28 juillet 2010<\/a>, est encore plus incisif. Il rappelle des propositions d’abandon de cette version et proclame qu’effectivement, pour sauver ce programme JSF qui patauge dans un marais gluant de catastrophes, l’abandon de la version F-35B s’impose<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00ab90% of America’s combat aviation power is eventually supposed to come from F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. But the $388 billion program has busted its budget so badly, it’s on the verge of collapse. So a couple of weeks back, some two-bit defense pundit proposed overhauling the JSF effort by getting rid of its most expensive, most technically-complex model: the one for the Marines that takes off and lands vertically, helicopter-style. It’s a neat trick but its battlefield utility is debatable. The Marines have talked themselves into believing they really need this capability, one senior defense official told me. But it’s one we’ve never counted on in any fight.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbNow, as if on cue, the Marines’ Joint Strike Fighter is once again proving itself to be the problem child of the F-35 program. Bob Cox with the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reports that the Lockheed Martin-built F-35B has only completed 91 of its test flights this year far short of the 125 scheduled. Failure rates are higher than predicted, Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens tells Cox. The cooling fans, lift fan doors, actuators, and other switches are the current headaches.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn contrast, Cox notes, test flights for the stealth jet’s two other models are both well ahead of plan. Looks like it’s time for those to be the only two models<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tTout cela conduit irr\u00e9sistiblement \u00e0 quelques remarques Il n’est pas dans l’habitude de Lockheed Martin de nous parler des ennuis du JSF, qui, pourtant, n’ont pas manqu\u00e9 depuis que ce programme est lanc\u00e9. Soudain, voil\u00e0 beaucoup de d\u00e9tails, tellement qu’on se prend les pieds dans le nombre de vols rat\u00e9s du F-35B (75 au lieu de 96 pour le New York Times<\/em>, 91 au lieu de 125 pour Danger Room<\/em>\/Fort Worth Star Telegram<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCette soudaine transparence de la part de LM, outre l’hypoth\u00e8se de l’\u00e9ruption spontan\u00e9e d’une vertu inattendue, pourrait \u00e9galement dissimuler quelque intention cach\u00e9e. D’o\u00f9 l’hypoth\u00e8se, qui commence \u00e0 germer ici et l\u00e0, selon laquelle Lockheed Martin, devant l’\u00e9tat catastrophique du programme, o\u00f9 effectivement le F-35B p\u00e8se d’un poids extr\u00eamement lourd \u00e0 cause des contraintes techniques de la formule ADAC\/V, commencerait \u00e0 manuvrer pour pousser indirectement \u00e0 l’abandon de cette version, et sauver l’essentiel (les versions USAF et Navy, F-35A et F-35C respectivement). On ne manquera pas de remarquer que, par contraste avec les d\u00e9tails des avatars du F-35B, LM proclame haut et fort que les deux autres versions marchent encore mieux que pr\u00e9vu Nous aurions une explication s\u00e9rieuse de l’\u00e9ruption spontan\u00e9e de vertu.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Le F-35B et la candeur soudaine de Lockheed Martin Surprise, surprise Lockheed Martin, lors d’un contact avec des journalistes US, n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 avare de d\u00e9tails sur les ennuis que rencontre la version \u00e0 d\u00e9collage et atterrissage vertical (ADAC\/V) du JSF, le F-35B. Le New York Times du 27 juillet 2010 nous explique la chose.… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[7770,9891,9893,5128,250,3731,9894,9892],"class_list":["post-72141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-abandon","tag-adac","tag-candeur","tag-f-35b","tag-jsf","tag-lm","tag-transparence","tag-v"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72141\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}