromise would be for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to halve its order from 140 planes to 70.

There is also a growing view that Britain will not be able to afford to build the two large aircraft carriers, already delayed, let alone the planes due to fly from them. "The carriers are under real threat. There will certainly be a big reduction in JSF numbers," a well-placed military source told the Guardian.

"The carriers are about more fast jets. They are very hard to justify," added a defence official, referring to a growing consensus that the RAF already has too many fast jets.

If the order was halved, it would probably be split so that there was a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version for the carriers, and a conventional version based at RAF ground stations.

Among other options being considered are: downsizing the second carrier to a much cheaper platform for helicopters, marine commandos, and unmanned drones; building both carriers but selling one, perhaps to India; and equipping them with cheaper catapult-launched aircraft.

No decisions will be made until after the general election. However, there is a consensus developing in the MoD that Britain simply cannot afford existing plans to build two large carriers in a project which, if the JSF planes are included, would cost an estimated £25bn. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full article, on the Guardian website.

and equipping them with cheaper catapult-launched aircraft.

Rafale ? F-18 ?

Typhoon navalisé ?

En faite ils veulent un PA-CDG avec des Rafales.

Pour en revenir au F-35 (avec une petite vidéo) :

F-35 engages vertical landing propulsion system

A Lockheed Martin F-35 has made more progress in a series of flight tests leading to the programme's first vertical landing.

The company's BF-1 flight-test aircraft on 9 January engaged its short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) propulsion system at 150kt (277km/h) forward air speed while the aircraft was at an altitude of 5,000ft (1,520m).

During a previous flight conducted on 7 January, the aircraft's shaft-driven lift fan, which powers its STOVL mode, had been activated at 180kt.

Flown by lead STOVL test pilot Graham Tomlinson, BF-1 must eventually lower its forward air speed to 0kt and land vertically. The Joint Strike Fighter programme had originally planned to complete this step in mid-2009, but US Marine Corps officials say the event could now take place as late as June.

Achieving a vertical landing is considered an early landmark event for the F-35 test programme. BF-1 is a flight-test aircraft for one of the three variants that Lockheed is building. No flight-test aircraft are currently operational for either the conventional take-off and landing F-35A or the carrier-based F-35C.

A second STOVL flight test aircraft dubbed BF-2 joined BF-1 at the US Navy's Patuxent River naval base in Maryland earlier this month. The new arrival will remain on the ground at the site to receive modifications until at least late January.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=336989&PrinterFriendly=true

Le dépassement de coûts du F-35 fait à présent tiquer l'US Navy, qui calcule que les coûts d'opération du JSF seront plus élevés de 25% que ceux de ses prédécesseurs, les Boeing AV-8B Harrier II et Boeing F/A-18A-D. Ceci tient compte du fait que les JSF pourront faire le même travail que leurs prédécesseurs avec 12% d'heures de vol en moins.

Source : Flight Global

C´est vraiment un appareil merveilleux.

Les coûts se basent sur le rapport JET (JSF Evaluation Team). J'avais lu un article (mais je ne sais plus où, malheureusement) disant que ces coûts pouvaient être sous-estimés (un peu trop basés sur les affirmations de Lockheed, sûrement )

Ils tiennent en comptent les coûts de réparation des ponts d'envol soumis aux quelques centaine de degrés du réacteur du F-35 ?