JSF F-35 Lightning II

Rappel du premier message :

Bonjour à tous,

Le F-35 est l'avenir de beaucoup de forces aériennes, il remplacera les F-16, A-10, Harrier et autres. Je propose que soient postées ici, si vous êtres d'accord, toutes les infos au sujet du F-35. Merci de m'avoir lu.

Article (en anglais) fort intéressant sur l'avion qui comprend un pdf avec les différents armements que pourra emporter le F-35, tant en soutes, que sous les ailes. Furtif, moins furtif...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/apr_07/lightningstrike/index.html

Dans cet autre article, une image montre qu'il serait aussi possible de rajouter de l'armement en bout d'aile, info, intox?

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/arp_02/jsf/index.html

Rafi

Fox-One a écrit:

yakousa a écrit:

et alors?what does it mean?

it mean that, d'ici 20 ou 30 ou plus ans les Us et compagnie auront créer qlq chose de plus poussée et plus développé que le JSF ou F-22, ceux ci seront vraiment bien démodés. c'est seulement à cet instant que tu imagineras un f-35 à meknes ou benslimane.

esperons seulement que d'ici là, nos enfants n'auront pas a discuter de conflit au sahara ou Maroc vs algerie ou vs espagne. jespère seulement que d'ici là tous ca sera des cours d'histoire. et que le Maroc n'aura pas besoin d'armement pour se protèger de ses voisins

fin du HS

on parle du JSF, cette discussion devra être couper-colletr, au dossier suppositions sur achats des FRA

si tu veux pas attendre tu dois produire ton propre chasseur

Fox-One a écrit:

it mean that, d'ici 20 ou 30 ou plus ans les Us et compagnie auront créer qlq chose de plus poussée et plus développé que le JSF ou F-22, ceux ci seront vraiment bien démodés. c'est seulement à cet instant que tu imagineras un f-35 à meknes ou benslimane.

esperons seulement que d'ici là, nos enfants n'auront pas a discuter de conflit au sahara ou Maroc vs algerie ou vs espagne. jespère seulement que d'ici là tous ca sera des cours d'histoire. et que le Maroc n'aura pas besoin d'armement pour se protèger de ses voisins

fin du HS

on parle du JSF, cette discussion devra être couper-colletr, au dossier suppositions sur achats des FRA

amigo bcp de pays ont opter pour le JSF je vois pas ce qui va empecher le maroc à faire pareil à part les problemes financiers et les besoins actuels des FRA

Citation :

Analysis: Reducing F-35 purchase could save UK up to USD5.8bn

By Craig Caffrey
31 October 2008

As the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) struggles to cope with the budgetary pressures of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive equipment modernisation process, major cuts in one or more programmes appear to Jane's to be inevitable.

The global financial crisis and the UK's subsequent response in October (including the multi-billion pound buttressing of the banking system and a commitment to increase public spending to offset recession) has since added to the strain felt by the Treasury. Lingering hopes that extra funding would be made available to supplement the defence budget in the short to medium term appear to have been dashed.

Despite already scaling back programmes such as the UK Royal Navy's (RN's) Type 45 destroyer (which has dropped from an initial requirement of 12 ships to six at present) and the UK Royal Air Force's (RAF's) Nimrod MRA.4 maritime patrol aircraft (the originally envisaged 21-aircraft order has since dropped to 12), further cuts are expected to be announced in order to address the deficit in the defence budget.

Speculation over which projects are most at risk is continuing. Jane's Defence Forecasts believes that one programme that could see drastic cuts is the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) programme through which the RAF and RN intend to acquire the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fighter.

According to the MoD, the UK's current planning assumption is to purchase up to 150 short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

Jane's believes this total is likely to be reduced down to around 85-100 aircraft when the production contract is finalised, creating savings of at least USD4.5 billion (GBP2.7 billion) to USD5.8 billion in acquisition costs alone.

The potential for cutting the programme stems from the fact that JCA is the only high-profile, high-cost project that the MoD could scale back significantly without detrimentally affecting the capabilities of the UK's armed forces in future.

A reduction in the number of F-35s procured to as few as 85 aircraft would allow the RAF to maintain its current fast jet combat aircraft inventory levels while at the same time increasing the capability and flexibility of the force.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdi/jdi081031_1_n.shtml

Le fans du JSF/F35 risquent d'être décus

Citation :

Précision sur la crise du Pentagone, le JSF en point de mire
Autour des débats importants et sensibles sur le sort du Pentagone dans l’administration Obama, on signale de nouvelles informations sur les interventions du Defense Business Board (DBB), déjà signalées sur ce site, et sur des interventions associées au sein du Pentagone. Un article du Boston Globe en date du 10 novembre relaie ces informations.
Les deux points à mettre en évidence dans cet article est que le DBB, lors de ses interventions auprès du secrétaire à la défense, a affirmé que des réductions budgétaires très importantes étaient nécessaires au Pentagone, d’une façon ou d’une autre, – ou même, plus précisément, d’une façon et l’autre, c’est-à-dire en réduisant le budget du Pentagone en général et en réduisant le budget de certains grands programmes, voire en abandonnant certains d’entre eux; cela signifie autant une réduction du volume général du Pentagone qu'une réduction de certaines de ses orientations. («And a few cuts here or there won't do the trick. Taking cuts at the margin won't work this time, nor will pushing things off to later years.») Parmi ces grands programmes que le DBB juge au moins taillable et corvéable à merci à cause de leur catastrophique gestion, d’autres sources mettent en évidence qu’on trouve en tête le F-35/JSF, suivi de près par le programme général de missiles anti-missiles dont fait partie bien sûr le BMDE européen impliquant la Pologne et la Tchéquie («Together these programs constitute a military crisis in their own right»).

Voici quelques extraits de l’article du Globe:

«A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is “not sustainable,” and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs. The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body. It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities.
»Those include rebuilding ground forces battered by multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan and expanding the ranks to wage the war on terrorism. “Business as usual is no longer an option,” according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to the Globe. “The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action.” […]
«Added pressure on the Pentagon budget comes from what the briefing calls “fiscal constraint in a tough economy” that is saddled with rising deficits and growing political support for increased government spending in other areas. “We are all acutely aware there is a financial crisis going on,” said a senior defense official closely involved in the transition process.
»Exacerbating the problem, according to the advisory group, are the rising costs of military personnel, their healthcare, and overhead. The documents estimate that more than half the annual defense budget now goes to “people costs,” including $60 billion a year for the healthcare of service members and retirees. They will almost certainly grow, even with a reduction in US troops in Iraq, given that the Pentagon has said it will increase ground forces by more than 70,000 troops over the next few years.
»That leaves dozens of weapons systems and other equipment under development as prime areas for cost-savings, according to Steven Kosiak, vice president of budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. “The areas most likely to get cut are acquisition and procurement,” Kosiak said. “As long as the administration is committed to increasing troop strength you have to pay those people costs, and there is not a lot of flexibility when it comes to benefits.“»

On reste encore largement dans le vague pour ce qui concerne les intentions de l’administration Obama concernant le Pentagone, sans doute parce que ces intentions restent à être fixées. Mais les avertissements et les pressions viennent de toutes parts pour des réductions importantes du budget et il semble bien, d’après les informations propres au Globe, que les appréciations du DBB aient été encore bien plus fermes que ce qui avait d’abord été rapporté. Dans toutes les hypothèses évoquées, dès lors qu’il est question de réductions budgétaires au Pentagone, les systèmes d’arme sont au premier rang et le JSF est au premier rang d’entre eux.
Ces diverses appréciations renforcent l’interprétation qu’on a donnée avant-hier de la visite de Lockheed Martin en Israël. Il faut notamment mettre en évidence des bruits qui commencent à insister sur la fragilité de Lockheed Martin, selon l’idée habituelle désormais aux USA que les mastodontes industriels et financiers, soumis aux exigences folles d’une rentabilité immédiates et très grande pour leurs actionnaires, se trouve très vite dans des positions délicates par ces temps incertains où des sommes importantes se déplacent très vite. Les déclarations des dirigeants de LM en Israël selon lesquelles LM n’est pas menacé dans le cadre de la programmation actuelle du Pentagone (FY2009 et le plan quinquennal en préparation) impliquent, à l’inverse et de façon beaucoup plus préoccupante bien sûr, que LM est effectivement menacé si ces perspectives sont modifiées par l’administration Obama dans le sens de réductions budgétaires. La place que dans cette architecture délicate tient le programme JSF, dont l'enveloppe budgétaire est énorme (plus de $5 milliards par an), es désormais un élément marquant de la situation de Lockheed martin

http://www.dedefensa.org/article-precision_sur_la_crise_du_pentagone_le_jsf_en_point_de_mire_12_11_2008.html

X-35B:






X-35C:

Est ce possible que 48 F-35 soient presque au même prix que nos 24 vipers?!

Citation :

vendredi 21 novembre 2008

La Norvège choisit le F-35

Finalement et malgré les efforts de Saab, Oslo a penché pour le F-35, Reuters annonçant le choix norvégien. La Norvège achetera donc 48 F-35A pour un montant de 18 milliards de couronnes/2,54 milliards de dollars, soit 6 milliards de couronnes moins cher que le Gripen "spécial Norvège", qui avait en son temps été présenté dans DSI et qui reprenait nombre de caractéristiques du NG.

Le ministère de la défense a également indiqué que les coûts de possession de l'appareil américain sur 30 ans étaient de 20 à 30 milliards de couronnes inférieures à ceux du Gripen. Reste, toutefois, une question : le Gripen est en service, le F-35, non. Dès lors, quelle méthodologie a été employée pour le calcul des coûts de possession ?

http://athena-et-moi.blogspot.com/2008/11/la-norvge-choisit-le-f-35.html

couts de developement et tests non inclus..

Raptor a écrit:

Est ce possible que 48 F-35 soient presque au même prix que nos 24 vipers?!

Citation :

vendredi 21 novembre 2008

La Norvège choisit le F-35

Finalement et malgré les efforts de Saab, Oslo a penché pour le F-35, Reuters annonçant le choix norvégien. La Norvège achetera donc 48 F-35A pour un montant de 18 milliards de couronnes/2,54 milliards de dollars, soit 6 milliards de couronnes moins cher que le Gripen "spécial Norvège", qui avait en son temps été présenté dans DSI et qui reprenait nombre de caractéristiques du NG.

Le ministère de la défense a également indiqué que les coûts de possession de l'appareil américain sur 30 ans étaient de 20 à 30 milliards de couronnes inférieures à ceux du Gripen. Reste, toutefois, une question : le Gripen est en service, le F-35, non. Dès lors, quelle méthodologie a été employée pour le calcul des coûts de possession ?

http://athena-et-moi.blogspot.com/2008/11/la-norvge-choisit-le-f-35.html

C'est pour ca j'avais dit que un achat du F-35 par notre pays est tout a fait possible...

Red Star a écrit:

Raptor a écrit:

Est ce possible que 48 F-35 soient presque au même prix que nos 24 vipers?!

Citation :

vendredi 21 novembre 2008

La Norvège choisit le F-35

Finalement et malgré les efforts de Saab, Oslo a penché pour le F-35, Reuters annonçant le choix norvégien. La Norvège achetera donc 48 F-35A pour un montant de 18 milliards de couronnes/2,54 milliards de dollars, soit 6 milliards de couronnes moins cher que le Gripen "spécial Norvège", qui avait en son temps été présenté dans DSI et qui reprenait nombre de caractéristiques du NG.

Le ministère de la défense a également indiqué que les coûts de possession de l'appareil américain sur 30 ans étaient de 20 à 30 milliards de couronnes inférieures à ceux du Gripen. Reste, toutefois, une question : le Gripen est en service, le F-35, non. Dès lors, quelle méthodologie a été employée pour le calcul des coûts de possession ?

http://athena-et-moi.blogspot.com/2008/11/la-norvge-choisit-le-f-35.html

C'est pour ca j'avais dit que un achat du F-35 par notre pays est tout a fait possible...

si on voit 2,5 milliard dollars pour 48 F35 contre 2,4 milliard de dollars pour 24 F16 la possibilité qu'on achete un F35 est plusque possible mais il ne faut pas oublier que ca reste une décision politique

faut pas dire n´importe quoi

le F-16 coute 50M$ en fly away,le JSF 90 M$ flay ayway,mais sans etre encore complet(les couts augementent tjs et tjs..)

le JSF coute bcp plus en developement (R&D) et servicing sur une longue durée,le viper par contre est connu comme etant effectif et economique.

sur le durée ils pairont tout un prgramme,pas seulement un avion,et ils doivent attendre une date optimiste avancée de 2016,ca veut dire qu´ils s´engagent sur un avion non complet

ils doivent croiser les doigts..

Citation :

DATE:20/11/08
SOURCE:Flight International

Updated: Norway backs JSF selection, rejects Gripen NG

By Craig Hoyle

Norway has rejected Saab’s Gripen NG as a potential replacement for its Lockheed Martin F-16s, with its government recommending that the nation maintain its commitment to a projected $20.5 billion purchase of the US manufacturer’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

na

Pour les européens le JSF c'est l'arnaque du siècle....

On va payé 10 milliards $ pour 116 F-35...

86,20M $ l'unité...

oui c´est ca

yakousa a écrit:

oui c´est ca

C'est le ministre de la défense Turc qui annoncer cette somme, il y aura des retombés économiques sur la Turquie par se projet, certaines pièces seront produites en Turquie, etc...

Le ministre de la défense rend des comptes devant le peuple Anatolien, et le budget pour l'achat de 116 F-35 pour 10 milliards $ a était voté au TBMM...

Donc sa sera 116 F-35 pour 10 milliards $, les négociations avec les Américains ont prit fin, et les signatures ont étaient signer...

C'est la periode des soldes sur le marché des armes Reste juste à connaître exactement les prix

Citation :

D'Oslo à Washington, une quête exaltante : à la recherche du prix du JSF
26/11/2008
Le 20 novembre, la Norvège, ou bien s’agit-il du seul ministère de la défense, ou bien de la ministre seulement, – bref, on verra, – bref, on annonçait quelque part à Oslo, quelque chose qui ressemblerait au choix norvégien du JSF pour l’équipement futur de la force aérienne norvégienne. (Le JSF y était, – ou y est encore? – en concurrence avec le chasseur suédois Gripen.) La chose, la “décision” tombait bien, comme le rachat d’une partie de Lehman Brothers par Golden Sachs en pleine crise de septembre 2008, notamment pour relever le moral des troupes du JSF. Cela tombait aussi par surprise, comme le relevait Defense News le 21 novembre: «Norway's decision to reveal the choice of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter as its multi-role fighter on Nov. 20, a month ahead of the planned Dec. 19 announcement, took Saab and the Swedish government by surprise.»
Pourquoi si vite, pourquoi tant de hâte? Est-ce la découverte que le JSF est vraiment, magnifiquement en solde pour l’instant, et qu’il ne faut pas rater l’affaire? Il s’avère qu’effectivement le JSF aurait été offert à un prix défiant toute concurrence, selon l’une ou l’autre source au ministère; que la ministre elle-même déclinait de nous en informer précisément; que, le même jour, quelque expert norvégien fort surpris remâchait sa rancœur.

«The [Norwegian] minister declined to reveal what “flyaway” price was agreed between Lockheed and Norway for the JSF, or comment on how much cheaper that was than the Gripen NG.
»Estimates vary, said one source at Norway's MoD. “The basic unit price for the JSF was considered to be lower than the basic price for the Gripen. Norway will pay about $2.5 billion for 48 aircraft or $52 million per unit. This is the no frills price,” the source said. […]
»The political debate surrounding the government's decision is unlikely to end with the announcement, said one analyst. “My opinion is that the Joint Strike Fighter will be too expensive to produce, and that the aircraft is developed for the challenges of the 1980s in Europe. I doubt that the U.S. Congress will ever approve the project. In addition, the current financial situation could make the production of this expensive aircraft impossible,” said Jon Bingen, defense analyst with the Norwegian Institute of Strategic Studies in Oslo.»

Puis, hier 25 novembre, le quotidien d’Oslo Dagbladet publie une enquête de l’un de ses reporteurs, Kristoffer Egeberg. L’affaire est naturellement exposée en langue norvégienne, et il nous faut éventuellement un certain délai pour enquêter sur l’enquête; mais nous devrions y revenir. Il semble bien que le cas soit notamment l’affirmation, selon des experts norvégiens indépendants extérieurs au ministère de la défense et ayant servi comme conseillers dans l’examen du marché, que les propositions des deux concurrents conduisent à chiffrer le JSF à $177 millions par exemplaire, contre $71 millions pour le Gripen. La différence, pour le prix du JSF, entre $52 millions et $177 millions, est notable; notable aussi, la différence entre les prix du JSF et du Gripen.
Cela nous permet d’introduire quelques précisions assez peu ordinaires sur cet oiseau rarissime, – le prix réel du JSF, – au travers de quelques extraits d’un article d’Aviation Week & Space Technology publié le 24 novembre (accès payant sur le site de l’hebdomadaire). L’article rapporte notamment un épisode de la bataille que se livrent le F-22 et le F-35 (alias JSF), un des épisodes épiques à la vilaine tournure en cours dans le désordre du Pentagone, notamment autour de l’audition de John Young, adjoint au secrétaire à la défense pour l’acquisition, devant la sous-commission des forces aériennes et terrestres de la commission des forces armées de la Chambre, le 19 novembre. Young y défend la décision du secrétaire à la défense de ne dépenser que $50 millions pour des pièces supplémentaires du F-22, alors que le Congrès avait autorisé $140 millions; ce pinaillage autour de quelques misérables dizaines de $millions recouvre un vaste enjeu, puisque c’est celui de laisser ou pas la chaîne de production du F-22 ouverte suffisamment à temps pour que l’administration Obama puisse éventuellement décider la poursuite de cette production (ce que Young, Gates & compagnie ne veulent pas). On y constate que l’oiseau rarissime, “le prix du JSF”, est, au long de l'article, l’objet d’un débat parallèle particulièrement confus et révélateur, qui laisse de toutes les façons loin derrière le prix de $52 millions l’exemplaire plus ou moins (qui le sait?) annoncé par le ministère norvégien de la défense.

Young «insists that spending $50 million instead of the full $140 million will save taxpayers $90 million if the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama decides not to buy any more Raptors. Critics say the shutdown and restarting of production would cost more and could result in the Air Force’s winding up short of both F-22s and F-35s if the later program is pummeled by funding cuts fueled by a damaged world economy.
»“The next F-22 will cost $153 million under the congressional language, and the next F-35 will cost $203 million,” says a congressional analyst. The projected then-year, total program unit cost for F-35As of $96.8 million “is just as misleading as when the cost projections were made for the F-22 when it was a 750-aircraft program. [Lawmakers] need to know that the best numbers available, not John’s counter-intuitive projections, show a cost of up to $500 million more for what the Pentagon [civilians are] doing if the program proceeds. [Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon] England is betting it won’t and ensuring that it won’t,” since the additional cost will prejudice the Obama administration against restarting production. […]
»In turn, Capitol Hill is showing its opposition to the throttling of Air Force dissent, by giving its own comparison of F-22 and F-35 unit procurement costs that show the most expensive F-35—which Pentagon civilian leaders want to accelerate—will cost a lot more, at least until after 2010, than the most expensive F-22.
»The price list used by lawmakers (with numbers coming from the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office) show F-22s in the Fiscal 2009 budget costing $143 million each. In 2010, the cost of 20 Raptors would be $153 million each (under the existing Air Force program) or $163 million (under the Young plan if the Obama administration makes a decision by Jan. 21) or $170-178 million (if the decision is delayed until Mar. 1).
»In comparison, 16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35As will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million each, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.»
Mis en ligne le 26 novembre 2008 à 18h29

http://www.dedefensa.org/article-d_oslo_a_washington_une_quete_exaltante_a_la_recherche_du_prix_du_jsf_26_11_2008.html

La dernière brochure du P&W F135:

Citation :

JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised

The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22 - and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition. APA's updated surveys of modern Russian radars - which are most likely to form the basis of the threat systems that it would encounter from the late 2010s onwards - have set the scene for this analysis.

The report is unprecedented because it's the first "civilian" use of radar scattering models to take a first-order look at an aircraft's RCS. It was the development of computer-based RCS models that opened the way to the development of stealth in the 1970s: the theory of scattering was well known but was too hard to apply to a 3-D shape without those tools.

The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.

The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad.

The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM). On the other hand, the doctrine laid down by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials.

On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.

The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A5319e403-6655-4008-ba4d-dbc3975384af

Un de ces jours, on va voir sur Jane's: "Nood 3la slamtek questions raised"

un article complet sur la technologie F-35:

Citation :

Autonomic Logistics (AL)
Because logistics support accounts for two-thirds of an aircraft's life cycle cost, the F-35 will achieve unprecedented levels of reliability and maintainability, combined with a highly responsive support and training system linked with the latest in information technology. The aircraft will be ready to fight anytime and anyplace. Autonomic Logistics (AL) is a seamless, embedded solution that integrates current performance, operational parameters, current configuration, scheduled upgrades and maintenance, component history, predictive diagnostics (prognostics) and health management, and service support for the F-35. Essentially, AL does invaluable and efficient behind-the-scenes monitoring, maintenance and prognostics to support the aircraft and ensure its continued good health.

Commonality
Commonality is the key to affordability – on the assembly line; in shared-wing platforms; in common systems that enhance maintenance, field support and service interoperability; and in almost 100 percent commonality of the avionics suite. Component commonality across all three variants reduces unique spares requirements and the logistics footprint. In addition to reduced flyaway costs, the F-35 is designed to affordably integrate new technology during its entire life cycle.


Distributed Aperture System
In a joint effort with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems will provide key electronic sensors for the F-35, which includes spearheading the work on the Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS). This system will provide pilots with a unique protective sphere around the aircraft for enhanced situational awareness, missile warning, aircraft warning, day/night pilot vision, and fire control capability.


Diverterless Inlet
The F-35's diverterless inlet lightens the overall weight of the aircraft. Traditional aircraft inlets were comprised of many moving parts and are much heavier than newer diverterless inlets. The diverterless inlet also eliminates all moving parts.


Electro-Optical Targeting System
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems are jointly providing key electronic sensors for the F-35 to include the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). The internally mounted EOTS will provide extended range detection and precision targeting against ground targets, plus long range detection of air-to-air threats.


Helmet Mounted Display System
Vision Systems International, LLC (VSI) is developing the most advanced and capable Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) for the F-35. Utilizing extensive design experience gained on successful production Helmet Mounted Displays (HMD), the F-35 HMDS will replace the traditional Head-Up-Display (HUD) while offering true sensor fusion.


Integrated Communications, Navigation and Identification Avionics
Northrop Grumman Space Technology's integrated avionics satisfy the requirements for greatly increased functionalities within extreme space and weight limitations via modular hardware that could be dynamically programmed to reconfigure for multiple functions. This "smart"-box approach delivers increased performance, quicker deployment, higher availability, enhanced scalability and lower life cycle costs.

Interoperability
The F-35 will have the most robust communications suite of any fighter aircraft built to date. The F-35 will be the first fighter to possess a satellite communications capability that integrates beyond line of sight communications throughout the spectrum of missions it is tasked to perform. The F-35 will contain the most modern tactical datalinks which will provide the sharing of data among its flight members as well as other airborne, surface and ground-based platforms required to perform assigned missions. The commitment of JSF partner nations to common communications capabilities and web-enabled logistics support will enable a new level of coalition interoperability. These capabilities allow the F-35 to lead the defense community in the migration to the net-centric warfighting force of the future.

Low Observability
An integrated airframe design, advanced materials and an axisymmetric nozzle maximize the F-35's stealth features.

Multi-Function Display System
Rockwell Collins's 8"x20" Multi-Function Display System (MFDS) will be the panoramic projection display for the F-35. MFDS employs leading edge technology in projection engine architecture, video, compression, illumination module controls and processing memory – all of which will make the MFDS the most advanced tactical display. One-gigabyte-per-second data interfaces will enable the MFDS to display six full motion images simultaneously. The adaptable layout will be easily reconfigurable for different missions or mission segments. Projection display technology will provide a high-luminance, high-contrast, and high-resolution picture with no viewing angle effect.

Multi-Mission Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems is developing the Multi-Mission Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar for the F-35. This advanced multi-function radar has gone through extensive flight demonstrations during the Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP). The radar will enable the F-35 JSF pilot to effectively engage air and ground targets at long range, while also providing outstanding situational awareness for enhanced survivability.

Propulsion
The F-35 Propulsion Systems are the most powerful fighter/attack turbofans in the world. There are two manufacturers with propulsion systems currently being tested. The propulsion systems are interchangeable and both will power the F-35. There are two major engine variants for the F-35. One engine will power the CTOL and CV versions of the aircraft, while the other will power the STOVL version. The F135 engine is made by Pratt & Whitney, the F136 by a team, known as the Fighter Engine Team comprised of General Electric and Rolls-Royce. Both the F135 and the F136 STOVL engines will utilize common exhaust and Lift System systems.

F135
The Pratt & Whitney F135 family of advanced propulsion systems utilize cutting edge technology to provide the F-35 with higher performance than conventional fighter aircraft. The engine consists of a 3-stage fan, a 6-stage compressor, an annular combustor, a single stage high-pressure turbine, and a 2 stage low-pressure turbine.

The F135 is currently in the SDD phase. The F135 is using the lessons learned from the F119 engine core and the JSF119 during the CDA stage to reduce risk in SDD. During SDD the F135 test engines will undergo a range of ground and flight tests to simulate various mission profiles. In these tests the system demonstration engines will be run for hours throughout various flight envelopes to ensure they meet performance requirements. One of the vital milestone tests occured at the end of 2003 with the first F135 engine to test.

The first CTOL F135 engine test occurred on 11 October 2003. The first STOVL F135 engine test occurred on 14 April 2004. To date over 2,000 hours have been accumulated on the F135 test engines.

F136
The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team (FET) F136 engine is currently in the Pre-SDD phase. The objective of the F136 Pre-SDD phase is to reduce risk prior to entering SDD. The FET is utilizing technology developed from previous aircraft engine programs to design this engine. The F136 engine consists of a 3-stage fan, 5-stage compressor, a 3-stage low-pressure turbine section and a single stage high-pressure turbine.

The F136 team will transition into the SDD phase of their program later in 2005. The F135 and F136 teams are working closely to develop common propulsion system components.


The first CTOL F136 engine to test occurred on 22 July 2004. The first STOVL F136 engine to test occurred on 10 February 2005. To date, the F136 team has accumulated over 130 hours of engine tests.

Rolls-Royce Lift System
While Rolls-Royce is a member of the Fighter Engine Team with GE on the F136, they are also subcontracted to Pratt & Whitney on the F135 to provide the Lift System for the F-35. The Lift System is comprised of the Lift Fan, Clutch, Drive Shaft, Roll Posts and the Three Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM).

Shaft Driven Lift Fan (SDLF)
Lockheed Martin developed the idea for a Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) lift system that uses a vertically oriented Shaft Driven Lift Fan (SDLF). A two-stage low-pressure turbine on the engine provides the horsepower necessary to power the Rolls-Royce designed Lift Fan. The Lift Fan generates a column of cool air that provides nearly 20,000 pounds of lifting power using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow, along with an equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft. The Lift Fan utilizes a clutch that engages the shaft drive system for STOVL operations. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced by about 200 degrees compared to traditional STOVL systems.

The SDLF concept was successfully demonstrated through a Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) in 1995-96 and during the flight-testing of the X-35B during the summer of 2001. The Lift Fan, a patented Lockheed Martin concept, was developed and produced by Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, Indiana and in Bristol, England.

Robust Structure
Continuous tailhook-to-nose-gear structure and catapult-compatible nose gear launch system are strengthened for catapult and arresting loads.

Sophisticated Cockpit
The F-35 provides its pilot with unsurpassed situational awareness, positive target identification and precision strike under any weather condition. Mission systems integration and outstanding over-the-nose visibility features are designed to dramatically enhance pilot performance.


Weapons Integration
The F-35 will employ a variety of US and allied weapons. From JDAMs to Sidewinders to the UK Storm Shadow, the F-35 has been designed to carry either internally or externally a large array of weapons.

www.jsf.mil

derivé du Sniper