Nouvelles

par Yohan Demeure Abandonner les instruments traditionnels actuellement utilisés pour piloter, et adopter une planche virtuelle qui fera office de tableau de bord. Voici le concept qui équipera un avion de chasse nouvelle génération. Adieu boutons, cadrans, manettes, etc. Place au virtuel dans les futurs avions de chasse ! Il s'agit d'un projet développé par BAE Systems, une société britannique œuvrant dans les secteurs de la défense et de l'aérospatial. Selon un communiquépublié le 21 septembre 2018, il est question d'un tableau de bord vierge, sur lequel sera projetée l'intégralité des informations de vol depuis le casque du pilote, une sorte de cockpit portable (wearable cockpit). Le but est ici de permettre au pilote de ne plus l'cher le manche des mains en cours de vol, et d'éviter à ce dernier de se perdre dans une multitude d'informations. Le tableau de bord virtuel est équipé d'une intelligence artificielle et d'un système de détection du regard. Il est destiné à être reconfigurable à souhait, adaptable au contexte du moment, mais également évolutif (voir schéma ci-dessous). «Le point le plus important sera de déterminer l'objectif du pilote, et d'utiliser des systèmes intelligents pour assurer la performance des t'ches et réduire la charge de travail du pilote. Nous voulons faire cela de manière à ne pas toujours demander la permission, car cela deviendrait rapidement très pénible, mais il est essentiel que le pilote sache clairement quelle est la t'che exécutée par le système intelligent », a déclaré Jean Page, responsable technique du projet. Il s'agit ici clairement de vaincre ce que l'on appelle la tunnélisation de l'attention(ou tunnélisation attentionnelle). C'est le fait que le pilote se focalise à 100 % sur un éventuel problème en cours de vol, ignorant les alertes des paramètres de vol. Cela peut même aller jusqu'aux manœuvres de pilotage les plus élémentaires, qui conduisent à la perte de contrôle puis à l'accident. Selon BAE Systems, ce nouveau dispositif actuellement en développement est destiné à équiper le futur avion de chasse Eurofighter Tempest, qui vise à remplacer l'Eurofighter Typhoon dès 2025. Il s'agit d'un avion développé par le consortium Eurofighter GmbH (Royaume-Uni, Italie, Allemagne et Espagne). Sources : New Atlas – Futura Sciences https://sciencepost.fr/2018/10/voici-le-tableau-de-bord-portable-et-virtuel-qui-equipera-un-avion-de-chasse-nouvelle-generation/

Non, la Belgique ne demande pas aux Américains de prolonger leur offre, dans le cadre de la procédure de remplacement de ses avions de combat. Simplement, elle leur demande jusqu'à quand les conditions remises pour le F-35 resteront valables. Autrement dit, s'ils tiennent tant que cela à l'échéance du 14 octobre. Nuance. Difficile de savoir si la partie qui se joue actuellement est à classer au rayon "diplomatie de haut vol", ou mérite plutôt l'étiquette "négociation de marchands de tapis". L'acte I s'est joué le mois dernier: l'ambassadeur américain en Belgique a fait mine de mettre un petit coup de pression sur le gouvernement fédéral. En septembre, donc, Ronald Gidwitz rappelait que l'offre déposée par le groupe américain Lockheed Martin pour le remplacement des chasseurs-bombardiers belges F-16 expirait le 14 octobre, soit précisément le jour du scrutin communal. Pareille offre ne pourrait être indéfiniment prolongée, avertissait l'ambassadeur, empruntant les manières d'un représentant de commerce. Ou du moins pas en l'état; en cas de prolongation, il ne faudrait pas s'étonner de voir les conditions – prix, délais ou termes en matière d'entraînement – être modifiées. Pas dans le bon sens, fallait-il comprendre. Une sortie pour la galerie, en quelque sorte. Puisqu'elle ne semble avoir infléchi en rien la ligne de Michel. À qui l'on doit la composition de cet acte II: Un comité ministériel restreint avait déjà t'té le terrain, et un autre, réuni ce jeudi matin, a validé l'option. La Belgique va, en quelque sorte, demander la prorogation de l'offre déposée par le constructeur du F-35, postposant dans la foulée sa décision dans cet épineux dossier.Une fois de plus, puisque, outre ce 14 octobre, le sommet de l'Otan de juillet dernier avait déjà été présenté comme date limite pour trancher. Enfin, c'est un tantinet plus subtil que cela. Alors précisons. Non, la Belgique ne demande pas officiellement d'allongement du délai. Michel a mandaté son ministre de la Défense, le N-VA Steven Vandeput, qui est chargé de demander aux Américains la date de péremption de leur dossier. Autrement dit, à quel point tiennent-ils à l'échéance du 14 octobre, jusqu'ici brandie? Nuance, nuance. Le "chouchou" F-35 La Belgique joue donc la montre dans ce dossier complexe. Qui mérite une piqûre de rappel. Les 54 F-16 dont dispose la Belgique approchent tout doucement de l''ge de la retraite. Les premiers ont été livrés en 1982 et la limite des 8.000 heures de vol mène à un déclassement débutant en 2023. Voilà pourquoi le Fédéral a lancé en mars 2017 un appel d'offres portant sur l'acquisition de 34 nouveaux avions de combat, qui devraient être livrés à partir de 2023 et être tous opérationnels pour 2030. L'affaire est délicate. Parce que, assez rapidement, le F-35 américain a été désigné par l'amicale des bruits de couloir comme étant le "chouchou" – autrement dit, les jeux seraient déjà faits. Est venue s'ajouter en avril dernier une vraie-fausse polémique sur la possibilité d'allonger la durée de vie de nos vaillants, quoique vieillissants, F-16. Bref, pourquoi aller dépenser la modique somme de 3,6 milliards d'euros – et encore, il ne s'agit ici que de la mise initiale, les estimations de la facture totale tournant autour des 15 ou 18 milliards répartis sur une quarantaine d'années – alors que l'on pourrait "doper" la flotte existante pour un coût nettement plus doux? Ajoutez à cela la France et son Rafale, qui ont décidé de jouer les trouble-fêtes, en proposant, en septembre 2017, à la Belgique un "partenariat approfondi et structurant", et ce en dehors du cadre du marché lancé par Michel. La rumeur voudrait d'ailleurs que la Belgique n'ait jamais réellement inspecté en détail la proposition française. Résultat, le 14 février dernier, seuls deux avions étaient officiellement encore en lice: le F-35 Lightning II de l'américain Lockheed Martin – le plusonéreux des programmes d'armement de l'histoire militaire américaine – et l'Eurofighter Typhoon, porté par un consortium mêlant Royaume-Uni, Allemagne, Espagne et Italie. Et, faisant bande à part, le Rafale de Dassault. Comme si le remplacement des F-16 n'était pas suffisamment compliqué comme cela, d'autres marchés relatifs à la Défense sont ouverts – et non des moindres. De quoi créer des interférences ou pousser la Belgique à établir une sorte de balance générale, par le miracle d'une diplomatie de haut vol? Drones, navires et véhicules de combat Il est question de drones, puisque la Défense a prévu l'acquisition, pour 226 millions d'euros, de quatre drones susceptibles d'être armés. Alors que les militaires s'intéressaient à un engin "made in USA", le géant européen de l'aéronautique Airbus s'est invité et a proposé ses services. Il est question de navires, puisque la Belgique et les Pays-Bas ont entamé ensemble une procédure d'achat de seize navires militaires – deux frégates et six bateaux de lutte contre les mines chacun – pour une facture dépassant les 4 milliards. Aux Néerlandais de superviser le programme des frégates, aux Belges de présider celui des navires anti-mines. Mentionnons encore l'achat de 477 véhicules de combat pour les forces terrestres belges, pour lequel un préaccord à 1,1 milliard est établi avec la France. Benoît Mathieu, Journaliste Source: L'Echo https://www.lecho.be/economie-politique/belgique/flandre/la-belgique-joue-la-montre-avec-le-f-35/10056153.html

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The modernization team tasked with advancing the Army's next-generation combat vehicles is focused, as its top priority, on replacing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, according to the team's leader, Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman. The OMFV is meant to “provide options to commanders in combat, so it's a decision to, manned or unmanned, gain contact with the enemy, and that can be visual or through firepower, and it actually provides options to commanders so that they can use the best way to accomplish their mission,” Coffman said in an interview with Defense News shortly before the Association of the United States Army's annual meeting. The Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team — established as part of the Army's new Futures Command — tackles the service's second highest priority out of six major lines of effort that are intended to fully modernize the force by 2028. The CFT has had many conversations with industry to determine what's possible. The team has laid out what it thinks will be the requirements for the vehicle, Coffman said, including aspects like an optionally manned capability, loading it on a C-17 aircraft, protection elements and lethality. Even though the Army plans to rapidly prototype and procure the OMFV, Coffman said the team will continue to roll new technologies in through constant experimentation, in parallel with OMFV procurement, so that the first OMFV that comes out and gets fielded is constantly improved. The Army will roll those improvements into manufacturing “so that we can always maintain the current technology on these vehicles,” he said. The Army is requesting that designs have lots of room for upgrades and to add in new technology. "We know technology will continue to move at the pace it is today or faster, and it is going to allow us to have enough physical space and computing power as well as propulsion power that, if we want to add things to these vehicles, we have the ability to build them [to be] the best they can be,” Coffman said. Jumping right in, the service plans to release a request for proposals, not just a draft, by the end of the year, Coffman said. It is anticipated that the proposals will be due in May next year, and then the Army will downselect to two competitors who will build 14 prototypes in an engineering and manufacturing development phase in the first quarter of fiscal 2020, according to industry sources. Coffman said he hoped to cast a wide net with industry, including looking to partners around the world for solutions. “We want them to bring us their best, and we will evaluate and downselect to some number and do a procurement contract at the end of the final evaluation,” he said. To accommodate for the OMFV effort and the other lines of development within the CFT's portfolio, the Army has downgraded its prototype activity within the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. A year ago, the Army had kicked off a major prototyping effort to develop what the service was calling its NGCV by awarding an industry team a contract to build two demonstrators by fiscal year 2022. The Army awarded a seven-year, $700 million contract to a team consisting of SAIC — the team lead — as well as Lockheed Martin, Moog Inc., GS Engineering Inc., Hodges Transportation Inc. and Roush Industries. Jim Scanlon, senior vice president and general manager of SAIC's Defense Systems Group, told Defense News in a recent interview that while the initial plan was to build prototypes, the strategy has evolved. Now, the team is working on sub-system experimentation for TARDEC using Bradley assets, to test capabilities such as mobility systems and manned-unmanned teaming. SAIC, according to Scanlon, sees the Mobile Protected Firepower solution it is hoping to prototype for the Army as possessing technological capabilities that will serve as “hooks” — or a pathway — to fulfilling OMFV requirements. Other companies are likely to emerge with offerings for OMFV, including General Dynamics Land Systems, AM General and BAE Systems. BAE Systems brought its CV90 fighting vehicle, developed for the Swedish army, to AUSA. The Netherlands, Finland and Denmark are also customers of the vehicle. According to BAE, it brought the CV90 to the show as a starting point to discuss possible options for the NGCV program. Raytheon and Rheinmetall announced at the AUSA conference Oct. 8 that they are partnering to provide Rheinmetall's Lynx combat vehicle as its submission to the impending OMFV competition. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/replacing-the-bradley-is-the-top-priority-for-the-armys-next-gen-combat-vehicle-modernization-team

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — In the crowded exhibit halls of the U.S. Army's largest conference, a strange-looking drone — a small, flat, tailless, triangular aircraft with four flexible rotors — is suspended above a room full of giant wheeled vehicles and static helicopter displays. That aircraft, Textron's X5-55 demonstrator, hasn't been built for a customer or a particular mission, but the company believes that some of the technologies it plans to mature on the X5-55 could be spun off for future U.S. military requirements like a replacement to Textron's own RQ-7 Shadow. The goal is not to come to the services with a family of new products it can adopt, said David Phillips, Textron's senior vice president and general manager for unmanned systems. Instead, it plans to use the X5-55 as a test bed to mature new propulsion, rotor assembly and fuel cell technologies. “We're not going to say, ‘here's your product,' but we'll listen to them and we'll be ready,” he told Defense News in a Oct. 8 interview. “We know what our deployed customers want. Everything is about smaller, smaller, smaller, and doing more and [being] easier to operate and more agile and more flexible and quieter.” What sets the X5-55 apart from other drones is its vector thrust technology that allows it to take off vertically, hover, transition to normal flight and land vertically using the four electric rotors, whereas other drones that vertically take off but fly like an airplane — like the company's Aerosonde hybrid quad unmanned aircraft system — use electric-powered rotors for vertical flight and a heavy fuel engine to power their propeller during horizontal flight. “The logic allows the system, basically, literally to eliminate what we call flight control surfaces. So you won't see ailerons. You won't see flaps, you won't see servos and those things that control the elevation, climb and descend in normal flight,” he said. “That's all done with the vector thrust. We change how those electric motors and the props work in tandem to be able to climb or descend.” Textron unveiled the X5-55 this May at the Association for Unmanned Vehicles International Xponential conference, but the version shown this week at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference has already been modified with new propulsion pods and rotor assemblies that help enable vector thrust, as well as landing gear that protects the underside of the drone as it touches down. The demonstrator flies every several weeks at Textron's schoolhouse at Blackstone, Virginia. And over the next few months, the company plans to continue testing the drone's ability to move from hover to standard flight, as well as eventually work up to endurance flights that prove how long the UAS can remain airborne. Although the Army does not have a formal requirement for a Shadow replacement, officials have expressed interest in fielding one soon. Earlier this year, Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen, who runs the Army's Future Vertical Lift program, called a Shadow replacement an area where there is “potential, anyway, for a quick win,” and said that it should take a few years — not a full decade — to be able to field a new, runway-independent drone for the service. “We are talking much, much shorter, so when I'm talking ‘soon,' I'm talking just several years, not distant future,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/as-armys-shadow-to-fade-from-view-textron-looks-to-a-successor

By: Todd South Army researchers are speeding up development on key conventional munitions, from field artillery to long-range missiles, and making them more deadly when they land. At a panel hosted by Defense News at the annual Association of the United States Army annual meeting, commanders with the Army's Research, Development and Engineering Command, Program Executive Office-Ammunition and the Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team gave a few updates on those efforts. Brig. Gen. Alfred Abramson III, head of PEO Ammo and Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, told audience members that his researchers are finding the quickest ways to go after extending ranges, saying that the XM1113 round will be “critical” for the conventional artillery in the Extended Range Cannon Artillery program, a centerpiece of artillery modernization. Abramson noted that the existing M795 High Explosive artillery round, the base of the 155mm munition portfolio, includes about 614,000 rounds in the nation's stockpile. But those rounds only reach out to about 30 kilometers. The problem developers face in pushing the ranges of conventional rounds is keeping them both accurate and having a real effect when they strike, he said. “You want to push it out to 70 kilometers and ensure it's not just a long-range paintball,” Abramson said. The XM1128 pushes those ranges to about 40 kilometers currently. But work with “lithographic fragmentation technology,” Abramson said, makes the round more lethal on target. Col. John Rafferty, director of the LRPF CFT, said that recent testing has gotten 155mm artillery rounds to the 60-kilometer range at the Yuma, Arizona, testing facility. Abramson said that his organization has seen a significant spike of about $2.5 billion for fiscal years 2017 to 2022 funding for ammunition and armament systems products. Another $1.5 billion has been allotted to update the aging ammunition manufacturing plants across the Army, he said. Recent Overseas Contingency Operations funding for 2019 was marked at about $4.1 billion simply to replenish munitions consumed during combat. What's being done to advance the science? Maj. Gen. Cedric Wins, commanding general of U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, said that over the past year, $900 million was realigned for science and technology development for the LRPF initiatives, and another $500 million was also realigned for the Air Missile Defense CFT. His organization just completed a six-month study of energetics propulsion that included a detailed study of adversary capabilities and advancements over the past two decades. It also looked at how those advances were achieved and what gaps exist in the United States' armaments, he said. While the study has not yet been released to the public, he said two non-technical gaps that the United States must correct are in their ability to collaborate with global partners and science, chemistry and energy experts within government. Further down the development pipeline he said was a shortfall in transitioning the research to the PEOs for development and fielding. One tech challenge is the existing stockpiles. As the developers push the capacities of conventional rounds and their systems they must also maintain “backwards compatibility” with the substantial munition stockpiles, he said. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/08/army-leans-on-scientists-to-push-the-boundaries-of-munitions-range-precision-lethality

By: Meghann Myers So far, 2018 has seen an overhaul of basic combat training and a pilot programto extend infantry one-station unit training from 14 to 22 weeks. Next stop: Reducing the number of trainees assigned to each drill sergeant. Earlier this year, the Army sent drill sergeants back to advanced individual training, bringing uniformity to the whole of initial entry training for new soldiers who move onto a second training program following basic. But the ratio of trainers to trainees is still “way too high,” Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley told Army Times on Monday at the AUSA annual meeting in Washington, D.C. “And that's because we intentionally, over the last 17 years, we trimmed our institutional force ... in order to feed the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and make sure that those deploying units had enough people,” he said. So that left the base with 20 trainees for every one drill sergeant at basic combat training, and 40-to-1 at AIT. “We want to essentially cut those ratios in half,” Milley said, while adding a platoon sergeant and officer platoon leader to each of those units. The Army is counting on a steady rise in end strength to 500,000 active component soldiers in the next four years. Those new additions are slated first to fill spots in operational units, but the training base is also hurting for more of the unprecedented number of noncommissioned officers who have been re-enlisting. Decreasing the ratio of drill sergeants to trainees comes at a time when basic training programs are extending, requiring yet more instructors. The Army wants to improve basic combat training “not just in the length, but in the quality and attention paid to each trainee,” Milley said. Infantry OSUT completed a pilot program to extend from 14 to 22 weeks this summer, Army Secretary Mark Esper told Army Times, and that plan will extend in the next year to armor, combat engineers and others. “If we step back and ask ourselves, why? Why extend it?” Esper said. “I think it's lessons learned from the field, the operational Army that says, ‘Look, we're getting solders who could use more time to develop their physical fitness.' Maybe spend more time talking about the military traditions and our history, that [they] would come to the service with a greater sense of discipline.” Some more tactical and technical expertise wouldn't hurt, he added. “We thought adding two months would be what it takes,” for OSUT, Esper said, making it the “Longest and most challenging infantry basic training the world. Depending on what we learn ... we would seek to apply those lessons to other MOSs.” https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/08/milley-were-going-to-cut-instructor-trainee-ratios-at-army-basic-training-in-half

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army has been holding what has been called “night court,” full of “deep dives” to assess how essential existing programs are to the service's radical modernization goalssince the earlier part of this year. And according to the service's secretary, it has found roughly $25 billion through the process to apply to its priorities. Secretary Mark Esper, in a press briefing at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference, would not speak to the details of what programs will bite the dust to cover the cost of emerging modernization efforts because they are evident in the service's proposed fiscal 2020 budget, which has yet to clear the Office of the Secretary of Defense. But he did say “that dollar figure is a low-end number over the [Future Years Defense Program] FYDP,” adding: “Most of the savings are principally found in the [equipping] peg.” Esper, as well as Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and other top leadership, spent roughly 40 to 60 hours reviewing programs within the equipping peg since this spring as a part of a new effort to comb through every program and weigh them against modernization priorities. The thinking goes that if programs or activities didn't fit in the top six modernization priorities the Army laid out a year ago, then the programs could go, freeing up dollars for the priorities. The Army announced last year at AUSA that it planned to stand up Army Futures Command, a new four-star organization tasked to push forward efforts that will modernize the Army by 2028. There are six modernization priorities: Long-Range Precision Fires, Next-Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality. The Army went “program by program, activity by activity to look at each one and assess it and ask ourselves is this more important than a Next-Generation Combat Vehicle, is this more important than a squad automatic weapon, is this more important than Long-Range Precision Fires,” Esper said. “We had to make those trade-offs, and it resulted in, again, reductions and cancellations and consolidations, so that is our intent as we continue to go through the other pegs,” Esper said. “We're trying to be as judicious as we can with every dollar that has been disposed by Congress,” Army Under Secretary Ryan McCarthy told Defense News in an interview ahead of AUSA. “This is a way for us to put the highest level of rigor and prioritization that you could give for the department against our priorities.” The Army needs to be prepared for potential contraction of the Budget Control Act, McCarthy noted. “We will be ready for that no matter what.” Starting this month, the Army will take on manning and training programs in the same way. Esper said the Army is “playing a little bit of catch up” to get after reviewing the manning and training pegs, but said the service is going to institutionalize the process. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/armys-night-court-finds-25-billion-to-reinvest-in-modernization-priorities

By Naomi Nix Alphabet Inc.'s Google has decided not to compete for the Pentagon's cloud-computing contract valued at as much as $10 billion, saying the project may conflict with its corporate values. The project, known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure cloud, or JEDI, involves transitioning massive amounts of Defense Department data to a commercially operated cloud system. Companies are due to submit bids for the contract, which could last as long as 10 years, on Oct. 12th. Google's announcement on Monday came just months after the company decided not to renew its contract with a Pentagon artificial intelligence program, after extensive protests from employees of the internet giant about working with the military. The company then released a set of principles designed to evaluate what kind of artificial intelligence projects it would pursue. “We are not bidding on the JEDI contract because first, we couldn't be assured that it would align with our AI Principles," a Google spokesman said in a statement. "And second, we determined that there were portions of the contract that were out of scope with our current government certifications.” The spokesman added that Google is “working to support the U.S. government with our cloud in many ways.” The Tech Workers Coalition, which advocates for giving employees a say in technology company decisions, said in a statement that Google's decision to withdraw from the cloud competition stemmed from “sustained” pressure from tech workers who “have significant power, and are increasingly willing to use it.” Read more: Google Won't Renew Pentagon AI Drone Deal After Staff Backlash Google is behind other technology companies such as Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. in obtaining government cloud-security authorizations that depend on the sensitivity of data a service is hosting. The JEDI contract attracted widespread interest from technology companies struggling to catch up with Amazon in the burgeoning federal government market for cloud services. Final requirements for the project were released in July after a months-long lobbying campaign in Washington by tech companies including Microsoft, International Business Machines Corp. and Oracle Corp. that opposed the Pentagon's plans to choose just one winner for the project instead of splitting the contract among a number of providers. “Had the JEDI contract been open to multiple vendors, we would have submitted a compelling solution for portions of it,” the Google spokesman said. “Google Cloud believes that a multi-cloud approach is in the best interest of government agencies, because it allows them to choose the right cloud for the right workload.” In a report to Congress, the Defense Department said making multiple awards under current acquisition law would be a slow process that “could prevent DoD from rapidly delivering new capabilities and improved effectiveness to the warfighter that enterprise-level cloud computing can enable.” The department also said it expects “to maintain contracts with numerous cloud providers to access specialized capabilities not available under the JEDI Cloud contract.” — With assistance by Ben Brody, and Josh Eidelson https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-08/google-drops-out-of-pentagon-s-10-billion-cloud-competition

PAR JEAN-PAUL BAQUIAST BLOG : POUR UNE EUROPE PUISSANCE Ce terme de guerre signifie que plusieurs pays, Etats-Unis, Russie, Chine, France, Inde, veulent se doter pour 2020 environ de flottes d'avions de combat multi-rôles dits encore de 5e génération. Ceux-ci doivent avoir des versions capables de décoller d'un porte-avion dépourvu de catapultes. Depuis quelques années, l'objectif recherché était la furtivité, c'est-à-dire la possibilité d'échapper aux radars dont sont dotés les divers objectifs envisageable. Mais le progrès constant de ceux-ci rendent la furtivité pratiquement impossible à acquérir en totalité. C'est dorénavant, en dehors des aptitudes au combat rapproché aérien, la capacité d'emporter des missiles de plus en plus perfectionnés mais aussi de plus en plus lourds qui paraît aujourd'hui primer. Les Etats-Unis ont traditionnellement dominé le domaine, avec notamment le Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, diffusé à des centaines d'exemplaires. Depuis une dizaine d'années, ils avaient envisagé de les remplacer par des Lockheed Martin F 35 dits aussi JSF, pour Joint Strike Fighter. Mais les déboires à peine croyables qu'ils ont enregistrés dans le déroulement de ce programme, estimé au minimum à $1.500 milliards, font qu'ils redonnent d'importantes perspectives aux F-22 Raptor. Rappelons qu'Israël, seul Etat ayant pris le risque de mettre en service opérationnel des F-35 du type Adir, ne semble pas prête à les utiliser contre des batteries de S 300 russes en Syrie, même lorsqu'ils seront pris en mains par des Syriens. La Russie n'a jamais voulu se laisser distancer de façon importante par les Etats-Unis dans ce domaine. De nombreuses générations d'avions de combat avaient été développées depuis le début de la guerre froide. Pour un proche avenir, ce sera le Sukhoi Su-57 qui devrait prendre le relais de l'actuel Su-35. Le Su-57 a même été qualifié d'appareil de 6e génération. Mais en ce domaine ce sont les essais réussis qui comptent plus que les mots. La Chine qui jusqu'à présent s'était satisfaite de modèles directement inspirés par leurs homologues russes, a développé dans le plus grand secret et vient de présenter au public un appareil dit entièrement chinois, le Chengdu J-20. Elle comptera principalement sur lui pour se doter de la supériorité aérienne dans le Pacifique sud. Rappelons que la France dispose depuis plusieurs années du Dassault Rafale dont des versions successives sont régulièrement présentées. Dit parfois comme le meilleur avion de combat du monde, celui-ci devrait en tous cas être susceptible de s'opposer dans la pllupart des cas aux avions américains, russes et chinois. Quant à l'Inde, elle n'a pas encore essayé de se doter d'une gamme propre. Aujourd'hui elle a commandé une petite série de Rafales, qui pourraient à l'avenir être construits sous licence en Inde. Mais elle réfléchit également à la perspective d'acquérir des appareils russes du type Sukhoi. Israël serait très demandeur d'avions proprement israéliens ? Mais le pays vu le coût du programme compte aujourd'hui sur des appareils américains, qui ne semblent pourtant pas donner de grandes satisfactions. Rappelons qu'aux Etats-Unis comme en France, la fabrication des avions ou des pièces détachées est très largement décentralisée dans des pays-tiers. Mais cela n'est pas sans risques. En est témoin le fait que, selon une source iranienne, les Américains se découvrent aujourd'hui très dépendants de la Turquie, avec laquelle ils ne sont pas dans les meilleurs termes, pour la fabrication des F-35 Références https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57 http://parstoday.com/fr/news/world-i68520-le_su_57_6e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ration_arrive! https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 http://parstoday.com/fr/news/world-i71450-f_35_la_surprise_turque_pour_les_usa http://www.myzone59.com/f-35-jsf-le-cout-estime-du-programme-atteint-les-1-510-milliards-de-dollars/ https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jean-paul-baquiast/blog/071018/breve-note-sur-la-guerre-des-avions-de-combat-de-nouvelle-generation