Check-Six Forums

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

jeu. mars 25, 2021 8:55 pm

Ceci dit dans le dernier plan de défense, on reste flou sur l'acquisition de F-35B supplémentaires, peur de l'oncle SAM ?

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

ven. mars 26, 2021 8:59 am

Pour les suédois il y a quand même un soucis de timing . Le gripen e entre à peine en service et son remplacement ne pourra être envisagé avant 2051.

Les typhoons devront rester jusqu’en 2040

jojo a écrit : ↑

jeu. mars 25, 2021 8:21 pm

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

jeu. mars 25, 2021 8:08 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/lo ... 15.article

LM continue de penser que les anglais achèteront plus de F-35B que les 48 prévus jusqu'en 2025

L'espoir fait vivre.

Moi je continue de penser que les Anglais vont retrouver la raison, mettre des catapultes et des brins d'arrêt sur leur PA puis acheter des Rafale M

ironclaude a écrit : ↑

ven. mars 26, 2021 3:44 pm

C'est une modif qu'ils ont prévue au cours du chantier à mi-vie des PA… quand la production des Rafale aura été arrêtée

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

ven. mars 26, 2021 4:47 pm

Mais non
Suite à des problèmes budgétaires les deux PA seront retirés vers 2035

Les autorités Sud-Coréennes ont eu une bien mauvaise surprise concernant leur flotte de F35, dont 24 des 40 appareils commandés ont déjà été livrés dans la péninsule asiatique. En effet, Lockheed-Martin et les autorités américaines réclament 266 millions de $ à Séoul, afin de financer le passage de sa flotte dans la version Block 4, la première version considérée effectivement opérationnelle du Lightning II. Ce surcout représente un tarif supérieur à celui de 3 appareils neufs, soit presque 20% de la flotte restant à livrer, simplement pour mettre les aéronefs dans un standard utilisable. De quoi, naturellement, créer quelques tensions, notamment au sein de la classe politique sud-coréenne. Ce surcout est en partie lié au dérapage du developpement du standard Block IV, qui a vu son enveloppe budgétaire croitre de 1,9 Md$ en seulement un an, comme l’a indiqué le U.S. Government Accountability Office, ou GAO, dans une note publiée le 18 mars.
(...)

YLB a écrit : ↑

dim. mars 28, 2021 8:10 am

pourquoi faire des mises à jours alors que le F-35 est un avion très sur....
https://www.capital.fr/economie-politiq ... ul-1398422

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

dim. mars 28, 2021 11:50 am

Le F-35 est un avion de chasse supersonique, cela restera dangereux de voler

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

dim. mars 28, 2021 11:50 am

Ne parlons pas du miracle de l’atterrissage vertical, je me demande comment il n'y a pas plus d'accidents

warbird2000 a écrit : ↑

mar. avr. 13, 2021 7:10 pm

Video qui montre des marines pratiquant les différentes formes d'atterissage pour le f-35B

The U.S. Air Force repelled a Chinese invasion of Taiwan during a massive war game last fall by relying on drones acting as a sensing grid, an advanced sixth-generation fighter jet able to penetrate the most contested environments, cargo planes dropping pallets of guided munitions and other novel technologies yet unseen on the modern battlefield.
But the service’s success was ultimately pyrrhic. After much loss of life and equipment, the U.S. military was able to prevent a total takeover of Taiwan by confining Chinese forces to a single area.
Furthermore, the air force that fought in the simulated conflict isn’t one that exists today, nor is it one the service is seemingly on a path to realize. While legacy planes like the B-52 bomber and newer ones like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter played a role, many key technologies featured during the exercise are not in production or even planned for development by the service.
Still, the outcome was a marked improvement to similar war games held over the last two years, which ended in catastrophic losses. The Air Force’s performance this fall offers a clearer vision of what mix of aircraft, drones, networks and other weapons systems it will need in the next decade if it hopes to beat China in a potential war. Some of those items could influence fiscal 2023 budget deliberations.
China is “iterating so rapidly, and I think that forces us to change,” said Lt. Gen. Clint Hinote, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, told Defense News in March. “If we can change, we can win.”

A ‘hard target’ :
Air Force officials talked about the classified war game’s results with Defense News in March, just months before the service is set to release its fiscal 2022 budget — its first spending request under the new Biden administration.
(...)

Now, what has emerged is a list of what the Air Force thinks it needs to win a war after 2030:

Tactical aircraft :
The air power community has been divided in recent years over how to affordably replace the Air Force’s aging tactical aircraft fleet while ensuring there are enough advanced fighters to battle the likes of Russia or China.
Should the service move forward with its plan to eventually replace the A-10, F-16 and some F-15C/D aircraft with stealthy fifth-generation F-35s? Or could a mix of F-35s and new fourth-generation jets like the F-15EX give the service more flexibility?
This disagreement heightened in February, when Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown floated the idea of designing a less expensive, non-stealthy follow-on fighter to replace the service’s oldest F-16s, instead of replacing them with the F-35, as had been planned for decades.
The service is currently evaluating its options through a tactical aircraft study to inform the fiscal 2023 budget, which could result in cuts to the Air Force’s program of record for 1,763 F-35As.
“We don’t have to make that decision this year,” Hinote said. However, he added, the roles each aircraft played during the war game could influence the outcome of the study “to a great degree.”
In the war game, four types of aircraft made up the Air Force’s future fighter inventory. Three of those are ongoing programs of record for the service:
The highly advanced Next Generation Air Dominance aircraft, or NGAD, and its associated systems, which were capable of penetrating highly contested airspace.
The Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which operated as a “workhorse” aircraft attacking targets at short ranges.
Boeing F-15EX aircraft, which mainly conducted defensive missions but were also loaded with long-range missiles and hypersonic weapons to strike targets farther downrange.
Finally, the service operated a non-stealthy, light, tactical fighter for homeland and base defense, which could also be flown in support of counterterrorism missions. That aircraft, which aligns with Brown’s idea for a “fourth-generation plus” replacement for the F-16, doesn’t currently exist in the service’s budget plans.
For years, Air Force officials have portrayed the F-35 as the aircraft that it would use to infiltrate into enemy airspace to knock out surface-to-air missiles and other threats without being seen. However, in the war game, that role was played by the more survivable NGAD, in part due to the F-35′s inability to traverse the long ranges of the Pacific without a tanker nearby, Hinote said.
Instead, the F-35 attacked Chinese surface ships and ground targets, protected American and Taiwanese assets from Chinese aircraft, and provided cruise missile defense during the exercise. But “it’s not the one that’s pushing all the way in [Chinese airspace], or even over China’s territory,” Hinote said.
Notably, the F-35s used during the war game were the more advanced F-35 Block 4 aircraft under development, which will feature a suite of new computing equipment known as “Tech Refresh 3,” enhancements to its radar and electronic warfare systems, and new weapons.
“We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35,” Hinote said. “It wouldn’t be worth it. … Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.”

Drones and more drones :
(...)

Bombers, tankers and airlift :
(...)

What happens now?
(...)
The service plans to take its findings to Capitol Hill in the hopes of gaining the support of lawmakers for the difficult force posture decisions coming down the line in upcoming budget discussions. Brown, the Air Force’s top general, has indicated that programs could be canceled and legacy aircraft retired as the service seeks to revolutionize its technology.
But as Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense budget expert with the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a March report, Congress has repeatedly rolled back the service’s plans to cut its existing force structure.
“This leaves the Air Force trapped in a near-term Catch-22,” she stated. “On one hand, it is trying to divest itself of decades-old legacy airframes, which drive up [operations and maintenance] costs every year, so that it can reinvest in next-generation platforms. On the other hand, its replacement aircraft programs will not be operational fast enough to meet the ongoing demands of global operations, even if the net savings from legacy divestments are sufficient to fund new platforms.”
(...)