F-35 Lightning II - Discussione Ufficiale

[Flaggy]

.... che non mancherà di innescare un'ulteriore animata discussione ....

Veramente sono 137 pagine che si discute animatamente , senza considerare l'altra discussione chiusa da un bel po'nella sezione bombardieri...

Il progamma è in ritardo? Più che un intervento provocatorio, quella di Bill Sweetman è la scoperta dell'acqua calda...

Ha scritto qualche articoletto del genere anche sui ritardi biblici e gli sforamenti del budget di F-22, Rafale, EF-2000, A-400, SU-34, SU-35, T-50, Tejas, A-380, B-787 e...quanti ne ho dimenticati di programmi in ritardo e/o fuori budget? Strano, nessuno di questi è STOVL...

Modificato 26 Ottobre 2011 da Flaggy

[matteo16]

16:16 - giovedì 27/10/2011

 

LM annuncia i dati relativi al terzo trimestre 2011

 

Bethesda, Usa - Le vendite nette sono aumentate del 7% a 12,1 miliardi di dollari

 

 

(WAPA) - Lockheed Martin (LM) ha annunciato ieri i risultati riguardanti il terzo trimestre dell'anno in corso.

 

Di seguito, i dati riassunti.

 

- Le vendite nette sono cresciute del 7 per cento a 12,1 miliardi di dollari

- Utili provenienti da operazioni continue aumentati del 19 percento a 665 milioni

- utili per azione (diluted) da operazioni continue hanno subito un rialzo del 30 per cento a 1,99

- Dividendo trimestrale incrementato del 33% ad un dollaro per titolo

- Riacquistati 13,4 milioni di azioni ad un costo di 964 milioni

- Outlook 2011 aumenta e fornisce informazioni di tendenza per il 2012.

 

La versione integrale del comunicato stampa (corredato da tabelle) emesso dall'industria statunitense è disponibile al seguente link http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/1026hq-earnings.html. (Avionews)

 

Link

[TT-1 Pinto]

Dissapori ....

 

Lockheed complains about F-35 contract switch 

 

Stephen Trimble (Washington DC - 6 hours ago)

 

Source:

 

 

Lockheed Martin has aired complaints about a US government decision to change the terms of its next yearly F-35 production contract more than five months after the company submitted its proposal.

 

Lockheed chief executive Robert Stevens disclosed in the company's third-quarter earnings statement that government negotiators have inserted a new issue into the negotiations over the contract for the fifth lot of F-35s in the low-rate initial production (LRIP) phase.

 

Three weeks ago, the F-35 joint programme office informed Lockheed that the company must absorb the higher costs of output in future aircraft because of redesigns and other problems discovered in prior years, Stevens said.

 

Moreover, the Department of Defense told Lockheed that payments now valued at $750 million will continue to be withheld until the firm agrees to the change of the F-35 contract structure.

 

Steven complained that "to have submitted [the LRIP 5] proposal in April, and to three weeks ago be confronted with a new contract requirement that wasn't reflected in the price we had offered"

 

"And then we were advised that the additional funding that we have been requesting since February was, in fact, conditioned on the successful negotiation of a concurrency clause. My preference would be to negotiate all the terms and conditions at the same time and not selectively address increments and pieces," Stevens continued.

 

The change exposes Lockheed to unexpected costs in the short-term and alters one of the fundamental terms for all weapon systems purchased by the DoD.

 

Despite Lockheed's objections about the government's negotiating style, Stevens did not say whether the company would reject the terms and accept the termination of the F-35 contract.

 

"I will certainly tell you our intention is to negotiate in good faith with the government," Stevens said.

 

The company is still grappling with the implications of the government's proposed change in the contracting terms.

 

"We're fundamentally ploughing some new ground here," Stevens said.

 

The disclosure of friction in the Lot 5 negotiation comes days after the programme achieved one of its most important goals in the flight test programme.

 

The US Marine Corps completed shipboard trials of the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant in 18 days.

 

The programme had scheduled the tests to run between two and six weeks, depending on the number of unexpected issues were to arose.

 

Fonte: AviationWeek.com

 

Pentagon, Lockheed At Odds Over F-35 Fixes

 

By Amy Butler (WASHINGTON - Oct 26, 2011)

 

 

Ten years to the date of the F-35 development contract being signed, the Pentagon is playing hardball with Lockheed Martin, its prime contractor for the roughly $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter, the largest program on the Defense Department’s books.

 

Bob Stevens, CEO of the Pentagon’s largest contractor, says the government has failed to reimburse the company for items associated with the low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 5 F-35 build. And, those bills may not be paid until the company agrees to negotiate what Stevens says is an “unprecedented” contract provision called a concurrency clause for the next production lot of aircraft.

 

Such a clause would place the burden of financial liability on the contractor team for design changes inserted onto the LRIP 5 jets as a result of discoveries made during the ongoing flight-testing program. Stevens declined to outline how much liability the government was intending to place on the contractors.

 

“As we requested funding to cover our termination liability and fund our supplier base on lot 5, we were advised by the government earlier this month that funding for Lot 5 that was appropriated by the Congress in April would now be contingent on our company assuming a new and unprecedented contract provision called a concurrency clause” for the Lot 5 jets, Stevens said.

 

Though Congress approved about $500 million in funding for these long-lead activities in July 2010, it was used by February. But the bills have continued to accrue without government payment, putting the onus on Lockheed to cover the costs. “We requested additional funding from the government which has not yet been provided,” Stevens told reporters during the third-quarter earnings telecom Oct. 26.

 

He says that the termination liability at the end of the third quarter totaled $750 million, a figure that would grow to $1.2 billion by year’s end without government payment. This would total $150 million in cash exposure by the end of the year, said Bruce Tanner, Lockheed’s chief financial officer. This exposure is most likely to be temporary, as it would only become an actual bill for Lockheed in the event of an F-35 program termination. However, at the very least, the company is temporarily floating the cost of these bills.

 

To get the additional money from the Pentagon, however, the government would need to invoke an “undefinitized contract action,” which allows for a program manager to quickly allocate funding at his discretion. UCAs have been heavily used to get contractors working quickly in support of war needs. However, the services (in particular the Air Force) raised the consternation of Congress for a perceived overuse of the tactic. At issue is that while this approach allows for a contractor to begin work quickly, the actual cost negotiations come after work has started, allowing for the specter of uncertainty in the cost of the activities up front. Last year, the Air Force conducted a concerted UCA drawdown effort and was tracking those actions closely in response to congressional inquiries.

 

“The expectation here is that the government will absolutely recognize and respect that effort that we have undertaken in their interest and they will provide the funding that we have requested that will be forthcoming in an undefinitized contract action … and then we together can go forward to negotiate the Lot 5 contract in total, including a provision for concurrency,” Stevens said. “We are not in any overt way suggesting that concurrency costs are not a reasonable element of conversation in a negotiation for Lot 5,” he argues, noting that release of the funding should not be contingent first on negotiation of a concurrency clause.

 

Though not balking entirely on the concurrency clause, Stevens does argue against what he sees as an undue burden for the financial liability of infusing fixes for discoveries in the test program onto the production line. “We would look there for a fair and equitable resolution based on what can be known about the performance of the airplane and also expecting what is unknown and not able to be predicted by the contractor or the government,” he said. “It is distinctly argued that a discovery in the program is not a deficiency or a fault of the contractor … These discoveries are not defects. They are a part of a learning process that is a very well established facet of an engineering system like this.”

 

The F-35 Joint Program Office, however, is sticking to its argument that concurrency cost must be shared with industry. “In the previous four LRIP contracts, all concurrency-related recurring costs have been borne 100% by the government,” says Joe Dellavedova, spokesman for the JPO. “On 19 August 2011, [the Pentagon acquisition chief] issued an acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) requiring any LRIP 5 production contract to reflect a reasonable allocation for Lockheed Martin to share in the concurrency-cost risk associated with achieving F-35 configuration and capability requirements. The government remains committed to securing a fair agreement with Lockheed Martin to share in concurrency costs. This agreement, or undefinitized contract, will happen in advance of the negotiated final contract.”

 

Stevens argued in his call that the company has stepped up to show its commitment to moving forward with the F-35 amid the fiscal pressures on today’s budget by agreeing one year early to the fixed-price incentive fee contract for LRIP Lot 4; that contract was negotiated late last year after protracted talks that shifted it from a cost reimbursable deal (meaning the contractor gets paid for activities) to fixed price (meaning cost is only reimbursed to a ceiling). “We understand the realities our customers are facing,” he said.

 

This disagreement associated with LRIP 5 comes a year after the Pentagon and company conducted what were described as unusually protracted and contentious negotiations for LRIP 4. The government’s willingness to push for this agreement is a sign that the disagreements about year-over-year lot prices and terms are not likely to let up, and the precedent set last year for LRIP 4 talks could continue into the future.

 

Lockheed is raising this issue on the heels of the first at-sea trails of the F-35B, the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant that fell significantly behind schedule last year owing to reliability problems. Stevens noted that during the trials on the USS Wasp, BF-2 and BF-4 conducted 72 vertical landings and short takeoffs.

 

Also, as of close of business on Oct. 25, the entire program has conducted 803 flights, exceeding the 749 planned and 6,287 test points against 5,796 planned.

 

Stevens acknowledges that a design review is ongoing to explore a new approach to the arrested landing hook for the F-35C carrier version, which has not performed well during tests.

 

Stevens also acknowledged that the program is about two months behind in software development work, an issue that senior program officials acknowledged was one of concern earlier this year. While the 1B software is flying, the Block 2 software was expected to be ready for release for flight testing. Stevens says the company is working to recover the lost time.

 

[TT-1 Pinto]

Lungo articolo, apparso ieri sul sito di "AW&ST", nel quale la giornalista Amy Butler fa il punto sui primi risultati ottenuti nel corso delle recenti prove in mare dello F-35B ....

 

Fonte: Aviation Week and Space Technology

 

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials

 

By Amy Butler

Onboard the USS Wasp (Oct. 28, 2011)

 

Within sight of the Virginia coast, the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship has been circling since the beginning of the month in a 20 X 20-mi. box quietly—until now—making history as the host of the very first sea trials of the Lockheed Martin F-35B, which is designed for short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) operations for the U.S. Marine Corps.

 

Only miles inland, in Washington, Pentagon officials and lawmakers continue debating the fate of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which—as the single most expensive planned Pentagon procurement—is perhaps the most vulnerable to funding cuts, in light of deficit talks.

 

But, last week before wrapping up the first developmental test period for the aircraft, the U.S. Marine Corps and F-35 Joint Program office broke their silence on the testing and invited a handful of reporters onto the amphibious assault ship for a firsthand look. The limited results that have been released have largely indicated no major anomalies. But, it is unclear whether testing progress can save not only the F-35B but the entire nine-nation program as customers scramble to secure funds for their development and purchasing commitments amid mounting national debts.

 

Only a year ago, test aircraft BF-1 was stuck on the ground related to repairs and the failure to produce the vertical landings needed to clear the envelope for the remainder of the test fleet; this bottlenecked progress with other Stovl test aircraft and earned the variant an “on probation” status by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

 

With a dearth of test data, the Marine Corps at the time was arguing in favor of the program based largely on faith that Lockheed Martin’s projections and the company’s models would prove valid. Now, however, the service has a windfall of data from work this year as well as from these inaugural ship-based operations. In defending once again against killing the “B”—the most expensive of the F-35 variants—the service now plans to lean on knowledge rather than faith.

 

The trials were designed to test basic integration of the F-35B with the LHD-class ships; Marines plan to house up to six F-35Bs on the ships to provide air support for activities at sea and during assault landings. Thus far, officials have conducted more than 60 vertical landings and short takeoffs (STO) here.

 

They have also determined that the B has better deck and hangar-handling qualities than the AV-8B, the aircraft the JSF will replace on these decks, says Capt. Brenda Holdener, the Wasp’s commanding officer.

 

Testing experts at NAS Patuxent River, Md., are combing through data to explore the thermal dynamics on the ship. Test officials are keenly interested in understanding how the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, and its hot exhaust, as well as the Integrated Power Pack affects the deck itself and impacts operations.

 

The vertical landing approaches mirror those used by the AV-8B, says Marine Corps Col. Roger Cordell, director of test and evaluation for the F-35B as well as the “C” designed for aircraft carrier use. He says that pilots initially approached from stern to bow and crossed over above the deck at a 90-deg. angle. Only after ship operators were comfortable with pilots’ skills were they able to begin cutting that angle to 45 deg. Harrier pilots use both angles.

 

Although in land testing the F-35B pilots often conduct hovers around 100 ft., Cordell says that on deck they have narrowed that down to 40 ft. “It is counterintuitive, but the airplane has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 ft. than it does at 100 ft.,” he says. “Land-based, we did most of our hovers at 100 ft. to avoid kicking up rocks . . . and then we worked our way to a reasonable height for the ship.” During descent, the aircraft is set to reduce its altitude by 7 fps.; officials say they will eventually experiment with that number to widen the envelope.

 

Lt. Col. Matt Kelly, the lead F-35 test pilot at Patuxent River, originally a Hornet pilot, says that his first time conducting a vertical landing on an L-class ship was with the F-35B. “The challenge is not ‘am I going to get my aircraft onboard,’” he says. “The challenge really becomes 'can I put my nose tire in a 1 ft. X 1-ft. square box where I want to on the deck.’ That is really a testament to the flight controls and the tools that pilots have.”

 

Kelly acknowledges that the deck motion does impact landing operations, but “the control law you have is so good, you can compensate.”

 

Thermal impacts to the ship’s deck have been a concern leading up to these trials. Though formal data haven’t yet been analyzed, Tom Briggs, the integrated test team engineering lead at Patuxent River who is helping to oversee the ship trials, says the aircraft is performing as predicted by the models in terms of heat ingestion on the ship. Officials had been concerned that the F-35B would reingest its own hot exhaust, impacting performance of the propulsion system and potentially damaging hardware. There are no such performance impacts thus far, Cordell says. “We feel like we are running where we intended to crawl.”

 

Additionally, there is “nothing mysterious” about the thermal qualities of the F-35B on the deck, says Ansis Kalnajs, a test director for Naval Sea Systems Command who is leading the effort to study the aircraft impacts on the ship.

 

Pilots and crews were qualified in Harriers in advance of the F-35Bs’ arrival Oct. 3.

 

Prior to that work, the ship received a number of standard modifications, such as a new aft non-skid deck coating in parking spots 7-9, Holdener says. The remaining spots on deck appear lighter in color owing to the aging of the deck.

 

Also, in a square on spot 9, Navy officials laid a new material called Thermion, which is expected to require less upkeep while withstanding the same temperatures as the existing formula. The impacts of F-35B vertical landing operations can be studied on the Thermion as part of these trials.

 

The yellow tramline used by pilots as a target for the nose gear upon landing was moved roughly 38 in. outboard on the Wasp to accommodate the wider wingspan of the F-35B. Officials also removed a WSC satellite antenna, some life rafts and a missile launcher, and shielded other equipment to reduce the potential of harming sensitive electronics on the aircraft; this was done for testing only.

 

Though vertical landings are quite similar to those of the Harrier, the STO operations do vary for the F-35 owing to the different lift qualities of the F-35s’ stealthy, supersonic-capable design. For testing on the Wasp, the nozzles and control surfaces actuate with 225 ft. of runway remaining on deck, creating an angle of attack and allowing for the wings to produce enough lift for takeoff from the deck, Cordell says. The Harrier’s rotation line is at the bow, owing to its wing design creating the required lift without the corresponding angle-of-attack change. Cordell says that the testing equipment at the ship’s bow has also not detected any problems with the F-35’s nozzle clearance as it takes off.

 

Pilots were qualified using the heart of the Harrier wind envelope. During testing they have expanded that up to a 30-kt. headwind, 10-kt. crosswind and 5-kt. tailwind. Pilots report good handling qualities, Cordell says.

 

The goal for STO testing was to establish the wind envelope for at-sea performance of manual settings on the aircraft. There are three methods for takeoff: manual (pilot pulling back on the stick); using a button that actuates the nozzle at the rotation line; or auto STO, which places the aircraft at a known distance from the rotation line. In this auto setting the aircraft will actuate automatically when the pilot reaches that rotation line. Cordell says pilots were able expand the scope to experiment with the auto-STO mode.

 

Tests have been conducted on the ship by BF-2, designed for flight sciences and BF-4, optimized with a data-collecting pod in the weapons bay, for mission systems. During the Oct. 18 visit, BF-4 conducted two VLs and two STOs. BF-2 had “returned to the beach” at Patuxent River for undisclosed repairs and checkout, Holdener said. Earlier in testing, BF-2 also underwent repairs related to a fuel leak. Several repairs have been conducted on the ship, according to Briggs.

 

Among them was the replacement of a flat tire, which required an aircraft to be hoisted on jacks in the hangar—a first for the F-35 program. Incidentally, Briggs says the aircraft are using tires at a slower rate while on deck than during testing at Patuxent River. There, maintainers were replacing tires faster than expected in crosswind conditions.

 

Maintainers also replaced a testy upper lift fan door actuator on BF-4 while on the ship, Briggs says. The aircraft was down for this repair midday Oct. 16 and back flying Oct. 18. BF-4 suffered another problem with this actuator shortly after reporters left the deck. And, BF-2 returned to the Wasp late on Oct. 18. Overall, repairs “haven’t gotten worse out there [than at Pax],” Briggs says.

 

Rear Adm. Kevin Scott, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 2, says lessons from the Wasp trials could eventually inform F-35C carrier-based testing.

 

Ground-based trap landing continues by the team at Patuxent River. Briggs says the team is exploring a new tailhook design, as the existing model is not catching the arrested landing wire.

 

Conducting the Wasp trials was one of five goals for which F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin can earn fees in 2011; in 2010 the company earned only $7 million of $35 million in available fees (AW&ST Oct. 3, p. 30). The Marine Corps intends to declare initial operational capability for the F-35B in 2015; the original plan was 2012 and was later slipped to 2014. After the U.K. opted to forgo the F-35B, the Marine Corps and Italy remain its only likely customers.

 

[matteo16]

Le varie industrie che partecipano al programma F-35

 

[TT-1 Pinto]

Guardando i nomi delle aziende italiane riportate nel grafico .... mi è venuta la voglia di strapparmi i capelli ....

 

 

Samputensilli

Oto Meleraia

Segundo Mona

Cusinetti

Mecear

 

.... e, come se non bastasse, si direbbe di fonte ufficiale ....

[luciocabrio]

L'Umbra che produce?Dov'è situata?in umbria??

Modificato 30 Ottobre 2011 da vorthex

[TT-1 Pinto]

I tagli incombono ....

 

The US industry's largest ­combat aircraft programmes are also at risk under the new round of spending cuts. Thomas Buffenbarger, IAM president, raised the alarm about the future of the Lockheed Martin F-35 - a so-called fifth-generation fighter, ­because of its combination of stealth, agility and integrated sensors, adding: "If we give up on a fifth-generation fighter, we're done. China's not giving up on it and Russia's not giving up on it."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-defence-cuts-deeper-than-they-look-363922/

 

 

.... anzi .... sono già cominciati ....

 

The US Department of Defense will buy five fewer Lockheed Martin F-35s in the next yearly production contract and use the savings to cover the government's share of rising costs for manufacturing delays and development mistakes.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-slashes-f-35-orders-to-pay-for-cost-overruns-364144/

[Umberto]

Continuano i lanci da catapulta per la versione C.

Ne hanno fatti gia piu di 50

Articolo completo

Modificato 1 Novembre 2011 da Umberto

[TT-1 Pinto]

Perchè quando si clicca su un link postato da "Umberto" si apre una segnalazione di sito pericoloso?

 

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Umberto il tuo link è rotto. Prova anche tu.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Possibili ritardi per l'inizio dell'addestramento sugli F-35A dell'USAF ....

 

Dal "Daily Report" dell' "AFA" (U.S. Air Force Association) del 2 Novembre 2011 ....

 

Daily Report (Wednesday November 02, 2011)

 

Start Date for F-35 Training at Eglin Under Review:

 

A senior Pentagon official has expressed "serious concerns" about starting F-35 training on the Air Force’s conventional take-off and landing variant at Eglin AFB, Fla., this fall, saying the Joint Strike Fighter program has yet to address some safety-related issues.

It could take at least 10 months to meet those requirements, wrote Michael Gilmore (1), director of Operational Test and Evaluation, in a memo dated Oct. 21 to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

The Project on Government Reform posted the memo (2) on its blog Monday.

"Initiation of training in an immature aircraft risks the occurrence of a serious mishap. The consequences of a mishap at Eglin would overwhelm the very modest benefits of beginning flight training this fall," wrote Gilmore.

Vice Adm. David Venlet (3), JSF program executive officer, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas Owen (4), commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, disagreed with Gilmore’s assessment in a response memo, also posted on the POGO site.

They said the risks asserted in the memo “were covered at length during the three-star risk assessment board as part of the airworthiness process.”

A third memo, by acting USD(ATL) Frank Kendall (5), asks the Air Force to resolve the issue.

Links ....

 

(1) .... http://www.dote.osd.mil/about/gilmorebio.html

 

(2) .... http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/10/is-the-air-force-rushing-the-jsf-into-a-serious-mishap.html

 

(3) .... http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288

 

(4) .... http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7726

 

(5) .... http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=248

[SuperRay20]

Innanzitutto, visto che sono nuovo del forum, faccio un saluto a tutti...

 

Dopodichè vorrei farvi una domanda seguita da una considerazione per sapere cosa ne pensate: siamo davvero sicuri che acquistare l'F-35 sia la cosa migliore per il futuro dell'AMI?

 

Mi spiego meglio: posto che la versione STOVL per l'AN è indispensabile se si vuole mantenere una componente ad ala fissa imbarcata, gli altri esemplari che si è previsto di acquistare per l'Aeronautica hanno raggiunto dei costi insostenibili per le nostre casse se si vuole mantenere un numero sufficiente di apparecchi in servizio.

 

Come molti di voi, anche in altri topic, hanno spesso fatto notare, il nostro paese avrebbe bisogno in teoria di almeno 190/200 aerei per avere possibilità operative in linea con i propri impegni in ambito NATO e ONU e non mi sembra che questa cifra sia anche solo lontanamente raggiungibile con il numero di Typhoon che sono già o che saranno in futuro in servizio e con la quantità (veramente scarsa) di F-35 che possiamo permetterci (20? 30 ad essere ottimisti?).

 

Certo se poi si decidesse di andare avanti ancora per un bel pò con Tornado retrofittati o di dotare un terzo delle nostre forze di M-346 (che per quanto siano dual role non sono all'altezza di aerei da strike "veri e propri"), il mio discorso non vale più nulla... Ma personalmente farei più di un pensiero sul fatto di ridurre drasticamente o meglio ancora annullare gli ordini per il Lightning II e cercare fra le molte e varie alternative più economiche (Desert Falcon, SuperHornet, Silent Eagle, altri Typhoon, ecc)...

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Per le dimensioni dell'impegno nazionale nel programma F-35, non conviene buttare via l'intero progetto. Sarebbe meglio per le casse dello Stato combattere efficacemente l'evasione fiscale e la corruzione, non tagliare i progetti più importanti pensando di risparmiare qualche decina di miliardi, perchè se non ci sono fondi per l'F-35, non ce ne saranno nemmeno per Typhoon o Super Hornet.

[Umberto]

Umberto il tuo link è rotto. Prova anche tu.

Chiedo scusa era un collegamento per il sito del navair... se volete leggerlo andate sul sito www.f35.com sulla sezione news+events cliccate su media releases è il primo articolo

Modificato 2 Novembre 2011 da Umberto

[Flaggy]

Si tende poi a dimenticare un piccolo particolare quando si fanno certi ragionamenti sul risparmio.

Essere dentro il progetto significa produrre componenti per migliaia di F-35, non solo per i nostri.

Rinunciare al programma significa rinunciare a miliardi che arrivano all'industria dalle commesse estere. Un governo valuta anche questo, mica solo quanto gli costano gli aerei che compra.

Tutto questo senza considerare discordi inflazionati su know-how, valenza operativa e amenità varie presenti in qualcuna delle decine di pagine precedenti...

[SuperRay20]

Per le dimensioni dell'impegno nazionale nel programma F-35, non conviene buttare via l'intero progetto. Sarebbe meglio per le casse dello Stato combattere efficacemente l'evasione fiscale e la corruzione, non tagliare i progetti più importanti pensando di risparmiare qualche decina di miliardi, perchè se non ci sono fondi per l'F-35, non ce ne saranno nemmeno per Typhoon o Super Hornet.

 

 

Forse ci siamo capiti male, non ho proposto di non acquistare più neanche un F-35, ma di rinunciare a quelli destinati all'AMI.

 

E poi non ho mai parlato di dover trovare ALTRI fondi in più o fare dei tagli per gli aerei che andremo ad acquistare, volevo fare un semplice discorso di budget: all'inizio del programma JSF quando nel '98 il governo D'Alema aveva stanziato i primi fondi per la compartecipazione, aveva fatto anche ipotesi di acquisto e si era parlato di un budget composto da: 2 miliardi di $ in 2 tranche per contribuire ai costi dello sviluppo (cifra che è già stata ampiamente sforata...) e 6,5 miliardi per l'acquisto dei 131 mezzi (Dubito molto questa cifra possa essere aumentata ancora, caso Typhoon T3 docet).

 

Ora, posto che i 20/22 F-35B per la Marina vanno comunque presi in mancanza di alternative, quanti altri Lightning II potremmo permetterci con il resto del budget? Pochini visto che il solo flyaway cost del CTOL supera i 110 milioni al pezzo (prendendo per buono che non salga ancora, cosa non certa... Sul fatto poi che possa calare davvero fino ai 95 promessi, bhé... neanche più gli americani ci credono).

 

Per questo suggerivo di cominciare a guardarsi attorno, soprattutto per mezzi come l'F-16E/F Block 60 con il quale, rimanendo sempre in famiglia Lockeed-Martin si potrebbero provare a conservare parte delle concessioni industriali (ad esempio Cameri...) che erano incluse nell'impegno per il JSF, e ad acquistare più mezzi con la stessa cifra.

 

 

Su evasione fiscale e corruzzione poi, hai ragione in pieno... é assurdo pensare a quanti soldi si potrebbero recuperare con dei provvedimenti efficaci...

[Flaggy]

Considerate le potenzialità di sviluppo aria-suolo dell'EF-2000, i vantaggi logistici della monolinea che si creerebbe scegliendolo come alternativa, l'età anagrafica di F-16 ed F-18 (hai visto a quando risalgono questi progetti, soprattutto l'F-16 visto che l'F-18 ha avuto un"lifting"?), la necessità di sostenere l'industria nazionale e il fatto che per produrre su licenza altri aerei si deve ripartire praticamente da zero da un punto di vista industriale, direi che non esiste proprio che l'Italia acquisti Desert Falcon o F-18E...E poi che facciamo, chiudiamo la linea EF-2000, buttiamo a mare quanto speso per l'F-35 (e quanto guadagneremmo) e mettiamo in piedi una linea di produzione per assemblare nel 2020 aerei vecchi? Aerei che per inciso costeranno un botto (scordiamoci i prezzi da accordo pluriennale stile F-18E/F per l'US navy...).

Modificato 2 Novembre 2011 da Flaggy

[eugy78 Fishbed]

vi ricordate l'articolo...f-104 VS harrier?

 

e se si potesse fare HARRIER VS F-35?? due vtol...a confronto???

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12777-start-0.html

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[TT-1 Pinto]

@ Flaggy ....

 

Mi rendo perfettamente conto che i due seguenti articoli di Nativi sono apparsi sul sito di "AW&ST" poco più di un anno e mezzo fa .... e in questo lasso di tempo sono avvenute parecchie cose ....

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/04/01/01.xml

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/04/12/AW_04_12_2010_p32-217611.xml&channel=defense

 

.... però, allo stato attuale, a quanto ammonta la percentuale di lavoro che verrebbe assegnata alle nostre industrie .... salvo non si verifichino spiacevoli sorprese da parte degli USA quali cancellazioni di parte del programma o ulteriore escalation dei costi?

[Vultur]

vi ricordate l'articolo...f-104 VS harrier?

 

e se si potesse fare HARRIER VS F-35?? due vtol...a confronto???

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Non li puoi paragonare: sono generazioni diverse. E poi dipende da dove ti trovi quando fai il tuo paragone. Se sei suddito di Sua Maestà britannica, esci dal programma F35B, ti costruisci le due Queen Elizabeth, metti l'Harrier in naftalina e aspetti che arriva l'F-35C. Hi hi hi.

Se sei in Italia, devi rifare parecchi conti, perchè forse è possibile che tra non molto anche l'Harrier ti sembrerà un'astronave!

[Flaggy]

@ Flaggy ....

 

Mi rendo perfettamente conto che i due seguenti articoli di Nativi sono apparsi sul sito di "AW&ST" poco più di un anno e mezzo fa .... e in questo lasso di tempo sono avvenute parecchie cose ....

Appunto, sono avvenute parecchie cose...troppe e parecchie ne accadranno...

Comunque la percentuale di lavoro assegnataci (qualche punto percentuale mica cose a 2 cifre come per EF-2000 e Tornado...) dipenderà non solo da quanti F-35 acquisteranno gli altri, ma anche da quanti ne prenderemo noi.

Una riduzione dell'impegno italiano si tradurrebbe penso in un'immediata riduzione delle commesse per la fabbricazione di set alari cui provvederebbe direttamente LM (non siamo gli unici che fabbricheranno set alari...).

Ufficialemente, anche se la FACO di Cameri è finalmente in costruzione, a quel numero di F-35 italiani sbandierato a destra e a manca non ci crede quasi nessuno...Ma vai a sapere che succederà da qui a qualche lustro.

[eugy78 Fishbed]

hi hi hi...è vero... l'F-35 è molto avanzato....ma spero che quelli Italiani siano dei veri F-35 D.O.P. perchè economicamente si è sempre fatto ... quasi da sempre un pò di tagli ai vari progetti; e il risultato finale purtroppo è sempre per come NON ci si aspetta...come con l'f-104..c'era anche in programma l'up grade del motore inserendo il sistema apu per la messa in moto...ma era troppo costoso; per il tornado, abbiamo avuto il primo aggiornamento dei sistemi e dei motori..poco prima della partenza per Al Dafra..tale aggiornamento fu di derivazione come quelli degli emirati arabi; ....per poi arrivare all'efa 2000 che purtroppo alcuni dei sistemi avionici che erano in preventivo ....non furono istallati...(quelli tedeschi sono peggio...avevano minacciato di ritirarsi dal gruppo) ; meno male che il C-27j ed il nuovo c-130j hanno mantenuto un buon livello tecnico

Modificato 2 Novembre 2011 da eugy78 Fishbed

[Vultur]

Guarda che ridevo per non piangere. Purtroppo penso che si tratterà di qualcosa di più grosso di qualche taglio qua e là. In un paese dove molti pensionati prendono più e meglio di chi lavora e magari c'ha pure uno o più figli (io per fortuna sono scapolo), dove li vai a prendere 15 miliardi di euro (30.000 miliardi di lire) per 131 F-35?? L'ordine di grandezza è paragonabile a quello di una maledetta manovra finanziaria!

Modificato 2 Novembre 2011 da Vultur

[eugy78 Fishbed]

giusto; è proprio ill concetto che intendevo ;

allora ci terremo l'harrier.... perciò harrier 1 - f-35 0 hihihihi