messages : 9496 Inscrit le : 23/09/2007 Localisation : le monde Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: JSF F-35 Lightning II Mer 17 Oct 2007 - 17:25
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...
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Mer 6 Jan 2021 - 14:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUDF6ICE0s a écrit:
Un pilote F35 de l'USAF,explique pourquoi le F35 est si critiqué , mais qu'a moyen terme ce sera ce qui se fait de mieux en terme d'aviation
_________________ Le courage croît en osant et la peur en hésitant.
jf16 General de Division
messages : 41683 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Jeu 14 Jan 2021 - 20:18
Citation :
14/01/2021
Le F-35 oscille toujours entre défaillances et améliorations !
Le bureau des évaluations du Pentagone tire à nouveau à « boulets rouges » sur le programme. F-35. Si ce rapport devait rester confidentiel, le groupe Bloomberg News vient d’en révéler le fond. Selon les informations disponibles, le rapport dénonce le grand nombre de déficiences, encore présentes au sin du programme.
871 déficiences logicielles et matérielles :
Ce nouveau rapport revient une fois encore sur les nombreux 2bugs » qui animent le programme F-35. Au total, on identifie toujours 871 déficiences logicielles et matérielles qui pourraient compromettre les missions ou la maintenance de l’avion. Rappelons qu’en 2018 le Bureau du pentagone avait identifiés 941 failles.
Rectifications à la peine :
Pour autant l’avionneur Lockheed Martin travaille à la résolution des nombreux problèmes. Mais force est de constater que ceux-ci sont tenaces. Le programme F-35 fait l’objet d’une mise à niveau du « Bloc 4 » d’un coût d’au moins 12,1 milliards de dollars visant à corriger les lacunes du passé et à introduire de nouvelles capacités par incrémentation de six mois jusqu’en 2026 pour faire face aux menaces actuelles. Le plan comprend la modernisation de certains avions déjà construits et utilisés aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni et au Japon.
Mais le rapport dénonce le fait que le nombre global de lacunes ouvertes n'a pas changé de manière significative depuis début 2018, et ceci en raison de problèmes continus avec la qualité initiale du logiciel dans le Bloc 4 et des capacités de test en laboratoire et en vol limités, résultant en un taux élevé de découvertes de problèmes lors des tests et sur le terrain.
Pour Robert Behler, directeur des tests et évaluation pour le Pentagone, « le processus du Bloc 4 ne fonctionne pas», « Cela entraîne des retards importants dans les calendriers planifiés et entraîne une mauvaise qualité des logiciels, contenant des lacunes.» Les modifications logicielles « destinées à introduire de nouvelles fonctionnalités ou à corriger des lacunes ont souvent introduit des problèmes de stabilité ».
Robert Behler ajoute que seulement 10 des 871 lacunes non résolues citées impliquent des problèmes de « catégorie 1 » potentiellement graves, définis comme des lacunes critiques qui pourraient compromettre la sécurité du pilote ou de l'aéronef ou dégrader l'efficacité de la mission. C’est à comparer avec 102 problèmes graves parmi les 941 cas cités en 2018. Il y donc une certaine amélioration, au sein du programme, mais celles-ci sont insuffisantes et de l’autre les déficiences secondaires sont encore trop présentes.
20 ans déjà :
Le programme F-35 fêtera cette année ses 20 ans depuis que ce dernier a été sélectionné. Or pour R. Behler, le programme souvent encore trop de maladies de jeunesses. En plus des défauts techniques, le programme F-35 fait face à un déficit de 10 milliards de dollars dans le budget prévu du Pentagone pour 2021 à 2025. Le plan budgétaire final de l'administration Trump appelle à demander 78 milliards de dollars pour la recherche et le développement, l'achat d'avions, les opérations et la maintenance. Mais l’unité indépendante d’analyse des coûts du Pentagone estime que 88 milliards de dollars seront nécessaires, selon une analyse de juin 2020.
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Sam 6 Mar 2021 - 14:30
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2021/03/defense-business-brief-march-05-2021/172493/ a écrit:
Adam Smith qui est le président de la commission des forces armées de la Chambre des représentants questionne l'avantage et l'utilité même du F35 et si il y'avait une manière de réduire les pertes...
_________________ Le courage croît en osant et la peur en hésitant.
Fox-One General de Division
messages : 8029 Inscrit le : 20/09/2007 Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Sam 6 Mar 2021 - 17:51
J'imagine la tête de tous ces pays européens qui ont été obligés d'acheter le 35.
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Sam 6 Mar 2021 - 18:48
Fox-One a écrit:
J'imagine la tête de tous ces pays européens qui ont été obligés d'acheter le 35.
Vous soulevez un bon point Ssi Fox-One , il me semble que les députés belges veulent réunir leur parlement la-dessus (d'ailleurs beaucoup de députés belges regrettent le Rafale) , ce F-35 va faire une F-104 bis , un vrai flop ... On peut dire que ca sera mort pour eux les marchés suisses et finlandais où vont s'affronter très probablement super hornet et rafales
_________________ Le courage croît en osant et la peur en hésitant.
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Dim 7 Mar 2021 - 15:05
Fox-One a écrit:
J'imagine la tête de tous ces pays européens qui ont été obligés d'acheter le 35.
C'est un bon jet mais inutile pour la plupart. Faut pas oublier, les Hollandais ,les Norvégiens, les Danois et les Italiens font partis du programme alors ils profitent un peu de cette industrie. + les Hollandais et les Belges ont besoin du F-35 pour garder les capabilités nucléaires .
But oh boy, puisqu'ils ont des vieux F-16 A/B ils seront obliger de garder le F-35 comme un seul vecteur. Meme USAF veulent toujours avoir des 4th gen (nouveaux achats des F-15EX) Ca sera un vrai cauchemar pour ces nations.
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Dim 21 Mar 2021 - 20:31
The EurAsian Times a écrit:
Is ‘The Exorbitant Operating Cost’ Of US’ F-35 Stealth Fighter Jet A Myth & Media Creation?
Critics may have termed the development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets as the Pentagon’s costliest weapons program, but some analysts argue that the cost of operating the aircraft will come down substantially in the near future.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, which began in the 1990s, is considered the most expensive program in the world, which would cost the US government more than $1 trillion over the 60-year lifespan of the fighters.
Another criticism that Pentagon is facing is that the fighter jet has been plagued with several problems over the years. Yet, military experts admit that it is still America’s best jet, having proven its mettle in almost every sphere, be it lethality, versatility, or survivability.
Developed by the Maryland-headquartered Lockheed Martin, the single-seat, single-engine, all-weather multirole F-35 is a supreme fighter that has been designed to perform an array of roles that included both air superiority and strike missions.
It is already in service with nine nations and boasts impressive armament, advanced avionics, while also being able to provide electronic warfare (EW) and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
The Pros & Cons Of The F-35
The F-35 is perhaps the only advanced fifth-generation combat aircraft that exists alongside the likes of the F-22 Raptor and the Russian-made Su-57 fighter jet.
However, critics continue to question the rationale behind running such an expensive fighter program. According to the latest official estimates, to produce around 2,470 F-35 fighters, the US will have to spend around $398 billion although most of that sum has not been spent so far.
Another problem highlighted by naysayers is that the fighter jets have not reached the stage of full-rate production. But one must not lose sight of the fact that so far around 600 fighters have been delivered with many militaries now operating them across the globe.
And the reason why the fighters have not been able to hit the full-production rate is due to the delay in certain clearances. Before they are put into the full-production rate, the F-35 fighters need to perform successfully against Chinese and Russian fighters in a complex simulation.
However, the attempts to undertake the simulations have been slowed down due to the Coronavirus pandemic. Other than that, the F-35 fighter jets have been matching all parameters and met almost all expectations in terms of their performance.
In addition, contrary to reports, all three F-35 variants for the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are successfully performing their missions in an efficient manner.
The F-35 fighters have defeated ‘adversary’ fighter jets during joint exercises at a rate of better than 20-to-1.
‘Exorbitant’ Operating Cost Of F-35 Jets
Despite the positives, one primary problem for the F-35 has been its exceptionally high operating cost. Currently, the cost to operate an F-35 fighter jet amounts to more than twice the cost of operating an F-15EX fighter, which is the most advanced variant of the F-15 air superiority fighters.
The cost of flying the F-15EX fighter is estimated at $20,000 per hour against the $44,000 per hour for the F-35 fighter.
Although Lockheed has promised to cut down the costs to $25,000, the words have not translated into action yet, making the Boeing F-15EX a much better option for countries like India.
Lockheed Martin has been under immense pressure from the US Air Force to deliver improvements to the aircraft’s reliability and operating cost. The service has even thought of considering cheaper alternatives, such as the Lockheed F-16 fighter or a clean-sheet 4.5th-generation combat aircraft.
Is Cost Reduction Possible?
According to an analysis published by National Interest, the cost per flight of the F-35 has reduced by around 23% over the past four years, and the trend will continue as the fighter continues to mature.
Lockheed Martin is confident that the operating cost of the F-35 fighters will be reduced to $25,000 per hour by 2025, which will be a big boost for the US and other clients.
“We’re taking aggressive actions to ensure continued cost reduction and increased availability of our F-35 products,
“With F-35 production increasing year after year, it is vital that we drive reliability improvements into the sensors while driving sustainment costs down to meet customer expectations,” said Brett Rolston, director of F-35 Sensors at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Bruce Wayne aime ce message
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Mar 13 Avr 2021 - 21:41
JOSEPH TREVITHICK - The Drive a écrit:
Today's F-35As Not Worth Including In High-End War Games According To Air Force General
Comments from one of the Air Force's top officers adds fuel to a newly-swirling and already fiery debate about the future F-35 program, as a whole.
A senior U.S. Air Force officer has said that there is no value in including the service's current fleet of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters in tabletop wargames simulating future high-end conflicts, such as one covering an American military response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That same individual also called into question how relevant any of the service's existing examples of these fighter jets would be for conducting combat operations near or over the territory of a near-peer adversary, including China. This all comes at a time when the F-35 program, as a whole, is facing a new surge of scrutiny, including from members of Congress.
Air Force Lieutenant General Clint Hinote, the service's Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements, made his remarks regarding the F-35A in an interview that Defense News published today focusing on a wargame last year that simulated an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Defense News described the outcome of that wargame as a "pyrrhic" victory for the U.S. military and one that was only achieved by the employment of capabilities that are not yet actually in service.
Those capabilities include F-35As equipped with the full suite of upgrades enabled by the still-in-development Block 4 software package. Block 4 F-35As are set to feature enhanced radar and electronic warfare capabilities, as well as the ability to carry new weapons. This particular wargame also featured notional stealth combat aircraft developed through the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, a multi-faceted project that you can read about in more detail here, as well as non-stealthy F-15EX fighters able to carry long-range hypersonic weapons, cargo aircraft reconfigured as flying arsenal planes, and a swarm of low-cost drones providing a distributed sensor network across a broad area of the battlespace, among other things.
The entire Defense News piece on this wargame is worth reading in full, especially given growing concerns within the U.S. military, as well as among experts and observers, that a Chinese military intervention against Taiwan may be increasingly inevitable in the near term. The outcome of the scenario, which Yahoo News previously reported also involved a Chinese biological weapon attack against American forces across the Indo-Pacific region, is also notable in contrast to a similar 2018 tabletop simulation.
“After the 2018 war game I distinctly remember one of our gurus of war gaming standing in front of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, and telling them that we should never play this war game scenario [of a Chinese attack on Taiwan] again, because we know what is going to happen," Lieutenant General Hinote had told Yahoo News earlier this year. "The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast. In that case, an American president would likely be presented with almost a fait accompli."
At the same time, Hinote's comments about the F-35A are notable in their own right. “We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35," Hinote told Defense News.
“It wouldn’t be worth it," he continued. "Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios."
Hinote further explained that survivability was only one factor in his assessment, though he did not name any particular existing or emerging threats that would limit the combat utility of current generation F-35As. China is notably developing and fielding an increasing number of advanced manned and unmanned aircraft, including growing numbers of J-20 stealth fighters, along with new weapons to go with them, as well as new ground-based air and missile defenses and associated sensors. Russia, another potential high-end adversary, is doing the same, albeit to a more limited degree.
The Lieutenant General also cited the F-35As limited range in the context of an Indo-Pacific scenario as an issue, something we here at The War Zone have highlighted in the past. There have been discussions over the years about developing drop tanks or conformal fuel tanks that could work with all three F-35 variants to help extend their ranges. The Air Force, in particular, is exploring various future aerial refueling concepts that might help provide more survivable ways to extend the reach of American combat aircraft, especially stealthy types, in future conflicts, as well.
Regardless of the specifics, the Lieutenant General's comments are the latest in a string of what can be characterized, at best, as mixed-messaging from the Air Force about its plans for the F-35A going forward, as well as its view of the program, as a whole. The projected costs to operate and maintain F-35s of all variants across the U.S. military throughout their planned life cycles, which have only grown in recent years, are the core of these discussions. At present, the Air Force still publicly plans to buy 1,763 F-35As, in total, primarily to replace its F-16 Viper fighter jets.
As of 2019, the Pentagon said the estimated price tag for sustaining F-35A, B, and C operations across the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy was $1.196 trillion through 2070. This figure had been relayed to Congress in part to inform them that this figure had increased by $22 billion specifically due to growing costs associated with the Block 4 upgrades that Lieutenant General Hinote has now said are absolutely essential to ensuring the relevance of the Joint Strike Fighter in future high-end conflicts.
As of February, the average cost-per-flight-hour to operate any of the three F-35 variants is $36,000, according to Lockheed Martin. The company says its goal remains to get that figure down to $25,000, which would put it closer to the cost-per-flight-hour of operating an F-16C/D.
The unit costs to purchase new Joint Strike Fighters had been declining in recent years, as well, but those price figures look set to plateau, or even rise again, as new capabilities are added to future jets.
In January, Will Roper, in an interview with Aviation Week that was published after he had left his post as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, had said "I think it’s [the F-35A] a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk." He also suggested that the Air Force's planned purchases could be scaled back in favor of a revised mixture of capabilities that might include new, lower-end manned combat jets, such as advanced F-16 Viper variants, and greater numbers of lower-cost "loyal wingman" type unmanned aircraft.
A Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie unmanned aircraft, at bottom left, a type the Air Force is experimenting with, including as part of the development of "loyal wingman" type drones, flies together with an F-35A, at center, and an F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, at top right.
Then, in February, Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown confirmed that the Air Force had initiated a new study into possible changes to the composition of its future manned and unmanned combat aircraft fleets. At that time, he specifically mentioned the possibility of acquiring a new, "clean-sheet design" separate from the F-35 that could replace a portion of the service's existing F-16s and cited F-35 operations and maintenance costs as a factor.
“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said, referring to the F-35A fleet. "You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight."
Those comments from Roper and Brown prompted a burst of criticism about the F-35 program, which has been a long-troubled saga that continues to face significant hurdles. Brown, the Air Force's top uniformed official, did subsequently respond to the reporting surrounding his February remarks by saying that the F-35 was the "cornerstone of the U.S. Air Force fighter fleet."
Regardless, all of those comments were then followed by unusually critical remarks from Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat from Washington State who is the present chair of the House Armed Services Committee, at an event that the Brookings Institution hosted on March 5. “[I want to] stop throwing money down that particular rathole," Smith said, referring to the F-35 program.
"What does the F-35 give us? And is there a way to cut our losses? Is there a way to not keep spending that much money for such a low capability because, as you know, the sustainment costs are brutal," he continued. "What I’m going to try to do is figure out how we can get a mix of fighter-attack aircraft that’s the most cost-effective. And I am telling you right now a big part of that is finding something that doesn’t make us have to rely on the F-35 for the next 35 years."
Chairman Smith's comments could point to a looming budget battle between the Pentagon and lawmakers over the F-35, broadly, beyond any reexamination of the program that the Air Force might be working through now. Though the service has repeatedly insisted that the NGAD program, as well as its acquisition of new F-15EXs, will not impact funding related to its F-35A fleet, it is Congress that ultimately decides how the defense budget shakes out. The potential for rising unit costs, in addition to how expensive the aircraft will be to operate and maintain for the foreseeable future, could have further impacts on discussions regarding the opportunity costs associated with continuing to buy more of any F-35 variant.
Lieutenant General Hinote's new comments about the F-35 in the context of last year's wargame can only now call into question the utility of the service's current F-35As in any potential major conflict, at least in the very near term. It's not clear when the Air Force expects to complete the rollout of the full Block 4 upgrade package across its F-35A fleet, or when those updates might similarly make their way into the Marine Corps and Navy's F-35B and F-35C fleets.
"The current development process used by the F-35 JPO [Joint Program Office] and Lockheed Martin, that is supposed to provide new capabilities and updates in 6-month increments, is not working," the Pentagon's Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, reported bluntly at the close of the 2020 Fiscal Year, which came to an end on Sept. 30, 2020. "It is causing significant delays to planned schedules and results in poor software quality containing deficiencies."
A number of older F-35As will never be brought up to the Block 4 standard, either, relegating those jets to training and other non-combat duties.
In addition, the F-35 program is still working to resolve a laundry list of deficiencies across all three Joint Strike Fighter Variants, 10 of which are Category 1 issues, the most severe type. These are things that could impact the operational effectiveness of the jets, or worse. This is the same number of Category 1 problems DOT&E said were still open by the close of the 2020 Fiscal Year. DOT&E said there were another 861 unresolved, but less severe deficiencies. Just this month, the F-35 Joint Program Office declined to elaborate on the exact nature of the 10 Category 1 deficiencies, six of which are classified, according to Defense News' Valerie Insinna.
It is also important to note that the U.S. military's existing Joint Strike Fighter Fleets have seen improvements in their readiness rates in recent years, but those metrics continue to be a point of significant concern. Major problems persist with the cloud-based computer backend, known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is critical to the day-to-day operation of all F-35 variants and that you can read about more here. ALIS has been directly linked to poor readiness rates in the past. The U.S. military is already in process of replacing ALIS with a new system, called the Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN).
Beyond that, any scaling back of the American end of the F-35 program could influence decisions that existing or potential foreign Joint Strike Fighter operators make, as well. There is already discussion in the United Kingdom about whether or not that country will upgrade its F-35Bs to the Block 4 standard, with the potential cost of doing so being a major factor.
All told, the Air Force's F-35 plans are very much in a new state of flux, which could also point to possible shakeups in Joint Strike Fighter plans elsewhere across the U.S. military. Lieutenant General Hinote's position that it makes no sense to include the current generation of jets in high-end wargames can only add additional fuel to what is already a fiery debate among proponents and critics of this aircraft.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Bruce Wayne aime ce message
jf16 General de Division
messages : 41683 Inscrit le : 20/10/2010 Localisation : france Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Dim 25 Avr 2021 - 20:40
Citation :
Aviation de combat : Quand le fondateur de Topgun « descend » le F-35
PAR LAURENT LAGNEAU · 25 AVRIL 2021
Ces derniers mois, malgré plus de 600 exemplaires livrés, l’avion de combat de 5e génération F-35, développé par Lockheed-Martin, suscite des doutes, quand il ne prête pas le flanc à de sévères critiques.
Ainsi, en février, le chef d’état-major de l’US Air Force, le général Charles Q. Brown, a laissé entendre qu’une baisse d’une nombre d’appareils commandés était dans les tuyaux, au profit d’une accélération du programme NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance], dont un démonstrateur a déjà volé, et le lancement d’un nouveau chasseurs-bombardier de génération 4,5 qui remplacerait le F-16.
Plus tôt, l’ex-sécrétaire à l’Air Force chargé des acquisitions et de la technologie, Will Roper, avait estimé que « les coûts exorbitants du cycle de vie du F-35 signifient que l’US Air Force ne peut pas se permettre d’acheter autant d’avions dont elle a besoin pour combattre et gagner une guerre aujourd’hui. »
Une position partagée par le président du comité des services armés à la Chambre des représentants, le démocrate Adam Smith, qui l’a exprimée d’une manière plus abrupte. « Que nous apporte le F-35? Y a-t-il un moyen de réduire nos pertes? Y a-t-il un moyen de ne pas continuer à dépenser autant d’argent pour une capacité aussi faible? Parce que les coûts de soutien sont énormes », a-t-il déclaré, en mars dernier.
Issu du programme Joint Strike Fighter [JSF], dont l’origine remonte aux années 1992/1993, le F-35 n’est toujours pas pleinement opérationnel au sein des forces américaines. Selon un rapport du Pentagone, il présente encore quelque 800 défauts, dont une dizaine jugés critiques. Quant aux coûts de développements, ils ne cessent d’augmenter : la mise au point de la version Block 4, qui donnera à cet avion l’ensemble des capacités pour lesquelles il a été conçu, coûtera 1,9 milliards de dollars de plus, pour atteindre les 14,4 milliards. Plus récemment, le développement du système de maintenance et de logistique ODIN, appelé à remplacer l’ALIS, qui ne fonctionnait pas, a été mis « en pause » après une envolée des coûts.
Quoi qu’il en soit, les critiques les plus sévères ont été faites par le capitaine de vaisseau Dan Pedersen, qui fut l’un des créateurs de l’US Navy Fighter Weapons School, c’est à dire de « Topgun », l’école des pilotes de chasse de l’aéronavale américaine popularisée par le film du même nom réalisé par Tony Scott. Autant dire que, en matière de combat aérien, il est une « pointure ».
En 2019, pour les cinquante ans de Topgun, Dan Pedersen a raconté la genèse de cette école de l’US Navy à Miramar dans un livre qui a récemment été publié en France [« TOP GUN – La véritable histoire« ]. Plein d’anecdotes inédites, cet ouvrage a été salué par l’amiral James Stavridis, qui fut le commandant suprême allié des force alliées en Europe [SACEUR] entre 2009 et 2013. Cela veut-il dire qu’il apporte sa caution au regard sans concession que porte son auteur sur le F-35?
Car, dans le dernier chapite de son livre, et fort de son expérience dans l’aéronavale américaine, Dan Pedersen « descend » le concept du F-35 comme il aurait fait avec un MiG-21 nord-vietnamien. Tout d’abord, il ne cache pas qu’il a une dent contre Dick Cheney, chef du Pentagone entre 1989 et 1993, pour avoir décidé l’arrêt de la production du F-14 Tomcat afin de trouver des crédits pour financer le programme de bombardier furtif A-12 Avenger II [qui ne verra jamais le jour et dont l’affaire inspira le romancier Stephen Coonts, également ancien pilote, pour son livre « Le minotaure »].
« Lorsque le couperet du Pentagone est tombé, nous avons tristement observé le nouveau et l’onéreux balayer l’abordable et le fiable », écrit Dan Pedersen. La furtivité des avions de combat était alors la priorité, d’où le programme A-12 Avenger II.
« Nous vendions notre âme pour la furtivité. La mentalité du Pentagone était que si nous ne trouvions pas une solution au sujet de la furtivité, c’est à l’US Air Force que reviendraient les missions de frappe. Je persistais à dire que, quelque part, dans quelque obscur sous-sol d’Europe de l’Est, un groupe d’individus portant des lunettes aussi épaisses que des bouteilles de Coca étudiaient comment vaincre la furtivité. L’avion avait un tas de problème. Renoncer à ce projet a sauvé la marine elle-même », a raconté Lonny McClung, un ancien commandant de Topgun, cité par Dan Pedersen.
Pour ce dernier, « l’évolution vers la technologie de pointe nous a fait reculer de bien des manières ». Et d’insister, en parler de « fascination du Pentagone pour la furtivité » : « Nous avons oublié les leçons que nous avions chèrement apprises dans les années 1960. Nous nous prosternons devant l’autel de la haute technologie et sommes sur le point de vendre notre âme. La furtivité est comme un zombie, un zombie très onéreux. Elle revient à la vie pour nous hanter. »
Et elle est donc revenue avec le F-35, qui fait fi des leçons que le Pentagone aurait dû tirer avec le F-111, « l’Edsel volant de Robert McNamara [secrétaire à la Défense entre 1961 et 1968, ndlr] qui était supposé servir à la fois à l’US Air Force et à la marine. » Soit le même concept que le programme JSF… mais avec trois versions [s’y ajouter celle dite STOVL pour l’US Marine Corps].
Soulignant les coûts très élevés du programme F-35 [mille milliards de dollars sur sa durée, ndlr], Dan Pedersen estime que les « entreprises qui travaillent pour la défense ont réussi leur coup en assurent leurs marges bénéficiaires avec leurs ‘éléments remplaçables’ comme ils nomment aujourd’hui les pièces détachées. Au fina, sur toute la durée du programme, les pièces coûteront plus cher que l’appareil lui-même ». Un peu comme les imprimantes à jet d’encre peu coûteuses à l’achat mais dont les cartouches sont onéreuses.
« Le F-35 est si cher que l’on finira peut-être avec une flotte peine de magnifiques porte-avions à propulsion nucléaire flambant neufs mais aux ponts d’envol partiellement vide », craint Dan Pedersen, qui met en cause les performances de l’avion de Lockheed-Martin. « Les pilotes qui ont perdu confiance dans le F-35 l’ont surnommé le ‘pingouin' » car « il vole de la même façon ».
Reste que pour le co-fondateur de Topgun, le problème se situe à Washington. Et plus particulièrement au Congrès. « Les juteux contrats de sous-traitance autour du F-35 s’étendent stratégiquement à pratiquement toutes les circonscriptions des États-Unis. Avec de si nombreux membres de la Chambre des représentants ayant un intérêt dans le programme, ce dernier est assuré de bénéficier d’un large soutien politique indépendamment de ses capacités réelles ou de son coût. »
Quoi qu’il en soit, pour Dan Pedersen, le programme F-35 peut mettre en péril la supériorité aérienne des États-Unis. Le discours de Lockheed-Martin présente cet avion « comme un appareil d’alerte avancée transformationnel. Mais il ne dit rien sur ce qui est de remporter un combat aérien. C’est peut-être là que le bât blesse, car les pilotes qui affichent beaucoup d’expérience aux commandes du ‘pingouin’ disent que ce n’est pas un chasseur. » En outre, compte-tenu de son coût d’exploitation, les pilotes « ne sont pas près d’effectuer es heures de vol dont ils ont besoin pour devenir bons », écrit-il. « Ces dernières années, le pilotes de Super Hornet n’ont volé que dix à douze heures par mois entre les déploiements, soit tout juste assez pour apprendre à piloter l’appareil correctement », poursuit-il.
Tirer à boulets rouges sur le F-35 est une chose. Mais que propose Dan Pedersen à la place? « Confiez-moi quelques centaines d’avions comme le F-5N, avec un canon fiable, un système de visée assisté par ordinateur, quatre [missiles air-air] Sidewinder, des moyens de contre-mesures électroniques, et des pilotes effectuant 40 ou 50 heures de vol par mois, et nous battrons n’importe quelle force aérienne qui ruine son pays en investissant dans des ‘pingouins’ furtifs de cinquième génération », assure-t-il.
Selon lui, « la vérité première d’un combat aérien reste la même : ce n’est pas l’avion qui remporte le combat, mais l’homme qui est aux commandes » et « voler est une compétence qu’il faut entretenir. »
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Dim 20 Juin 2021 - 17:23
Bon .. il faut surement que quelqu'un puisse en dire un peu de bien de temps en temps ...
Lexington Institute a écrit:
How the F-35 Has Reshaped the Strategic Balance in Europe
Because of its heavy investment in military technology, Russia was recently thought to have achieved an edge in air power over its NATO rivals. However, that advantage is now up for debate due to the purchase of the F-35 by many countries in NATO, including some on the front line with Russia.
The F-35 is more than a strike fighter. What makes it so essential for partners and so coveted by buyers is its unmatched lethality, survivability, and adaptability. It is ten times more effective at collecting intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) than other fighters. In addition, it is capable of putting so much energy on relevant frequencies that it suppresses enemy radar and communications. In short, it is an unparalleled force multiplier.
The F-35 is also the only aircraft in production that is effectively invisible to Russian radar, and as a result, it has altered the balance of strategic power in Europe in NATO’s favor. While Europe faces various security challenges, the threat from Russia remains the most urgent.
The F-35 is currently in use or on order by 13 countries, including the United States. The other members of the original consortium are the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Norway and Denmark. The six additional foreign buyers are Israel, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Poland and Singapore. It is not a coincidence that the majority of these countries are in Western Europe and would be able to respond quickly to Russian aggression. By design, this builds a wall of deterrence.
The F-35 also fills a niche that is not an option for other fighters. With limited availability of air power from the sea services, the Air Force version of the F-35, the F-35A, would be the primary actor by default. Fortunately, the Air Force version of the fighter is the version most buyers have been purchasing.
Two exceptions are Britain and Italy, which have both purchased the Marine version of the F-35, F-35B, for use on their aircraft carriers. Italy is only buying F-35B, but Britain has purchased both versions. The advantage of F-35B is its ability to land and take off vertically, allowing it to land on almost any surface.
The implication of so many NATO member countries operating this kind of fighter is a reshaping of the strategic balance in Europe to the disadvantage of Russia. Until recently, it was assumed that a conventional Russian attack on a country like Poland or one of the Baltic States was likely to overwhelm NATO airpower even if allied air forces responded fast.
Northern Poland is currently under the most pressure from the presence of Russian troops, which have been deployed en masse near Poland’s border with Belarus. Large numbers of tanks and troops were also recently sent to the eastern part of Ukraine before being withdrawn. However, around 80,000 troops (down from 100,000) are still stationed in that region, which has been engulfed by violence between Russian soldiers and nationalist militias.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania face a variation of the same threat. Russia may choose to launch a conventional attack in one of the Baltics rather than spend time interfering with their civil society and institutions, which are already clearly oriented toward Europe. The F-35, while not owned by any of the three countries, is used by NATO’s Baltic Air Policing (BAP) mission. It was deployed for the first time in April of 2021 when Italy brought four of the fighters to Estonia’s Amari Air Base.
However, the front forming in Eastern Europe is not the only place where Russian troops are active and where conflict might break out. The Mediterranean Sea is another potential theater for future military action, given Russia's access to its waters and Putin's relatively close relationship with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the autocratic president of Turkey.
Erdogan’s dealings with Russia are no secret. Turkey is in possession of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles, a 2017 purchase that resulted in Turkey’s expulsion from the F-35 consortium. Erdogan has also shown no compunction about taking military action against U.S. allies in the region, such as the Kurds, nor about supporting extremist factions that he views as protecting Turkish interests. During the Trump years, the impunity of Erdogan’s behavior toward allies began to escalate, culminating in threats to close the Incirlik airbase, home to 50 U.S. tactical nuclear warheads, in response to the possibility of sanctions from Washington.
Turkey has also recently come into conflict with Greece over oil exploration in the waters just off Cyprus, a disputed territory between them that has an unofficial Turkish enclave. Partly because of Ankara’s purchase of the S-400, Greece was chosen to receive F-35s that would have originally been destined for Turkey, a decision that incensed Ankara.
Russian military action, potentially in conjunction with Turkey, could also be taken around the Black Sea, immediately endangering NATO forces in Romania and in Greece. Italy has already drawn attention to the presence of Russian naval ships in the Mediterranean that may be prepared to put military support behind Turkish interests.
Because other aircraft would be less survivable in a future war with Russia, the F-35 would be deployed early to support NATO ground forces. The F-35 is designed to find, fix and destroy hostile air defenses, which would then leave room for less survivable aircraft to be called in for support.
Some NATO F-35s will also be configured to deliver nuclear weapons, a feature that is mainly intended to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons first. This will only be deployed as a measure of last resort during a conflict—most likely if Russia seeks to employ nuclear weapons preemptively. However, it is difficult to believe that countries with the F-35 would actually use nuclear weapons on Russian soil during a conventional conflict, as to do so would likely lead to escalation.
Taken together, the F-35’s peerless versatility and the enthusiasm for its adoption on the part of NATO allies leave no doubt that it is playing a central role in reshaping the strategic balance of Europe. With barely a fifth of all F-35s destined to be built in the hands of receiving nations, the shift in NATO’s military fortunes is likely to prove decisive through mid-century.
_________________ Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Adam Modérateur
messages : 6300 Inscrit le : 25/03/2009 Localisation : Royaume pour tous les Marocains Nationalité : Médailles de mérite :
Sujet: Re: JSF F-35 Lightning II Mar 29 Juin 2021 - 15:23
Mer 17 Oct 2007 - 17:25
