Alenia C-27J Spartan

[TT-1 Pinto]

La "pratica Australia" procede ....

 

Fonte: "Daily Report" del 22-12-2011 (U.S. Air Force Association)

 

Proposed C-27J Sale to Australia

 

The Pentagon notified Congress of the potential foreign military sale of 10 C-27J transport aircraft and associated equipment and logistical support to Australia.

The deal would be worth up to $950 million, according to a Defense Security Cooperation Agency release.

The proposed sale would allow the Australian Defense Force to improve its airlift capability, including for humanitarian operations and disaster-relief activities in Southeast Asia, stated DSCA.

The Australians retired their 14 DHC-4 Caribou aircraft in 2009, and will soon retire 12 C-130Hs, creating a need for new airlift assets.

The Australians view interoperability with US forces as an "important goal" for future equipment purchases, noted the release.

 

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Australia_11-51.pdf

 

L-3 is the prime contractor for the C-27J.

This announcement comes at a time when the Air Force is weighing whether it can afford (*) to complete its planned acquisition of 38 C-27Js or must truncate the buy due to a tightening budget and competing priorities.

 

(*) .... http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2011/November%202011/November%2003%202011/PainfulDecisions.aspx

Modificato 22 Dicembre 2011 da TT-1 Pinto

[TT-1 Pinto]

Il punto sul programma "JCA" e sull'ormai lungo litigio fra US Army e USAF ....

 

Fonte: Ares - A Defense Technology Blog (AW&ST)

 

U.S. Army, Air Force: The Small Cargo Aircraft Saga Continues

 

Posted by Amy Butler at 1/13/2012 9:16 AM CST

 

 

The U.S. Army and Air Force chiefs of staff are hashing out the details of an MOU on the light cargo lift mission.

 

If this all sounds familiar, it is. Recall that USAF Gen. T. Michael Moseley's coming out speech as the top Air Force officer at the AFA symposium in the fall of 2005. He took that opportunity to announce that the Air Force was pursuing a new light cargo aircraft procurement.

 

This proclamation was made oddly as the Army was in the midst of setting up its future cargo aircraft program, which was crafted to replace old Sherpas and provide more immediate access to commanders for cargo support.

 

Moseley’s push, along with his similar move to take over the Army’s burgeoning UAV force at the time, was seen as an abrupt roles-and-missions grab by the Air Force in the midst of two major wars. In the case of the cargo aircraft role, the Air Force won.

 

The service eventually took over authority for the buy of the C-27J and sliced it to 38; service officials said they would combine the use of C-27Js and C-130s to provide cargo lift for the Army (though Army officials had long complained that C-130 support was inefficient owing to underloading of these larger aircraft).

 

But, some Army advocates have grumbled that the service got the short end of the stick. Its Sherpas are still flying, supporting operational missions.

 

So, the question today as the Army and Air Force both attempt to normalize their fleets after surging for war support for a decade is: What is the right number of small cargo lifters for the direct support role? And, who should lead this role.

 

Army officials have long argued that an Army officer must lead this mission to ensure that Army commanders’ needs are the priority; they fear that the Air Force will de-emphasize Army unit requirements against the more strategic priorities of regional cargo movements of larger amounts of goods. The Air Force, however, has long countered that it best knows how to provide airborne logistics support across a fleet of aircraft, including C-27J, C-130 and the C-17.

 

Though the Army-led cargo aircraft program was projected to produce as many as 125 aircraft, the project that was taken over and restructured by the Air Force settled on a buy of 38 aircraft.

 

Alenia North America has delivered 13 of 21 C-27Js on contract. The sharp reduction in procurement numbers prompted the company to scrap its plans to open a final assembly facility in Florida; the aircraft are being delivered from a plant in Italy.

 

And, the kicker for the Army is that the Air Force is said to be considering an early termination of the C-27J program to funnel money to other urgent service priorities.

 

[Umberto]

Questo articolo dice che la flotta di 38 c 27 "is being scrapped"...

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120126/DEFREG02/301260008/Pentagon-Outlines-2013-Budget-Cuts?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Modificato 26 Gennaio 2012 da Umberto

[Flaggy]

Temo faranno qualcosa di peggio che rottamarli: li metteranno in vendita...

E siccome sono nuovi di pacca andranno a far concorrenza a quelli prodotti in Italia...

Della serie cornuti (non hanno comprato tutti quelli inizialmente ipotizzati) e mazziati.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Questo articolo dice che la flotta di 38 c 27 "is being scrapped"...

The entire C-27 fleet of 38 cargo aircraft is also being scrapped by the Air Force.

Era prevedibile .... l'USAF non lo ha mai amato .... ha fatto di tutto per scipparlo all'US Army e, col pretesto dei tagli, lo ha di fatto affossato ....

 

.... ovvero .... il trionfo dei c******i ....

Modificato 26 Gennaio 2012 da TT-1 Pinto

[TT-1 Pinto]

Intanto .... US Army e USAF continuano a litigare ....

 

Fonte: Aviation Week and Space Technology

 

USAF, Army Still Squabbling Over C-27J

 

By Amy Butler - Washington (Jan 26, 2012)

 

 

U.S. military officials are keen on saying they never intend to fight the last war. This is their way of indicating a focus on future conflicts, not on the past.

 

Apparently, this sentiment does not apply to the interservice skirmishes at the Pentagon. The U.S. Army and Air Force are in the final throes of hashing out an updated agreement on the time-sensitive, direct-support airlift mission, the latest chapter in a years-long saga over how to ship supplies to remote soldiers despite two wars and one stunted buy of Alenia’s C-27J.

 

The agreement is being made between the chiefs of staff of both services. At issue is how the time-sensitive airlift mission will be handled; this includes the shuttling of small loads of supplies to forward Army units in the field.

 

The outcome of this cargo rub between the two services could be the first of many such roles-and-missions scrapes. As the Pentagon looks to save money by killing some programs or nixing new ones, the Army and Air Force are also on a crash course regarding the small fleets of tactical, fixed-wing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft that each have procured since the start of the Iraq invasion in 2003. In the case of the General Atomics Gray Eagle and Reaper UAS, the developmental Enhanced Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (Emarss) and MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft, the services operate very similar systems. In at least one case—with Emarss and the MC-12W—lawmakers have suggested that only one service manage a unified fleet.

 

As it did with its rotary-wing fleet, the Army is trying to reduce the number of unique airframes in its tactical ISR fleet, says Maj. Gen. Anthony Crutchfield, who heads up the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Ala. “We have a plan to divest of some of the different types of aircraft [and shift to] fewer single airframes.” Without saying which aircraft would be let go, Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, the Army’s program executive officer for aviation, says the service must “pick those that have been the best bang for the buck.”

 

Though Crosby notes there is still more work to be done on this, the airlift debate is raging.

 

“The concern is the logistics part,” says Crutchfield. “What we have to sort out is: ‘Who does that?’”

 

If this sounds familiar, it is.

 

The last installment of this tug-of-war took place in 2005 when, during his first major speech to the Air Force Association, the then Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, announced he wanted a new light cargo aircraft. This was considered odd as the Army was in the midst of setting up its future cargo aircraft program, which was then crafted to replace old C-23 Sherpas and provide more immediate access to commanders for cargo support. At the time, the Army moved ahead with its own program because it felt that it had lackluster support by the Air Force to properly back its needs.

 

Underscoring the need for direct-support activities were the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that called for distributing supplies around small, remote Army outposts. Not only were the Sherpas aging, they lacked pressurized cabins, making it difficult to operate them at high altitude in places such as Afghanistan, says Col. Patrick Tierney, director of the Army’s aviation directorate.

 

Moseley’s push, along with his similar and later move to take over the Army’s burgeoning UAV force, was seen as an abrupt roles-and-missions grab by the Air Force in the midst of these two wars. In the case of the cargo aircraft role, the USAF won.

 

At the direction of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in 2009 the Air Force took over authority for the C-27J buy and control of the direct-support mission; service officials said they would combine the use of C-27Js and C-130s to provide cargo lift for the Army (though Army officials had long complained that C-130 support was inefficient owing to underloading of these larger aircraft).

 

Army officials say that in actuality, the CH-47 Chinook fleet has been unduly burdened in providing timely support because the helicopters are used to shuttle goods from C-130s that land at hubs to the remote locales where soldiers are stationed.

 

“The major rub to us is responsiveness and not efficiency,” says one Army official who requests anonymity. “When a part is needed at the front line, it flies” and shouldn’t have to wait for enough requests to fill a C-130, the official adds. “We are more about effectiveness than efficiency, and [the Air Force is] more about efficiency than effectiveness.”

 

So, the questions now are: What is the right number of small cargo-lifters for the direct-support role, and how should the mission be managed?

 

Though both branches agreed to USAF control of the mission in the 2009 pact, the Army is now insisting that language be added to clarify its needs—specifically emphasizing responsiveness, especially when parts or supplies are called for at forward-operating locations.

 

USAF Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, acknowledges what he calls a “natural tension” for Army commanders wanting quick support.

 

The outcome of this deal will directly impact how soldiers at such sites are supported in Afghanistan.

 

Army officials had long argued that an Army officer must oversee this mission to ensure that its commanders’ needs take priority; the fear is that the USAF will de-emphasize Army unit requirements against the more strategic priorities of regional cargo movements. USAF, however, has long countered that it best knows how to provide airborne logistics support across a fleet of aircraft, including the C-27J, C-130 and C-17.

 

In 2009, the Air Force conducted a demonstration of the direct-support mission using C-27Js and C-130s in Iraq; this validated the service’s plans for a mix of the two for the mission.

 

Two C-27Js were deployed to Afghanistan in late July 2011 and quickly started flying operational direct support missions, Gen. Raymond Johns said last fall. The C-27Js are apportioned to Army officials there via Tacon (tactical control), although USAF pilots fly the missions, but the C-130s are not. This means the C-27Js are specifically set aside only for intratheater/direct-support missions under Army authority. Though C-130s are used for this mission, they can be reassigned elsewhere in the area, if needed, Johns said.

 

Army officials are less than satisfied with the Air Force’s delays in delivering C-27Js to the field. At least six were to be in Afghanistan by now, and why they have not been deployed is the “golden question,” the anonymous Army official said.

 

One industry official says the Army is “trying to hold the Air Force’s feet to the fire to do what they signed up for” in the 2009 pact.

 

Alenia has delivered 13 of 21 C-27Js on contract. Originally, Alenia officials projected the U.S. market for the C-27J (including Army/Air Force buys) to support as many as 125 aircraft. Tierney said that in 2005, the Army’s projections set a low risk of handling the mission with a fleet of 78 C-27Js and a moderate risk at 54. When Gates shifted the C-27J program from Army control to the Air Force, the buy shrank to 38 aircraft.

 

The sharp reduction in procurement numbers prompted Alenia to scrap its plans to open a final assembly facility in Florida; the aircraft are being delivered from a plant in Italy.

 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz indicated during a recent testimony to Congress that the C-27J faces termination—possibly before all 38 are delivered—due to fiscal pressure. Service officials contend that maintaining a separate fleet for this mission adds to its spending for unique training and logistics, whereas a C-130-based mission could build off of an existing infrastructure. It is unclear whether the service would keep the C-27Js already delivered or divest of them entirely.

 

Numerous lawmakers and governors associated with states slated to host C-27J Guard units have written to Schwartz, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter advocating the program. Some of them argue not only for the national security advantages of the aircraft but also note that without those units, jobs in their districts will be in jeopardy.

 

Meanwhile, Crutchfield notes that the Army’s C-23 Sherpas still support war operations. Without better direct support from USAF, the Army would have to pay $350 million to keep old C-23s operating, and they would still lack a pressurized cabin, Tierney says. Carlislie expects the updated pact to be signed in days.

 

[TT-1 Pinto]

Temo faranno qualcosa di peggio che rottamarli: li metteranno in vendita...

E siccome sono nuovi di pacca andranno a far concorrenza a quelli prodotti in Italia...

Della serie cornuti (non hanno comprato tutti quelli inizialmente ipotizzati) e mazziati.

Magari a prezzi stracciatissimi .... come quelli dei VH-71 presidenziali graziosamente ceduti al Canada come parti di ricambio per i "Cormorant" ....

 

http://defensetech.org/2011/06/28/fire-sale-canada-buys-marine-one-choppers/

 

 

Canada che sarebbe ben felice e pronto ad approffittare dell'appetitosa occasione .... dal momento che sta guardando da tempo al C-27J per il ruolo SAR ....

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/09/28/02.xml

[Brando]

sarebbe interessante un giorno rendergli la cortesia...

[TT-1 Pinto]

sarebbe interessante un giorno rendergli la cortesia...

Magari ritirandoci dal programma JSF .... anche se mi rendo perfettamente conto che questo non sarà possibile ....

[Char08]

Ecco il sito DedaloNews: http://www.dedalonews.it/it/index.php/01/2012/il-pentagono-vuole-ritirare-i-c-27j/ ......... Il pentagono che vuole ritirare i C27J !!!!

[TT-1 Pinto]

Ed ora, grazie (grazie? ) alla decisione degli USA .... potrebbe andare in malora anche la prevista vendita all'Australia ....

 

USAF woes clip C-27J’s wings in Australia 

 

By: Greg Waldron (Singapore) - 4 hours ago

 

Source:

 

Any US decision to divest itself of the L-3 Communications C-27J Spartan will change the dynamics of Canberra's Air 8000 Phase 2 requirement for 10 battlefield airlifters. Australia is considering two aircraft for the requirement: Alenia Aeronautica's C-27J and the Airbus Military C-295.

 

"What the United States has announced in recent days has essentially been a decision to produce and purchase no more C-27s and to divest itself of its current capability," said Minister of Defence Stephen Smith.

 

"That is obviously a very, very relevant material fact so far as our consideration of these two aircraft is concerned, and that is something that we are now giving exhaustive consideration to."

 

Smith was referring to a 26 January announcement by the US Department of Defense that will see the US Air Force divest the C-27J in addition to other major cuts.

 

On 31 October 2011, Australia announced plans for the long-awaited replacement of the de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou aircraft that were retired in 2009, with the C-27J apparently favoured for the requirement.

 

Two months later, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of the possible sale of 10 C-27Js to Australia for $950 million by prime contractor L-3 Integrated Systems. Associated equipment would include 23 Rolls-Royce AE2100D2 engines, countermeasures equipment to be supplied by BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, plus Northrop's APN-241 tactical transport radar, which offers a high resolution synthetic aperture radar mapping mode.

 

[TT-1 Pinto]

Circa la sorte dei C-27J dell'USAF ....

 

Q: What do you plan to do with the C-27Js that you're getting rid of?

 

GEN. SCHWARTZ: Disposition is not clear. At -- one option clearly is to put them in type-1,000 or type-2,000 storage at Davis- Monthan Air Force Base at the bone yard. And that will -- that's probably our best option.

 

Q: What does that mean in layman’s terms?

 

GEN. SCHWARTZ: I'm sorry, forgive me. My fault. Type-1000 storage is essentially recoverable storage. You don't use the airplanes for spare parts. You don't pick and choose and cherry- pick, which type-2000 storage allows you to do. So obviously, type-1000 storage is more expensive. It requires sort of ongoing surveillance and so on. So that -- the disposition is not final-final, but those are the options.

Fonte .... http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4965

[gepiro66]

Magari ritirandoci dal programma JSF .... anche se mi rendo perfettamente conto che questo non sarà possibile ....

 

Beh, ritirarci del tutto no, ma limitarci ai 20 F-35B per la Marina sì.

Anche noi dobbiamo risparmiare, e magari concentrare le risorse su sviluppi ulteriori del Typhoon, che, se anche non avanzati come i Lightning II, potrebbero soddisfare ampiamente le necessità future e assicurare molto più lavoro alle nostre industrie, tenendo il denaro investito per buona parte in casa nostra, il che non è dar buttare via....

[TT-1 Pinto]

Beh, ritirarci del tutto no, ma limitarci ai 20 F-35B per la Marina sì.

Anche noi dobbiamo risparmiare, e magari concentrare le risorse su sviluppi ulteriori del Typhoon, che, se anche non avanzati come i Lightning II, potrebbero soddisfare ampiamente le necessità future e assicurare molto più lavoro alle nostre industrie, tenendo il denaro investito per buona parte in casa nostra, il che non è dar buttare via....

La mia era, evidentemente, una provocazione ....

.... quanto a "sviluppi ulteriori del Typhoon" .... dopo la sconfitta nella competizione indiana .... la vedo veramente dura ....

[Agustaman]

Se avessero sviluppato l'air to ground magari non l'avrebbero persa la competizione. Se gi abbiamo già pagato il prodotto, potrebero almeno andare a svilupparselo, se vogliono venderlo altrove...

[gepiro66]

Se avessero sviluppato l'air to ground magari non l'avrebbero persa la competizione. Se gi abbiamo già pagato il prodotto, potrebero almeno andare a svilupparselo, se vogliono venderlo altrove...

 

Cosa per cui i britannici stanno spingendo da tempo.... anche se con grave ritardo.

Se anche noi e i nostri amici tadeschi, che presto si troveranno scoperti con i vecchi Tornado, (ma perchè non metterci anche gli spagnoli?) avessimo spinto nella stessa direzione, forse il Tifone multiruolo ora sarebbe stata già una realtà consolidata.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Le speranze dell' US Army ....

 

Army Hopes to Hold on to C-27Js

 

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said he hopes that the Defense Department will retain the C-27J Spartan transports it's already acquired, even though the Air Force last month announced plans to divest the entire Spartan fleet.

 

For now, Odierno said the few C-27s that are already in use in Afghanistan will remain there until officials decide what to do with the fleet.

 

"Here is our problem. We have [C-23] Sherpas, which are old and no longer effective," Odierno told defense reporters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. "What I don't want to have to do is modernize the Sherpas. I'd like to keep the C-27s we've already purchased. But we haven't purchased that many. That's another problem."

 

The Air Force has already procured 21 of the 38 C-27s it had intended to acquire for the Air National Guard.

 

The plan had been for the Air Guard to use the tiny airlifters to provide direct support to Army units.

 

Instead, the Air Force now intends to attach C-130s to Army units down range to provide that type of support, said Odierno.

 

—Amy McCullough

Fonte: Daily Report (AFA) - Wednesday February 22, 2012

[TT-1 Pinto]

Ora sta prendendo campo l'intenzione di cedere gli aerei ....

 

Our international affairs staff are communicating to potential countries [and] interested partners, asking for them to identify their interest

Fonte .... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/24/afa-air-force-may-sell-c-27js-block-30-global-hawks/

 

.... in tal caso saremo costretti ad affrontare la concorrenza (ad esempio in Canada o Australia) del paese cui li avevamo inizialmente venduti .... possibile che nei contratti non ci sia una qualche formula, chiamiamola "di salvaguardia", che protegga la nostra industria da una tale azione?

[Tuccio14]

Io credo che per lo meno nel contratto con gli USA non ci abbiano pensato, pur di venderglieli si saranno fatti in 4... Fatto sta che tutta la faccenda sia abbastanza surreale.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Ora sta prendendo campo l'intenzione di cedere gli aerei ....

 

Fonte .... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/24/afa-air-force-may-sell-c-27js-block-30-global-hawks/

 

.... in tal caso saremo costretti ad affrontare la concorrenza (ad esempio in Canada o Australia) del paese cui li avevamo inizialmente venduti .... possibile che nei contratti non ci sia una qualche formula, chiamiamola "di salvaguardia", che protegga la nostra industria da una tale azione?

Alenia al contrattacco .... ed era ora ....

 

SINGAPORE —

In what analysts see as an unprecedented move, Alenia Aermacchi, the Italian maker of the C-27J, is warning the U.S. government that it will refuse to support the aircraft it sold to the United States if the U.S. resells them to other nations.

The move caught some U.S. officials by surprise and threatens to undermine American efforts to resell the planes on the international market, most likely to Australia, Canada or Taiwan.

Fonte .... http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120227/DEFREG02/302270007/Alenia-Warns-U-S-Over-C-27J-Sales

[Tuccio14]

Praticamente già avevano calcolato di rivenderli ai paesi interessati... Meno male che Alenia sta facendo un attimo la voce grossa. E ci sono rimasti pure sorpresi! E' un po' arrogante come atteggiamento, praticamente davano per scontato che l'industria italiana si sarebbe chinata senza se e senza ma. Saranno pure gli USA, ma non si tratta così l'industria di un alleato che sta coprendo tutto il fianco ovest dell'Afghanistan e quello nord di Israele...

[Enema_27]

Praticamente già avevano calcolato di rivenderli ai paesi interessati... Meno male che Alenia sta facendo un attimo la voce grossa. E ci sono rimasti pure sorpresi! E' un po' arrogante come atteggiamento, praticamente davano per scontato che l'industria italiana si sarebbe chinata senza se e senza ma. Saranno pure gli USA, ma non si tratta così l'industria di un alleato che sta coprendo tutto il fianco ovest dell'Afghanistan e quello nord di Israele...

Sono pienamente d'accordo, in effetti sembra che gli affari con gli USA si rivelino sempre delle belle fregature. Bisognerebbe anche ricordagli per bene che l'F-35 glielo stiamo finanziando anche noi... e che magari senza i dovuti ritorni industriali potremmo andare altrove

[TT-1 Pinto]

Sono pienamente d'accordo, in effetti sembra che gli affari con gli USA si rivelino sempre delle belle fregature. Bisognerebbe anche ricordagli per bene che l'F-35 glielo stiamo finanziando anche noi... e che magari senza i dovuti ritorni industriali potremmo andare altrove

Dove ?

[Flaggy]

Sia chiaro che il gioco di Alenia Aermacchi può funzionare fino a un certo punto visto che non ha esattamente il coltello dalla parte del manico.

Se è vero che Alenia Aermacchi può rifiutarsi di offrire assistenza tecnica ai paesi che volessero quegli aerei usati, in teoria gli Americani potrebbero impedire l'esportazione di tutti i componenti di produzione americana a bordo degli aerei nuovi e la ragion d'essere del C-27J è un'estrema comunanza di impiantistica ed elettronica con il C-130 a cominciare dai propulsori.

Si spera che prevalga la ragione e si eviti il muro contro muro, perchè mi pare evidente che i C-27J siano apprezzati in America e qualcuno per averli deve lottare con protezionismo industriale e rivalità fra forze armate.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Si spera che prevalga la ragione e si eviti il muro contro muro, perchè mi pare evidente che i C-27J siano apprezzati in America e qualcuno per averli deve lottare con protezionismo industriale e rivalità fra forze armate.

A questo punto dovrebbe essere l'Esercito a puntare i piedi e cercare di riappropriarsi di un programma che, pur essendogli necessario, gli era stato espropriato dall'intromissione dell'USAF.

Si era trattato soltanto di uno dei tanti episodi nell'ambito delle eterne rivalità inter-arma o c'era dietro chi, pur avendo all'inizio collaborato al programma, si era poi tirato indietro quando si era reso conto di aver contribuito allo sviluppo di un concorrente che poteva dare delle noie sul mercato?

 

A quanto scrive "DefenseNews" .... Lockheed avrebbe fatto la sua parte ....

 

Alenia has fought an uphill battle to crack the U.S. market.

Lockheed Martin first partnered with Alenia on the C-27J, only to abandon the program when it concluded it would compete with Lockheed’s four-engine C-130J.

Then Boeing signed on as a partner, but it too withdrew its support.

Eventually, Alenia partnered with L-3 and won a deal for up to 145 light battlefield transports valued at $6 billion, beating EADS’ C-295.

.... i tagli alle spese militari hanno fatto il resto .... ma questi sono venuti molto più tardi ....

 

Ciò non toglie che negli States avvengano fatti a dir poco "sconcertanti" .... tipo la colossale bega sulla scelta delle aerocisterne o quella, più recente, relativa ai velivoli da attacco leggeri destinati all'Afghanistan ....