LA SOLUTION? LE F-35!

Un poil biase, mais c'est tellement bon:
Ici

He bien ça me fait doucement rigoler quand certains disent qu'a coter le Rafale n'est pas du tout compétitif...

Citation :

F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter)
Program costs increased by $23,365.2 million (+8.5 percent) from $276,458.9 million to $299,824.1 million, due primarily to a decrease in the annual procurement quantities and a stretch-out of the production buy schedule from fiscal year 2027 to fiscal year 2034 (+$11,207.8 million), revised estimate for airframe materials due to commodity market increases (+$5,472.8 million), increase due to revised assumptions based on contractor LRIP I proposals and methodology (+$8,307.1 million), and support increase due to aircraft configuration update, revised procurement profile, and methodology changes (+$6,423.2 million). These increases were partially offset by revised assumptions for prime and subcontractor labor rates (-$3,576.3 million) and revised assumptions for subcontractor costs (-$5,201.4 million).

ca vaut combien un rafale au dernier standard tout equipé?

En 2000, c'était 370 millions de francs pièce mais vu le retard cela à du augmenter

moi je le trouve pas beau le F35
trops carré le rafale est plus jolie
même si c'est pas ce qu'on leur demande

du neuf ca date du premier mai
desole je ne suis pas traducteur: mais j'ai cru comprendre que le version a decollage court est compromise
US Navy debates


Despite public support by Pentagon and U.S. Navy leaders for the short-take-off/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), debates about the planned acquisition and o peration of the F-35B continue behind the scenes — worrying Marine Corps officials and potential foreign customers who are counting on the versatile aircraft.

Navy officials have set no public deadline to settle JSF procurement plans, but a current Navy briefing document provides a rare window on the debate. It argues that the STOVL version should not fly as part of a carrier air wing.

The JSF program is slated to produce three variants: the F-35A, a conventional takeoff version; the F-35C, strengthened for carrier takeoffs and landings, and the F-35B, fitted with a liftfan that allows it to perform the crucial Marine missions of operating from amphibious ships and primitive bases in forward areas.

The plane’s biggest customers — the Navy and U.S. Air Force — are more enthusiastic about the higher-performance F-35A and C versions. But the five-year-old practice of including a Marine fighter squadron with most carrier air wings means putting the F-35B, with its slightly different shape and maintenance requirements, aboard the carriers.

In the briefing document, Navy tactical-aviation planners argue that the Marines should drop the F-35B in favor of the F-35C, at least for carrier-based units. They cite the differing operating characteristics of the STOVL aircraft and note the C’s superiority in range and weapons load.

“STOVL sub-optimizes CVW [carrier air wing] operations and capabilities,” Navy planners assert in the document, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News. “STOVL, while capable of CVN operations, should not be integrated into the CVW as part of a standard construct.”

Shopping Plans

Officials in the Navy Department, which includes the Navy and Marine Corps, are trying to decide how many of each variant to buy. The Navy plans to buy a total of 680: 360 F-35Cs and 320 F-35Bs, although the Marines have a requirement for 420 JSFs.

Early-production F-35As are already five months into flight tests, while the first F-35B is scheduled to take to the air in 2008, and the F-35C in 2009.

In the document, Navy planners say the STOVL aircraft will have “thermal, pressure and acoustic effects more dramatic than models predict” and refer to issues certifying Marine V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for shipboard operations. Flight deck movement will be restricted by blast from the aircraft, the planners wrote, and launching and recovering each STOVL F-35 will add two minutes to the carrier’s flight cycles.

Marine planners are digging in against these assertions, claiming built-in biases by Navy aviators against STOVL operations. They also say the briefing misuses and mischaracterizes numerous facts.

In the briefing, the Navy aviation planners list more than a dozen ways the F-35B short-takeoff-and-landing version will “sub-optimize” aircraft-carrier operations. Among other things, they say the F-35B will:

• Offer poorer capability and sustainability at a higher price than the carrier-optimized F-35C. The Marines say the STOVL aircraft outperforms the C model in all kinds of missions except carrier-based ones.

• Reduce flexibility in carrier-deck operations. Marines: That won’t be known until flight tests begin.

• Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That advantage will be reduced by the F-35C’s heavier weight, by the -B’s ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL version doesn’t need to carry backup fuel in case it can’t trap aboard a carrier.

• Not carry a 2,000-pound bomb in its internal bomb bay. Marines: The F-35B can carry one externally, and weapon is needed for only 15 percent of missions anyway.

• Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy radar. Marines: That could be remedied with the under-development Small Diameter Bomb.

• Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy ships. Marines: It carriers the Joint Stand-Off Weapon externally.

The use of Marine fighter squadrons in Navy carrier wings is mandated under the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration plan, approved in 2004. By including Marine strike fighters in regular carrier deployment, each service was able to reduce the number of squadrons and aircraft. The TacAir plan allowed planners to cut the total procurement of F-35s and F/A-18 Super Hornets by nearly 500 aircraft, saving — according to the Navy in 2004 — about $35 billion.

The Marines, committed to an “all-STOVL force,” intend to replace the current crop of AV-8B Harrier jumpjets and F/A-18 Hornets with the F-35B. Replacement of the Harrier with the JSF is not at issue. Rather, the problem facing Navy planners is how to manage the STOVL F-35Bs in a wing otherwise composed of F-35Cs, F/A-18E and -F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy is committed throughout its aviation community to “necking down” the number of different types of aircraft to a handful of basic models. Last year, the strike fighter community finished their switch from the F-14 Tomcat to an all-F/A-18 force. Several observers note that introducing the F-35 into the -18 mix could strike Navy planners as counter-productive, and figuring how to use yet another version of the F-35 would only compound perceived problems.

That notion struck one aviation analyst as silly.

“I’ve never seen any definitive analysis that says a STOVL aircraft can’t be successfully integrated into a carrier wing,” he said. “I think what you have is this sort of culture in the Navy that says we just don’t do it that way. I’m not convinced [STOVL aircraft] can’t work with air wings.”

At the other end of the cultural debate, the Marines argue they didn’t join up to fly from carriers.

“The surface story of blue and green working together is great,” said Dakota Wood, a former Marine officer who is now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “But the reality is that [in a carrier wing] you’re on Navy time, and the Marine Corps ground commander is saying, where is my tac air?”

The comparisons of the two JSF versions also struck Wood as “an unfair comparison. Each version has been optimized for the environment in which it’s to be employed.”

“The legitimate argument,” he said, “is how you’re going to use the airplane.”

Ships Riding on JSF

And while the Navy and Marine Corps continue their debate over the JSF, at least two members of the 11-nation JSF partnership have a far deeper interest in the survival of the STOVL plane.

Britain is making an enormous investment — $7.7 billion in ship construction costs alone — in building two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft carriers intended to operate the F-35B. Later this year, Italy expects to commission the 27,000-metric-ton carrier Cavour, specifically intended to operate JSFs as a replacement for its aging carrier-capable AV-8B Harriers.

The planned 131-aircraft Italian JSF order — 22 STOVLs and 109 conventional aircraft for the Air Force — is strictly linked to the need to replace the Harriers, Italian Defense Undersecretary Lorenzo Forcieri said Jan. 16.

The British are even more dependent on the F-35B, as they have chosen to build their two carriers without the steam catapults planned for the French Navy’s similar PA2 ship.

Evidence of British concern for the health of the F-35B program was published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) April 27. MoD said it “remained fully committed to the carrier program” but added, “The department continues to closely monitor the U.S. STOVL requirements and the performance of the STOVL variant.”

With no other STOVL strike fighter in development, loss of the F-35B would mean British planners could choose to install catapults — early design work on the ships accounted for this possibility — and decide between the French Rafale, F/A-18 or another competitor.

British support for the F-35B is seen by many observers as a key element in the survival of the variant in last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Although the QDR was completed over a year ago, the British carrier program remains a major ingredient in the STOVL program.

A British government official said Pentagon officials “periodically seek updates from the British government on the status of the carrier program — a move that some have suggested has less to do with Britain’s interest in building the ships than whether London is wavering on the raison d’être for the JSF STOVL program.”

Debate Goes On

Inside the Pentagon, Navy and Marine Corps planners continue to debate the issue, which soon could move to Capitol Hill. Sources close to service leaders Adm. Mike Mullen of the Navy and Gen. James Conway of the Marine Corps say both officers are seeking to avoid public disagreement on the JSF program and other issues and are working to find common ground.

“This is a 20-year discussion,” said an industry analyst. “It’s not going to be over just because the Navy did a briefing.” •

Staff writers Andrew Chuter, Tom Kington, Vago Muradian, Brad Peniston and Gayle Putrich contributed to this report.

En gros le programme F 35 B ne vaut rien opérationnellement.

Il n'est maintenu pour l'instant qu'à cause des britanniques et du programme CVF....

Bonsoir à Tous

Tout à fait d'accord, Amiral !!!
Mais il ne faut pas aussi oublier les relations toujours délicates entre Marine et US NAvy.
Petite anecdote:
Il y a quelques années, le Congrès et le Sénat US s'étaient interessés à l'interopérabilité des systèmes des MArines de la Navy a bords des bâtiements amphibies. Un général des Marines avait répondu qu'il n'y avait aucuin problème, dès lors que les prises électriques pour brancher leurs systèmes à bord étaient conformes.
Cette coordination pose parfois de délicats problèmes, comme par exemple ce Harrier des Marines qui s'était pris dans les câbles anti-mines d'un hélico de la Navy.

On assiste probabvlement là à un nouvel avatar de la lute entre ces deux armées, chacun défendant son beefsteack, la Navy tentant probablement d'imposer un unique type d'aéronef, et de réduire les possibilités des Marines dans le combat aéro-terrestre.

A+

Le texte de US Navy Debates me confirme ce que je subodorais depuis les vols d'essai du F-35B. Je pense qu'il ne se fera pas, car il ne correspond pas à un besoin de l'US Navy:

- tous leurs PA présents et futurs sont conçus pour des appareils catapultés
- comment assurer les autres missions (anti sous-marines, AWACS ?)
- le système adopté (fan avant avec arbre de transmission) est probablement beaucoup trop fragile sur le moyen terme (maintenance), sans parler de son poids.
- depuis quand a-t-on vu un programme dont le coût final ne s'envole pas ? (sans catapulte ni tremplin)
- le budget US est sévèrement plombé par la "balade" en Irak et il va falloir faire des coupes sombres. Regardez avec quelle lenteur le F-22 entre en escadre.

Hypothèse sombre : abandon du F-35B (tant pis pour les alliés, ce ne sera pas la première fois) => La Royal Navy se retrouve coincée avec ses porte-avions à tremplin => Ceci s'ajoute aux problèmes budgétaires => Abandon des CVF => la France se retrouve seule (avec ses propres problèmes budgétaires) => abandon du PA2...

On prend les paris ?

Les anglais n'abandonneront pas le CVF, ils en ont besoin si ils veulent rester une marine puissante. Au pire si le F35B ne se fait pas, il se reporterons sur la version catapultable ou revons un peu acheterons des Rafale

bgire a écrit:

Regardez avec quelle lenteur le F-22 entre en escadre.

Hmmm si le Rafale entrait si "lentement" en service, on en aurait deja plein

ben j'ai lut partout que le rafale est le meilleur oiseaux au monde et que meme Dassault disait que s'il ne serat pas Europeen, il serat mondial

et ont en a toujours pas fourgue 1??

faut le propose au chinois il le mettront sur le Variag:lol!:

Je vois mal les Britanniques acheter des Rafale : cela reviendrait à torpiller l'Eurofighter.
Une version navalisée de l'Eurofighter ? J'en doute, au vu des coûts d'adaptation (renforcement de la structure entre autre).
Je suis très pessimiste sur l'avenir du CVF. Bien sûr, les Anglais en ont besoin, c'est une évidence. Mais il y a les finances et la Grande-Bretagne se pose de grandes questions en ce moment. Un éventuel passage du F-35B au F-35A va encore charger la barque avec un redesign du navire, de la maintenance, etc... Quand on voit comment leur plan de construction de frégates se réduit comme peau de chagrin, on peut avoir des doutes vis-à-vis d'un gros morceau comme le CVF.

On verra le 27 juin...

Dans tous ça ce que je retiens, c'est que si le F35B est out, les britanniques n'ont pas d'autres choix que de se rabattre sur le F35A ou le rafale et donc de modifier leur CVF. Dans tous les cas, vivent les surcouts !

Les britanniques choient plus leur marine que les Français et ont une vraie culture maritime ; aussi je pense qu'ils maintiendraient le programme CVF.

En revanche, pour le choix de l'avion, je pense qu'ils prendraient des F35A. Ils ont participé au developpement du projet et se retirer sans même toucher un avion ce serait politiquement très impopulaire.
J'espère bien évidemment qu'on leur refourgue des rafales...mais je n'y crois pas !

Salut
Euh .... le F-35A c'est pour l'air force, la version embarqué , c'est la C......

Differences des Lightning II:


F-35 A:


F-35 B:


F-35 C:



POUR NE PLUS SE TROMPER

Salu
Mauvaise passe ou fin pour le F-35 ??????

Citation :

WASHINGTON --- On June 20, 2007, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments hosted a press briefing on U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans.

Under current plans, the US military will spend over $300 billion on fighter modernization over the next several decades, primarily for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. This is far more than is projected to be spent on any other major acquisition program.

At the briefing, Barry Watts and Steven Kosiak, the authors of CSBA’s new report, US Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices, discussed military requirements for US airpower (considering the F-35 program in the context of broader requirements for fixed-wing airpower) and the affordability of existing plans.

The authors also explored a series of options for the F-35 program that reasonably bound the debate over restructuring the program-- given current political, strategic and operational realities.

In the report they conclude that the F-35 program should not be cancelled, but does need to be substantially restructured, and that senior Pentagon officials need to reach a decision on how to restructure the program sooner rather than later.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (excerpt):

Presently, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the largest programmatic element in the Pentagon’s plans for modernizing US air power.

At $242 billion (fiscal year 2008 dollars) for 2,443 aircraft, the F-35 program, if executed as currently constituted, would be the most costly single aircraft program in DoD history. As such, the focus of this report is on the need for and affordability of the three JSF variants now planned:

1. a conventional take-off landing (CTOL) variant (the F-35A) for the Air Force;
2. a short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) variant (F-35B) for the Marine Corps; and
3. the F-35C carrier variant (CV) for the Navy’s aircraft carriers.

From the standpoint of military necessity, a major concern is that DoD’s current air power modernization plans may be unbalanced in favor of fighters, vice longer-range strike aircraft. In future wars, US aircraft may have to operate at far greater distances than they have in the recent past. In particular, US air forces operating in Asia and the Pacific might well have to travel several times farther than US air forces typically had to during the Cold War. There also appears to be a growing need for aircraft that can loiter over the battlefield long enough to find emerging, fleeting or otherwise time-sensitive targets.

In recognition of the importance of these evolving requirements, the 2005-2006 Quadrennial Defense Review directed the US Air Force to field an air-breathing follow-on to the B-2 by 2018. But it is unclear how committed the Air Force is to this program, and there is reason to worry that the JSF’s funding requirements will crowd out future investment in long-range strike capabilities.

Questions about the high cost and affordability of the JSF program are also a major concern. Table A shows CSBA’s estimates of the unit procurement costs of the three F-35 variants compared to older fighters and attack aircraft, as well as to newer models of the Air Force’s F-16 (the Block-60 produced for the United Arab Emirates) and the Navy’s F/A-18 (the E/F variant now in production for the Navy). These estimates omit research and development (R&D) costs.

Two points emerge from Table A. First, the F-35 variants will cost far more to procure than the older tactical aircraft they have been projected at various times to replace. Second, the last two entries—for the Block-60 F-16 and F/A-18E/F—raise the possibility of saving money by buying newer models of current fighters in lieu of JSFs.

This report explores four alternative options for restructuring the JSF program, including:

-- Option 1: Cancel the JSF entirely and procure 2,443 Block-60 F-16s and F/A-18E/Fs instead;

-- Option 2: Cut the planned Air Force buy of 1,763 F-35As in half and substitute Block-60 F-16s for the forgone JSFs;

-- Option 3: Cancel the F-35C carrier variant and buy F/A-18E/Fs instead; and

-- Option 4: Buy F/A-18E/Fs instead of F-35Cs and substitute Block-60 F-16s for half of the Air Force’s F-35As.


Click here to download the report (66 pages in PDF format) from the CSBA websi

Tradcution.......adieu le F 35 et les anglais vont nous acheter le Rafale.....

SAlut
OU adieu le F-35...........et les CVF/PA2...........

Citation :

SAlut
OU adieu le F-35...........et les CVF/PA2...........

En effet, il faut se rendre à l'évidence : c'est trop cher pour nos économies déficitaires. Même notre président est en train de rejoindre son ex rivale à ce sujet...

je remarque qu'ils parlent de d'annuler les F35 A et C mais qu'ils ne parlent meme plus de la version VTOL... (et ça m'etonnerait que les rosbifs veuillent payer seuls le programme, ce qui mettrait l'appareil à 1-1.5M$ piece )

je remarque aussi qu'il est fait mention des F16 block 60 et des FA18E/F, mais pas d'un F15 F et rien sur le successeur du harrier du marine corps (dans les annees 80 il y avait eu des projets concernant une version supersonique de l'AV8)

Les Marines repartent sur les PA en tant que 4ieme squadron d'assaut de F18 ... donc retour des Marines avec des appareils traditionnels sur les pont de porte-avions

Donc pas de soucis !! de ce point de vue là
Le F35B STOL serait juste devellope pour les Anglais et les 2 ou 3 autres petites nations ?? j'ai un doute .. donc a mon avis les idees de reprendre des F16 nouveau bloc et des F18E/F serait a mon avis la solution la moins chere pour eux ...
Y a eu aussi a un moment un soucis avec le A12 avenger II , ou les cout de programme avaient explosé.. d'ou Grumman avait propose le A-6G... mais bon depuis lors ,le A-6 avait été mis à l'epreuve contre le F/A-18 ... donc c'est des appareils certes ancien, mais dont les cout de fabrication sont quand même vachement plus bas que ce que le F35 couterait:lol!:

une fois le f35 en service quel seront les avions que l'on trouvera sur les pa us , je pensais qu'il les remplaceraient tous a part le e2d ?

Les F35C vont remplacer essentiellement les Hornet dans les missions d'attaque tandis que les Super Hornet vont plus ou moins reprendre les missions des Tomcat à savoir la défense aérienne de la flotte.