prof.566

Achilles, on monte la commisssion des enseignants en BM sur AD (CEBMAD)?

Selon A&C, l'emport/tir de mica en position fuselage arrière de mica est qualifiée en configuration lourde sur le F3 (malgré la présence de pod)

Il y a quelque chose de pourri au royaume du DAnemark : l'eurofighter c'est quand même pas le Pérou (pardon)

Oui, ils en ont.

Blue apple, c'est passionant ce que tu racontes sur les composites utilisés par ces avions, aurais tu une source pour approfondir? Merci

Hmmm. Les guerres de la revolution, 14-18, l algerie etc. C'etait quand meme des appeles non? Et certains pays ont des reserves tres efficaces eg. Israel...

Dans le cas présent je crois qu'il parlait du C137. Mettre les équipements sur un biplace en vue d'établir les dotrines d'emplis, tests, programme de maintenance etc.

Quand ils ne demandent pas l'AMCA pour 2014...

Mouais...

Ben tiens... Les premiers contributeurs au monde en casques bleus sont bengalis... Ca rapporte des sous.

Sans un GC d'une unité des FS pour bloquer les renforts talibans...

Oh toi tu as lu Hugo...

Deja fait par un francais non?

Non, juste une nième réutilisation du même article d'il y a 2 mois....

La grande ouverture nécéssaire ne risque pas de limiter lo profondeur de champ? (réflexe de vieil utilisateur du FE2) @ Gaspard evidemment, si tu sors du hasselblad... Je me rends... (ma meilleure optique état un bon vieux Zeiss à soufflet des années 30, en 6x9)

Manque le putatif pod bi mica sur le point central avant

The Commons: Think of the F-35 as a Senate with wings by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:35pm - 23 Comments VIEW IN CLEAN READING MODE »WHAT IS THIS ? Perhaps the F-35 is best understood as a Senate with wings. Or perhaps the Senate is the F-35 that we mistakenly assigned to guard our democracy. Either way, they are both now easy jokes. “Mr. Speaker, yet another report from the United States is raising disturbing questions about the F-35,” Thomas Mulcair reported at the outset this afternoon. “Serious problems have been identified with the aircraft’s radar, helmet and cockpit design. Pilots report that the plane is actually incapable of flying through clouds.” The New Democrats laughed. “Who knew that this was one of the requirements,” Mr. Mulcair quipped. The New Democrats laughed again. “Worse yet, the former head of the U.S. Navy is now suggesting that the F-35A, the model Conservatives plan to buy, should be scrapped entirely,” the NDP leader concluded. “Will the Prime Minister give a straightforward answer? Will he admit that he has made a mistake and agree to full, open and honest competition to replace the CF-18, yes or no?” The Prime Minister would do no such thing. “Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Harper declared, “the government has been very clear.” Indeed. Mr. Harper’s government has been very clear. And not just once on this file, but twice. In the beginning, it was very much clear that the F-35 very much needed to be purchased or this country was very much doomed. “This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available,” the Prime Minister said almost exactly two years ago. “This is the only fighter available that serves the purposes that our air force needs.” So maybe Mr. Harper was thinking then that our air force doesn’t need to fly through clouds. But since the auditor general’s report of a year ago, the government has been very clear again: this time that it’s actually not sure what kind of plane it wants. “In response to the Auditor General’s report, we have laid out a process for the procurement of the next generation of Canadian fighter and that obviously involves looking at all the options and also making sure that we receive a full range of independent advice,” the Prime Minister explained this afternoon. “The most important thing for us is that when the CF-18s reach the end of their life expectancy, that there be aircraft there for our men and women in uniform.” The New Democrats, alas, were not quite ready to let this go. Later it was Christine Moore who stood to recall that the Defence Minister had once proclaimed the F-35 to the best plane for this country. In his seat, Peter MacKay, no longer the minister to stand and take these questions, nodded along and shared a few thoughts with his seatmates. According to that Pentagon report, Ms. Moore reported, the F-35 was no good in temperatures under 15 degrees and pilots should avoid clouds even in good weather. It was Rona Ambrose’s duty to fend this off. “Mr. Speaker,” she said, “my understanding yesterday was that the opposition wanted us to just ban one particular aircraft and that is not what we are going to do.” Indeed. Who would think of so rashly limiting the procurement of a new fighter jet? “We have embarked on a full options analysis before the purchase or any decision to replace the CF-18s,” Ms. Ambrose explained. “We are using the expert advice of a panel that is looking at every option available to replace the CF-18, and we will be guided by its advice.” There is apparently no option, but to consider all options. “Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives committed to buying the F-35 multiple times,” Matthew Kellway corrected. “They told us it is on the right track multiple times. According to the Pentagon, the F-35 needs a heated hanger in Florida, it cannot fly at night, and the pilots stay out of the clouds.” The New Democrats laughed along as Mr. Kellway went. “They got the headrest wrong,” he lamented. “How can the Conservatives claim to have a legitimate procurement process when they are pitting real fighter jets against paper planes?” Ms. Ambrose was once more unimpressed. “Mr. Speaker,” she explained, “unlike the opposition we will be guided by an independent process that is in place.” The official opposition chuckled once more. Perhaps this is all a bit unfair to the F-35. It is still early yet. Perhaps, like the Senate, the F-35 is not being treated with due respect. Maybe it just needs to be reformed. But then at least we can say that the Senate might periodically save us from an errant clause. As yet, we can’t know whether the F-35 will ever be able to save us from the Russians. Tags: Christine Moore, F-35, House Of Commons, Maclean's Politics, Matthew Kellway, Parliament, Question Period, Rona Ambrose, Stephen Harper, The Commons, Thomas Mulcair http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/07/the-commons-think-of-the-f-35-as-a-senate-with-wings/

On voit tres bien les mouvements diffrentiels des canards lors du decollage sur une video a propos du mali

Il existe même des grenades de ce type qui une fois retombées sur leur papattes fond un bond en l'air d'un a 2 m avabt de péter (rheimettal)

Tiens je m'étais fait la même réflexion 8)

Qu'il repère un départ manpad je n'en doute pas (chaleur émise). Par contre, qu'il identifie un avion... 12 km2 ca fait 12 millions de m2 soit 2 m2 par pixel.... A 2 kms on sera a 8 m2 par pixel Suffisant pour poursuivre un tracking ok, mais identifier + donner une solution de tir? A moins qu'il y ait des "trucs" techniques, à part une identification préalable par un autre système je vois pas (sans mauvais jeu de mot) A propos, quelqu'un connait la puissance des capteurs du DDM NG?

Hmmmm D'abord je remarque que le F35 engage les avions après les avoir croisés, et de près. Si je ne m'abuse, chaque capteur du DASS est du 1MPx 6 millions de pixels ca me parait peu pour trianguler une solution de tir sur une sphère entière au delà d'1 ou 2 kms (pas envie de réviser ma trigo, mais si un patheux pouvait fiare le calcul sur disons un objet de 15 m de coté)

Les détecteurs IR du DAS peuvent zoomer? Parce que sinon, désigner une cible sur une sphère...

Voulez vous en savoir plus? Cliquez sur AD.net