F-35 Lightning II - Discussione Ufficiale

[Flaggy]

Si però gli autori di certi articoli sono così abituati a scrivere sempre le stesse cose che a volte si dimenticano di aggiornare i dati.

Qui si scrive...

 

JSF flight testing began in 2006 but is only 25 percent complete. As such, the list of things the F-35 still doesn’t have is a long one.

Sono mesi che sto benedetto aereo è al 25% dei test di volo e meno male che l'autore fa pure una bella figura perchè posta la fonte dove si legge che quel valore è stato raggiunto ad aprile...

Però, cercando qualcosa di più aggiornato...

 

22 August 2012: 20,000th Test Point Complete

The SDD team accomplished 20,000 test points since the beginning of the test program with two F-35A test flights at Edwards AFB, California, and three F-35B test flights at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The overall F-35 SDD flight test program plan calls for 59,585 test points to be verified through developmental test flights by 31 December 2016.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=111

 

Insomma al 22 agosto erano stati raggiunti 20000 test point su 59585 previsti cioè il 33%.

 

Da allora sono passati altri 3 mesi e poichè negli ultimi mesi i test viaggiavano al ritmo di circa 1100 test point al mese attualmente si dovrebbe essere intorno ai 23-24000 e quindi vicino al 40%...

I rapporti GAO dicevano che il 2011 si era chiuso intorno al 20%. Da allora è passato un anno.

 

Intanto a ottobre sono iniziati i test ad elevato angolo d'attacco.

Aspettiamo di leggere i risultati che ci diranno se i problemi di buffeting sono stati superati.

Intanto c'è un video.

 

Modificato 19 Novembre 2012 da Flaggy

[Brando]

forse per voi è una domanda leggermente stupida... ma cosa è quella struttura bianca che è stata posizionata fra i 2 impennaggi verticali di coda, sopra il motore con quel contenitore cilindrico bianco?

 

da ignorante ipotizzo sia un contenitore per un paracadute...... ma fatico a vederne l'utilità.....

[Flaggy]

E’ proprio un paracadute.

Come si è detto il velivolo sta ampliando il suo inviluppo di volo che prevede il superamento di un AOA di 50°, ma questo significa anche che il velivolo non è certificato per raggiungere tali assetti.

Ciò che si fa è quindi procedere come se il velivolo non fosse recuperabile una volta caduto in vite a seguito di un comportamento anomalo in stallo e quindi si aggiunge uno “stall/spin recovery parachute” cioè un paracadute che viene utilizzato come dispositivo di emergenza durante i normali test e le certificazioni relative al comportamento in vite e al recupero da una caduta in vite che è poi quello che si sta facendo adesso con l'F-35.

Questa è una parte molto importante dell’inviluppo di volo e che poi rappresenterà una parte altrettanto importante dell’addestramento di ciascun pilota che verrà abilitato per questo velivolo.

 

Va quindi esplorata molto attentamente anche andando volutamente a cercare assetti anomali ed esasperati da cui non è dato mai per scontato che il pilota sia in grado di uscire.

Estraendo invece il paracadute (aggiunto necessariamente in maniera un po’ posticcia per queste prove) si determina una resistenza aerodinamica che riporta il velivolo ad un assetto controllabile. Subito dopo viene sganciato.

Terminata questa fase dei test ovviamente il contenitore e il paracadute al suo interno spariranno.

Qualche illustre precedente...

 

 

 

[Brando]

Grazie per la risposta, in effetti, avevo pensato che nel caso fosse un paracadute potesse servire per recuperare il controllo in seguito ad uno stallo, ma a causa di un ragionamento, ritenevo (sbagliando) che in questo tipo di test l'aereo non potesse stallare....... ora sarà meglio che mi documenti sulla questione e riveda e approfondisca le mie conoscenze sullo stallo, perchè chiaramente c'è qualche grossa (o forse meglio dire enorme?) lacuna.

[gepiro66]

Beh, quello che si fa nei test di volo ad alto angolo d'attacco è proprio esplorare il limite dell'inviluppo di volo prima (e anche dopo) dell'insorgere dello stallo aerodinamico, che in queste condizioni di volo può insorgere anche a velocità relativamente alte, in funzione della quota/densità dell'aria.

Il limite dell'angolo d'attacco sostenibile in volo controllato (a parte le capacità di controllo post stallo proprie di alcuni velivoli) è definito dal distacco del flusso aerodinamico dal estradosso alare con il possibile conseguente ingresso in vite del velivolo.

Per definire completamente l'inviluppo di volo della macchina in fase di collaudo è sempre necessario spingersi un pò oltre il limite, per verificare la rispondenza delle simulazioni di progetto e provare le manovre di recupero in caso di superamento dei limiti, per questo è necessario equipaggiare il velivolo con dispositivi in grado di garantire il recupero da eventuali assetti inattesi.

[Brando]

ora che ci penso, il suddetto test sarà ripetuto per tutte e tre le varianti (cosa che mi pare la più logica) oppure ne condurranno un unico test solo sulla variante A che sarà valido anche per la B e la C?

[Andrea75]

sulla manutenzione You Can Track Your F-35s, At ALIS’ Maintenance Hub

 

 

The Problem

Escalating complexity in electronics, engines, wiring, etc. delivers better capabilities, but creates multiplying points of failure. Each component may be more reliable than its predecessors on an individual level, but the math ensures that they fall short together. More maintenance equals more money spent.

In addition, escalating complexity makes fixes in the field more difficult – and sometimes impossible. This shifts more maintenance to large, specialized rear-echelon depots, which in turn requires more transportation of parts, and more infrastructure. That costs money.

...

Enter ALIS

The goal of Lockheed Martin’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is to counteract the lowering readiness curves and higher maintenance costs that consistently correlate with advancing technology in fighter jets. Ultimately, they want to change the traditional 10 man-hours maintenance per 1 hour of flight ratio. Each F-35 will constantly monitor its own systems via Health and Usage Monitoring systems (HUMS) components, and automatically relay information to ALIS.

The aircraft’s technical breakthroughs with self-reporting wiring will be especially helpful, as diagnosing and fixing electrical issues is an especially large and difficult problem with most aircraft. One that tends to escalate with age.

Once that data is collected and fed in, ALIS will provide an information infrastructure that captures, analyzes (autonomously or with human intervention), identifies, and communicates F-35 characteristics and data, providing information and decision support for every F-35 customer via a global network. That way, each national F-35 fleet benefits from the global experience of all fleets. The F-35 aircraft’s health and maintenance orders, and even the location of parts, will be generated through ALIS. To close the loop, ALIS will contain easily-updated interactive technical manuals, and track maintenance issue resolution.

....

The bad news? The political exercise of choosing F-35 suppliers in nearly every U.S. state, and beyond the USA, increases general exposure to cyber attacks.

 

 

Insight: Lockheed's F-35 logistics system revolutionary but risky

 

When computer "hackers" working for the U.S. Navy succeeded in breaking into the computer logistics system that controls the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter earlier this year, they did the company a favor: allowing it to fix a critical vulnerability in the $396 billion program.

Now, as the Marine Corps prepares to set up its first operational squadron of F-35s next week, some experts say other security risks may lurk within such a large and highly networked weapons support system.

One concern: Lockheed shored up political backing for the F-35 by choosing suppliers in nearly every U.S. state. But having such a large and widely dispersed group increases exposure to cyber attacks, said Ben Freeman, national security investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight.

"Even if Lockheed has top-notch cyber security, it's still vulnerable if its subcontractors are vulnerable," he said.

...

Lockheed says ALIS will revolutionize the way military airplanes are serviced and maintained, saving billions of dollars over the life of the program.

But increased sophistication brings greater security risk. Lockheed said it uses in-house "hackers" to test vulnerabilities in its networks and notifies suppliers if it finds any.

Still, the company was not aware of the Navy's stealthy penetration of the system while it was happening. Tom Burbage, Lockheed's general manager for the F-35 program, acknowledged that the Navy's cyber-expert "red team" took Lockheed by surprise.

"It was meant to be a covert surprise, and it was," he told Reuters. "It's classified. It was need-to-know. We didn't know any of the details until we eventually got people who were cleared who got the details."

The problem the Navy exploited, according to several people familiar with the program, centered on the fact that ALIS includes both classified and unclassified data streams, and the two were not properly separated to prevent intrusions.

Burbage said Lockheed developed a "fairly straightforward fix" that did not require major adjustments to the ALIS system, which is now at about 94 percent of its final capability. He said the Pentagon's initial ALIS specifications did not require separating classified and unclassified data, since cyber threats were less prevalent in 2001 when the F-35 program began.

 

Test and Evaluation of Materials Degradation

 

Recent Lessons – F-22A

• Prioritization of low observable requirements led to acceptance of other corrosion risks during system development

• Program implemented silver-filled conductive gap filler and paint in direct contact with aluminum structures – well known corrosive risk

• No risk mitigation through increased testing during development; no trade studies to identify long-term costs of corrosion

• Performance-based acquisition approach:

• Contractor corrosion testing without direct government participation; government accepted the risk and cost of failure

• Insufficient justification to verify closeout of corrosion control requirements

• Environmental and occupational health concerns drove use of non-chromated outer mold line primer that didn’t provide the needed corrosion protection; this led to additional corrosion issues in the field

• Aircraft signature considerations drove design change in the number and size of drainage ports

• Reduced from 201 initial design to 27 drainage ports

• Remaining drainage ports proved insufficient in removing water and other corrosive liquids from aircraft cavities

• Water intrusion issues at deployed locations led to post-fielding drain port redesign/retrofits

• Reduced scope climatic lab testing during developmental test and evaluation

• Reduction from 6 to 3-month period

• No severe wet weather testing

• 2008 operational unit deployment to Guam experienced severe water intrusion and associate corrosion; forced redesign/addition of cockpit drain port

• No field test of final low observable coating system prior to Initial Operational Capability

• 5-year Low Observables Over Time (LOSOT) testing from 2005-2010 necessary to determine stability, durability, and maintainability

• All operational testing in desert southwest environment

• Operational units (Langley VA, Tyndall FL, Elmendorf AK) experienced additional corrosion issues not seen in desert southwest environmental

• Consequences: Significant redesign/retrofit costs incurred post-IOT&E ~$228M; increased manpower; reduced system operational availability

 

F-22A Lessons Learned Applied to F-35

Fewer outer mold line seams; gap filler less galvanically dissimilar from aluminum; less aluminum in outer mold line

• Early corrosion testing of conductive gap filler in representative operational environment

• Testing of full stack-up panel seams with simulated damage exposed to accelerated and outdoor (beach) exposures

• Sufficient internal drainage system

• Climatic lab testing planned to incorporate severe weather testing

• Flight testing in operational environments other than desert southwest ~3-4 years prior to IOT&E (Edwards CA, Eglin FL, Patuxent MD)

 

Overall Lessons Learned – F-22 to F-35

• Low observable aircraft CPM&C poses unique developmental and design challenges

• Signature requirements must be balanced with evolving technologies

• Trade-offs have consequences: signature vs. corrosion; signature versus drainage; optimum LO designs may be less than optimum for CPM&C considerations

• Environmental considerations (e.g. non-chromated versus chromated primers) may result in unintended consequences that adversely affect CPM&C performance

• Trades early in F-22 program (signature priority) resulted in adverse CPM&C consequences and significant retrofit costs post fielding

• Potential problem areas were not highlighted in design reviews

• Lack of government involvement and oversight of developmental qualification testing was a contributing factor – Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) contract type for both F-22 and F-35

• Post-IOT&E CPM&C testing of low observables

• 5-year F-22 Low Observables Stability Over Time (LOSOT) testing invaluable in assessing long-term system CPM&C durability, suitability, and maintainability

• Similar long-term testing approach for F-35 in work

[Andrea75]

F-35 begins integration phase of weapons testing

 

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The Joint Strike Fighter began the integration phase of weapons testing Oct. 26, when the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing aircraft successfully completed the first in-flight test with an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile.

It was the first time a weapon communicated with the aircraft during flight using a data link.

The program's milestone rounded out a successful month of flight test for the program, which also included inert weapons separation tests of both the AMRAAM and Joint Direct Attack Munition.

"In October, we were able to begin weapons separation testing with the JDAM and AMRAAM," said Col. Roderick L. Cregier, 412th Test Wing, F-35 program manager. "We proved we can carry them safely and that the shapes, which matched the exact mass properties of the real weapons, could separate from the aircraft safely. Now, with the integration testing, we've initially proved the aircraft can talk to the weapon and that the weapon can talk to the aircraft."

Prior to Oct. 26, mass models with no internal electronics were used during all F-35 weapons testing. The AIM-120 AMRAAM used during the integration test contained the same electronics as a full-up missile, but without the rocket motor.

"The program is doing very well in meeting its goals after it was rebaselined in 2010," said Cregier. "I'm very proud of the team, even though testing was incredibly complex and difficult, the hard work of the team enabled it to happen relatively smoothly without any serious glitches that would delay the program. We just pressed right on through with great success and we're ready for the next phase."

Successful integration testing, along with the safe separation releases in October, means that the F-35 Integrated Test Force can continue progressing towards the weapon delivery accuracy test phase and live fire testing scheduled to begin in early 2013.

"This was a very important milestone to get us over that hump, to move on to the next phase of the program, which is going to start very soon," said Cregier. "This success was critical, now what we're doing is putting the teeth into the F-35. It's important that the jet can meet all the corners of its envelope, but what we're really designing it to do is employ weapons.

Starting in February and continuing through the end of April, the team is anticipating releasing roughly two weapons per week, said Cregier.

"This is going to be just the beginning of what I would characterize as the most ambitious weapons program in the history of integration onto an aircraft," he said.

The F-35A is designed to carry a payload of up to 18,000 pounds using 10 weapon stations. The F-35A features four internal weapon stations located in two weapon bays to maximum stealth capability. The CTOL aircraft can also utilize an additional three weapon stations per wing if required.

 

[Andrea75]

Lockheed Martin Delivers Three F-35Bs To The U.S. Marine Corps

 

Three Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft were officially delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps during ceremonies at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., today. The three jets are assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 residing with the host Marine Aircraft Group 13.

 

“For more than 50 years, it has been our mission to support the Marine Corps mission, and we’re honored to deliver the first three F-35B STOVL aircraft to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121,” said Bob Stevens, Lockheed Martin chairman and chief executive officer. “The F-35B is the world’s only 5th generation, supersonic, stealthy combat aircraft that can also hover, take off and land virtually anywhere Marines are in action. Through the hard work and dedication of the military and contractor team, the F-35B will define the future of Marine Corps aviation.”

 

Official welcoming ceremonies at Yuma marked the handover of the jets to the Marines. The delivery of the first three operational-coded 5th generation F-35B STOVL fighters marks the beginning of STOVL tactical operational training at Air Station Yuma.

 

These three aircraft increase the number of STOVL aircraft delivered to the Marine Corps to 16 and bring the total number of F-35s delivered in 2012 to 20. Currently, 13 Marine Corps STOVLs are assigned to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's Marine Fighter/Attack Training Squadron 501 at Eglin AFB, Fla., supporting pilot and maintainer training.

[Andrea75]

L'indecisione danese Danish Officials Browse Candidates for New Fighter

 

Danish military officials crisscrossed the U.S. last week in a major step toward restarting competition for the country’s fighter replacement program.

On Nov. 12, the delegation visited Boeing’s facility in St. Louis to see the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Nov. 13 and 14 were spent on meetings in Washington before traveling to a Nov. 15 meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, where the group got a firsthand look at Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.

“It was very productive, and we look forward to working with both companies in the future,” said Maj. Gen. Flemming Lentfer, the head of the delegation.

But Danish officials caution not to expect a quick decision.

“No decision has been made,” said Lt. Col. Per Lyse Rasmussen, assistant defense attaché at the Danish Embassy. “We want an open and fair competition.”

Denmark announced its intention to replace its fleet of F-16s in 2005. But the program was frozen in 2010 amid economic worries and a decision that the existing combat jets would last longer than expected.

The replacement program initially involved purchasing 48 next-generation fighters, but that number has been reduced to about 30.

In addition to the conventional takeoff version of the JSF and the Super Hornet, Denmark is considering the Saab Gripen. The Eurofighter Typhoon pulled out of the initial competition, but since then, the Eurofighter consortium has signaled that it wants the Typhoon to be considered when the competition is restarted.

Rasmussen expects Denmark to pick the jet that can provide the best package of strategic capabilities and industrial impact for the country’s defense industry.

Boeing spokeswoman Mary Brett described the visit as positive but directed questions to the Danish Defense Command.

“We are pleased that the Danish delegation has visited our facilities to discuss a variety of subjects relating to Lockheed Martin aircraft,” wrote Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Laurie Quincy in an email. Quincy added that the company has not been given a specific time frame for when Denmark will renew the selection process.

Lockheed is advantageously positioned over the competition, having already established relationships with Danish industry through Denmark’s partnership in the JSF program.

Denmark is a Tier-3 partner on the JSF and has contributed $210 million to the program. Although the partnership was supposed to pay large dividends for the Danish defense sector, some industry executives have complained of paltry returns on the investment.

At an event Nov. 8, Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s general manager for the F-35 program, dismissed the idea that having one of the early JSF partners decide to purchase a different jet could harm the program.

“It’s totally up to the countries to decide what they want to do, what their national interests are,” Burbage said. “I don’t think it reflects on the program at all. It reflects on the political situations in their own home states.”

 

Personalmente dubito che la Danimarca uscirà dal programma JSF (dovrebbe accadere una catastrofe economica nel paese):

- perderebbe i soldi versati come partner di 3° liv. (USD 210m.)

- perderebbe posti di lavoro e quel poco di tecnologia che il programma JSF porterebbe accordo

 

Ritengo che lo scopo del viaggio sia di mettere pressione alla LM: sui tempi, sul prezzo, ecc...

[madmike]

Andrea, perderebbero 210 milioni, ovvero il costo di poco più di UN aereo, e 'potenziali' (che come al solito di sicuro c'e' solo la morte) 97 milioni di dollari di lavoro, pari a mezzo aereo.

 

Ma davvero è una catastrofe economica, se decidono di comprare ottimi Super Hornet o Tifone o Gripen a, diciamo, un 30% di prezzo in meno di un F35?

[Andrea75]

Andrea, perderebbero 210 milioni, ovvero il costo di poco più di UN aereo, e 'potenziali' (che come al solito di sicuro c'e' solo la morte) 97 milioni di dollari di lavoro, pari a mezzo aereo.

 

Ma davvero è una catastrofe economica, se decidono di comprare ottimi Super Hornet o Tifone o Gripen a, diciamo, un 30% di prezzo in meno di un F35?

 

Non è una catastrofe economica, anzi. Se l'acquisto dovesse essere effettuato unicamente basandosi su valutazioni economiche, l'F35 sarebbe da scartare al volo. La Danimarca acquisterebbe aerei ad un minor prezzo e con minori oneri di gestione/manutenzione (vedi pagina 164 di questa discussione post #3267. Riporto la tabella per comodità) operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

 

 

La questione, a mio parere, è che la valutazione economica sia importante (specialmente in un periodo di crisi quale è l'attuale), ma non l'unica. Altrimenti la Danimarca (ma non sarebbe l'unica) avrebbe già rinunciato.

[Andrea75]

Sempre in tema ... dal Canada ... Opposition accuses Tories of ‘whitewashing’ problems after F-35 study lets DND off with slap on wrist

 

Traduzione di Whitewash

è un'espressione gergale dell'inglese utilizzata per lo più in ambito sportivo; esso indica una performance negativa di una squadra o di un singolo atleta che, impegnato in una serie di incontri a breve distanza o comunque facenti parte di una stessa competizione, li perda tutti in successione.

 

National Defence received a slap on the wrist Wednesday for its handling of the F-35 stealth fighter program after a parliamentary committee studying the $25-billion project called for more transparency and accountability going forward.

But the committee stopped short of laying any blame for what Auditor General Michael Ferguson found was a determined effort by defence officials to twist rules, downplay problems and withhold information to ensure Canada purchased the plane.

Opposition parties are now accusing the Conservative government of trying to sweep years of misinformation and questionable decision-making under the rug even as it continues moving ahead on plans to buy the F-35.

“When you compare the final [committee] report to the auditor general’s report, it’s nothing but one great big whitewash,” said NDP MP Malcolm Allen.

“We were hoping to see that Canadians would really find out the whole truth of what actually transpired and this government would then take responsibility for its actions on this file.”

The public accounts committee had been studying the government’s management of the F-35 program since the auditor general released a scathing report on the program in April.

Its final report, tabled in the House of Commons on Wedneday, is the culmination of seven hours of testimony from Ferguson, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and senior bureaucrats from National Defence, Industry Canada and Public Works.

Ferguson and Page noted serious problems with how senior departmental officials decided upon the F-35 to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s in 2010, including skirting established rules and presenting only best-case scenarios.

They also said Cabinet knew weeks before the 2011 federal election that the fighter would cost Canada at least $25 billion — $10 billion more than what Canadians were being told.

But the senior bureaucrats disputed their findings and questioned their conclusions before Conservative committee members used their majority numbers to end the hearings after seven hours, prompting outrage from the opposition.

The final report takes note of many of the problems identified by Ferguson and Page, including the National Defence’s failure to report the program’s full $25-billion price tag and the department’s optimism on when the F-35s will be delivered.

But the report does not identify why these problems occurred, or who is to blame.

Rather, it recommends that the government should take a number of actions, such as tabling independently verified cost estimates for the stealth fighter, by Feb. 7, 2013. Most of the recommendations are already part of the government’s response to Ferguson’s April report.

Not only did the report fall short of explaining to Canadians how they were misled on the F-35, Allen said, but none of the recommendations includes pushing the reset button to determine whether the stealth fighter is the best aircraft for Canada.

There have been allegations the Harper government remains committed to buying the F-35 despite its insistence that other possible replacements for the country’s CF-18 fighters are being considered.

Those concerns were bolstered over the weekend when Defence Minister Peter MacKay refused to say whether the government is actually looking at other options.

 

[Scagnetti]

E il giorno dopo, sempre dal Canada:

 

Canadian government seeking alternatives to troubled F-35 fighter jet

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11...r-jet-sources/

 

 

...OTTAWA – The Conservative government will signal it is serious about buying an alternative to the F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their planes, according to defence industry sources.

 

The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase..."

[TT-1 Pinto]

The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase.

 

.... timeo Canadenses et dona ferentes ....

[TT-1 Pinto]

Dal quotidiano "La Stampa" di questa mattina ....

 

L'F-35 RADDOPPIA A CAMERI - LA LOCKHEED VUOL COSTRUIRE NELLA FABBRICA ITALIANA ANCHE UNA PARTE DEI JET DESTINATI AGLI USA.

Possibili altri 500 posti di lavoro - L'attività è prevista per altri 40 anni.

L'articolo .... http://www.difesa.it/Sala_Stampa/rassegna_stampa_online/Pagine/PdfNavigator.aspx?d=27-11-2012&pdfIndex=9

 

Vi si fa riferimento ad un breve pezzo che appare alla pagina 16 dell'ultimo numero di RID, nel quale si fa menzione anche di discussioni che sarebbero attualmente in corso con la Gran Bretagna circa l'eventualità di integrare sull'aereo il missile AA "Meteor", operazione che dovrebbe però avvenire in Europa ....

[Andrea75]

Beh, una buona notizia; speriamo che si concretizzi!

[Andrea75]

... sempre da Cameri E' stata già avviata la costruzione delle ali dei supercaccia

 

Manca solo il 15 per cento dei lavori per completare il Faco (Final assembly and check out), lo stabilimento in cui verrà assemblato il velivolo F35 e per coordinare il nascente polo produttivo con quanto è già presente all’interno dell’aeroporto militare di Cameri è stato creato il CePoVA, Centro polifunzionale velivoli aerotattici che da ieri è comandato dal generale Lucio Bianchi.

 

«L’aeronautica militare - dice Bianchi - intende conferire a Cameri il ruolo di centro di eccellenza logistico-manutentiva per tutti i velivoli aerotattici presenti e futuri. L’attuale missione di polo ingegneristico manutentivo e logistico svolta dal primo Rmv sui Tornado e sugli Eurofighter, verrà estesa aggregando il Faco, per espandere tale ruolo e farlo diventare un punto di riferimento a livello internazionale».

 

I tempi sono serrati: «La costruzione delle ali dell’F35 è già stata avviata - dice il generale Bianchi -. A luglio 2014 è atteso l’avvio della fase di assemblaggio dell’intero velivolo. Entro fine 2014-inizio 2015 il primo aereo completo sarà pronto per il collaudo e la consegna. Sembrano tempi molto lontani ma non è così».

Il compito del generale Bianchi sarà quello di «creare sinergia tra le varie capacità del personale per liberare le risorse umane necessarie per gestire il primo impatto con le nuove scommesse che il programma F35 presenterà e per predisporre la crescita ed espansione che il centro».

 

Il Faco di Cameri si candida ad attrarre lo sviluppo non solo dei velivoli italiani ma anche di quelli europei: «Non ci sono vincoli ad attirare a Cameri gli interventi anche sugli F35 di altri Paesi - conclude Bianchi -. E’ una sfida che può concludersi a favore dell’Italia considerato il livello di assoluta eccellenza dell’infrastruttura Faco in modalità Mro&U (Maintenance, repair, overhaul & upgrade), la cui costruzione è all’85 per cento».

[Simone]

Ora che l'F35 A è una realtà e, salvo imprevisti, sarà operativo in tempi brevi, volevo chiedere se è ragionevole pensare che venga impiegato con profili di missione ad alta quota, invece che a bassa come capita con i velivoli non-stealth.

Non ho i mezzi culturali per stimare la quota operativa del velivolo carico di munizioni,però è stato detto che il suo motore innovativo e la superficie alare dovrebbero consentirgli di volare, in quelle condizioni, almeno a 15 mila metri con un certo margine dallo stallo, dove,per inciso, si consumerebbe anche meno carburante a parità di velocità; sono capacità che potrebbero indurre l'USAF a mutare le recenti tradizioni di missioni abbastanza "attaccate al terreno"

[Flaggy]

Recenti tradizioni di missioni abbastanza attaccate al terreno? Ma se è dalla guerra del golfo del '91 che a far la barba agli alberi non ci pensano più manco coi Tornado? Salvo rari casi, i velivoli convenzionali oggi attaccano da media quota (tipicamente 5000 metri) e con una pesante scorta di velivoli SEAD e da guerra elettronica, sfruttando spesso e volentieri munizionamento guidato. Le caratteristiche di volo dell'F-35, visto il carico alare e l'ottimizzazione del motore, non lasciano presagire quote maggiori , ma solo una minor richiesta di assistenza da parte delle suddette piattaforme.

Modificato 27 Novembre 2012 da Flaggy

[TT-1 Pinto]

Imminente l'assegnazione del contratto per il 5° lotto ....

 

Lockheed Martin expects Lot 5 award on F-35 by year-end ....

 

 

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC (3 hours ago) - November 29, 2012

 

Source: Flight International

 

 

Lockheed Martin expects to receive by 1 January a long-delayed and contentious contract award worth up to $4 billion on the F-35 programme.

 

Negotiations on the Lot 5 tranche of F-35s have dragged on since early 2011, but have recently made progress, says Marillyn Hewson, an executive vice president in line to replace Lockheed chief executive Bob Stevens.

 

"We do feel confident we're going to get to closure on Lot 5 by the end of this year," Hewson says.

 

The company also hopes to close an at least undefinitised deal for a Lot 6 contract by the end of the year, she says.

 

The F-35 joint programme office did not immediately respond requests for comment.

 

Negotiations appeared to get bogged down last year after US government auditors found that the company overran the first four in a series of cost reimbursable contracts by more than $1 billion.

 

The US military promised lawmakers that it would negotiate tougher deals with Lockheed and reduce the risk of overruns to the taxpayer by converting the contracts to fixed-fee arrangements years early.

 

As the talks dragged on, the paralysis drew complaints from both sides. Lockheed chief executive Bob Stevens warned investors last November the company was exposed to $1.2 billion in unpaid bills, but that was one month before the company received the undefinitised contract.

 

In September, Maj Gen Christopher Bogdan cited the protracted negotiations on Lot 5 as an example of a poor working relationship between Lockheed and the government programme office.

Anche su "AW&ST" .... http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_28_2012_p0-522244.xml

[Brando]

Dal quotidiano "La Stampa" di questa mattina ....

 

 

L'articolo .... http://www.difesa.it/Sala_Stampa/rassegna_stampa_online/Pagine/PdfNavigator.aspx?d=27-11-2012&pdfIndex=9

 

Vi si fa riferimento ad un breve pezzo che appare alla pagina 16 dell'ultimo numero di RID, nel quale si fa menzione anche di discussioni che sarebbero attualmente in corso con la Gran Bretagna circa l'eventualità di integrare sull'aereo il missile AA "Meteor", operazione che dovrebbe però avvenire in Europa ....

 

Prima leggevo su La Stampa che la notizia sarebbe stata smentita, soltanto non riesco a trovare l'articolo online....

[madmike]

RID parlava addirittura di programma congiunto con l'Italia, e del fatto che l'integrazione 'avvenga in Europa'.

 

Ovvio che coi codici sorgente strettamente in mano USA, si tratta solo di capire quanto costa.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Raggiunto l'accordo relativo al 5° lotto .....

 

Lockheed Martin, Pentagon Strike F-35 Production Deal ....

 

By Amy Butler

 

Source: AWIN First (AW&ST) - November 30, 2012

 

 

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have settled on a price of roughly $3.8 billion for the next batch of F-35 fighters, after more than a year of negotiations, according to program sources.

 

A few details remain to be worked out on low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 5 for the Joint Strike Fighter program, though the contract is likely to be signed in days.

 

LRIP 5 includes 32 fighters, the same number ordered in the last lot by the Pentagon. Despite no increase in the numbers, prime contractor Lockheed Martin says the 22 conventional-takeoff-and-landing aircraft in the lot will be 50% less expensive than the first production models that were built in LRIP 1. At that time, the price was $220.8 million for a CTOL aircraft.

 

Officials at the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin declined to provide a per-unit target cost for those 22 F-35A aircraft, or the three F-35Bs (optimized for vertical takeoff and short landings) or seven F-35Cs designed for aircraft carrier use.

 

Company officials boast that the labor rate for LRIP 5 aircraft will be 14% lower than that for LRIP 4. Pentagon officials have grumbled about high labor rates in the F-35 and other programs as they have looked for ways to curtail spending.

 

Lockheed Martin workers at the Fort Worth assembly plant took to the picket line this summer over grievances regarding pay and benefits. Though the company populated the final assembly line with other workers, the production schedule fell behind. Michael Rein, a company spokesman, says 20 of 30 aircraft promised for delivery in 2012 have been turned over to the customer. “We are going to work hard over the next 30 days to get there” with delivery of the remaining 10 by year-end, he says.

 

In December 2011, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin struck a deal on risk-sharing for so-called concurrency costs. This refers to the price of retrofits to already built aircraft based on design issues discovered in testing. Until Lot 4, the Pentagon picked up the tab to the tune of $136 million, or about $4.86 million per aircraft.

 

In LRIP 4, the Pentagon agreed to pay the first $52 million in concurrency costs; any additional overage would come out of Lockheed Martin’s award.

 

The terms of the concurrency risk-sharing deal for LRIP 5 were not provided by the company or the Pentagon. The agreement on LRIP 5 pricing, however, clears the way for the Pentagon to pay Lockheed Martin back for preliminary work on LRIP 6. Program officials refused to fund long-lead work on LRIP 6 without a deal for the current lot.

 

This agreement comes after more than a year of heated negotiations and at a tough time for Lockheed Martin.

 

Christopher Kubasik, who was tapped to be the next CEO of the company, resigned this month after a personal affair with a subordinate came to light. This leaves Marillyn Hewson, who was to be second in charge, as the incoming CEO at the beginning of next year.

 

Also this fall, the incoming F-35 director, Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, said the relationship between Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon was the “worst I’d ever seen” in a program. He will assume command of the program Dec. 6 when Vice Adm. David Venlet retires.

 

Vice Admiral David J. Venlet .... oggi .... http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288

 

Lt David 'DJ' Venlet (primo da sinistra) .... nel 1981 (ai tempi dell'incidente del Golfo della Sirte) .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)

[TT-1 Pinto]

A proposito dell'articolo apparso sul quotidiano "La Stampa" il 27 Novembre ....

 

http://www.difesa.it/Sala_Stampa/rassegna_stampa_online/Pagine/PdfNavigator.aspx?d=27-11-2012&pdfIndex=9

 

 

Prima leggevo su La Stampa che la notizia sarebbe stata smentita, soltanto non riesco a trovare l'articolo online....

E' questo?