F-35 Lightning II - Discussione Ufficiale

[Brando]

 

E' questo?

 

 

Esattamente, mi sembrava strano infatti, peccao....... però sull'integrazione del Meteor non ci sono smentite e su quella noi e L'UK ci dovremmo impuntare e ottenerla......

[madmike]

Non si tratta di impuntarsi: si tratta di pagare.

 

LM pagando ti monta anche l'IPOD.

[Andrea75]

Outlook For F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Brightens

 

Despite a continuous drumbeat of warnings about defense cuts, the outlook for the Pentagon's biggest weapon program is brightening perceptibly. Defense acquisition czar Frank Kendall told the Reuters news agency yesterday that the government and prime contractor Lockheed Martin are "getting close" to agreement on the details of a fifth production lot for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will continue the downward trajectory in the cost of each plane. In addition, progress has been made in resolving issues with the pilot's helmet -- a key contributor to situational awareness -- and proving the reliability of an improved tailhook for the naval variant. As if all that were not enough, Senator John McCain offered some unusually positive comments about the F-35 at a ceremony before Thanksgiving, saying it might prove to be "the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world."

With regard to the fifth production lot, completion of negotiations is crucial to keeping the program on track and locking in funds for a follow-on buy before sequestration cuts the budget. If the unit cost for the most common version of the F-35 exhibits the same learning-curve improvement seen in previous production lots, it will come in well below $100 million per plane. The program plan envisions that by 2017 the "unit recurring flyaway cost" -- the production cost -- of each plane will be roughly equal to that of the latest F-16 fighters the F-35 was designed to replace. Getting to that number of about $66 million per plane in the tenth production lot is necessary if the plane is to be affordable for foreign and domestic buyers (that's $66 million in today's dollars, without any inflation added).

With regard to the pilot's helmet, which is designed to provide 360-degree situational awareness of the plane's tactical environment, military experts say that even without improvements it is superior to anything the joint force is using today. Nonetheless, steady progress is being made in correcting lags noted in the performance of the helmet that could detract from its performance. In the case of the tailhook required so that the naval variant of F-35 can land safely on carriers at sea, redesign enabled the tailhook to successfully grab onto arresting cables in 83 out of 83 tests, effectively resolving any concerns about the hook's operational performance.

Perhaps the clearest sign of progress, though, came from the least likely source. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a persistent critic of under-performing weapon programs, praised the F-35 at a ceremony earlier this month and cited a Government Accountability Office study that McCain said found for the first time the F-35 program is on track "to produce more achievable and predictable outcomes." When the Senate's most vigilant watchdog of taxpayer dollars says your program is on the right track, that's reason in and of itself to celebrate.

 

... notizie dagli USA U.S. Air Force sticking to plans to buy 1,763 F-35 jets

 

The U.S. Air Force affirmed on Thursday its plans to buy 1,763 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp in coming years, as Lockheed and the government neared agreement on a multi-billion dollar contract for a fifth batch of planes.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told an investor conference that the service remained committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which alone accounts for 15 percent of the service's annual investment spending, and had no plans to revise its projected purchase of 1,763 of the new radar-evading jets.

...

Donley said he had heard proposals about cutting F-35 purchases to save money for other priorities, but said such ideas did not make sense at this point in the program.

"These are good theoretical discussions, but when you look at where we are in the program, it makes no sense to have these discussions until about 2025," Donley said. "There is nothing in the near-term about this program that will change; there is nothing that it will contribute to deficit reduction in the next ten years with the exception of its cancellation."

And cancellation of the program, he said, was something no one would recommend.

...

Lockheed and the Pentagon were also making progress in talks about additional funding for early work on the sixth batch of F-35 jets, said Hewson. She will become Lockheed's CEO in January, succeeding Christopher Kubasik, who was forced out after admitting to having an affair with a subordinate.

Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Bruce Tanner said Hewson had played a key role in the company's talks with the Pentagon, and the two sides had "closed a lot of our differences."

Details of the expected agreement were not immediately available, but sources familiar with the negotiations said they expected it to include a reduction in the cost for each F-35 fighter jet from the fourth production contract, although the number of jets to be ordered will not increase.

 

... notizie dal Canada John Ivison: F-35 purchase in jeopardy with upcoming KPMG report on full cost of fighter jet

 

Before the House of Commons breaks for Christmas, KPMG’s review of the price tag for the F-35 fighter jets will be tabled in Parliament, breathing new life into Opposition claims of ballooning costs and Conservative mismanagement.

The report could sound the death knell for Canada’s involvement in the troubled project.

In the wake of a critical audit last spring by the Auditor-General, the accountancy firm was asked to give full-life-cycle costs for the F-35 – the all-in price of purchasing and operating the jets until 2052, not just the 20-year estimate the Department of National Defence provided.

The revised timeline will inevitably bloat the costs from the current $25-billion National Defence estimate.

Defence sources suggest that, were the same criteria applied to the widely admired $33-billion shipbuilding procurement process for the navy, costs for it would soar to over $100-billion.

As well, critics say, KPMG will not provide a comparator estimate for the F-35’s rivals, making it a “meaningless factoid,” in the words of one person familiar with the process.

Regardless, the impending arrival of a headline number several billion dollars higher than National Defence’s estimate has already set off a turf war within government between Defence officials and Public Works employees, who now run the fighter jet procurement process – not to mention their respective ministries.

In the eyes of National Defence, Public Works is already engaged in a butt-covering exercise by launching a “market analysis” of what alternatives exist to purchasing the F-35s.

...

If the operational imperative for the F-35s is diminished, then its soaring cost – to $137-million from $69-million a decade ago, for early versions of the fighter, according to U.S. government figures – may make it cost-prohibitive. U.S. lawmakers, teetering on the brink of a fiscal cliff, may yet look at the project as an easy target for savings, reducing the number of planes being ordered from the current 2,443, thus increasing the unit cost for everyone else.

That possibility has spurred the Pentagon and the manufacturer Lockheed Martin into pressuring U.S. allies to help pay for the project. The New York Times reported Thursday that both have stepped up phone calls to allies to ensure they don’t bail on the program. Italy has already cut its order, the British and Australians have delayed decisions on plane numbers and the Netherlands is questioning the cost.

Modificato 3 Dicembre 2012 da Andrea75

[Andrea75]

... notizie dalla versione "C" F-35C Lightning II hits weapons testing milestone CF-2 completes initial pit drop testing

 

Building on the F-35’s weapons testing momentum in 2012, the F-35 integrated test force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River completed a weapons ejection milestone for the Lightning II carrier variant on Nov. 28.

CF-2, the second F-35C test aircraft, ejected a 2,000-pound inert GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and a 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II Laser Guided Bomb from an internal weapons bay into a foam-covered concrete pit, completing the series of first-ever ground weapons ejections for the F-35C.

“The integrated government and industry team here, particularly the weapons team, have had a terrific 2012,” said Navy Capt. Erik Etz, director of test and evaluation for F-35 naval variants. “We have a lot more of the envelope to expand on the [F-35C], but we have a lot of momentum and we’re well equipped for the in-flight weapons separation work ahead of us.”

In addition to the GBU-31 and GBU-12, the CF-2 team successfully ejected the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). Overall, the team completed eleven weapon releases, split between the left and right weapon bays, earlier than planned.

Weapons pit drop testing collects data to measure stresses on the airframe and any neighboring munitions, ensures proper function of weapon and suspension equipment, and validates the separation models for the munitions’ ejection characteristics, including trajectories and velocities.

Combined with airborne test missions carrying inert weapons to evaluate environmental and handling conditions, pit drop testing is precursor to airborne separations.

In 2012, the F-35 test team at NAS Patuxent River completed the first airborne weapons separation for any of the three variants and at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., the F-35A test team completed successful testing with a GBU-31 JDAM and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

The F-35C carrier variant of the Lightning II is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear; features used to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. The F-35C is undergoing flight test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to fleet delivery.

 

Time lapse photography shows the release of a 2,000-pound GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from F-35C test aircraft CF-2 Nov. 15. On Nov. 28, the F-35 integrated test team at Patuxent River Naval Air Station completed pit drop testing from the F-35, using the GBU-31 JDAM, 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II Laser Guided Bomb, and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

 

Norway pushes for further assurances over JSM integration on F-35

 

Norway's deputy defence minister Eirik Øwre Thorshaug is to meet with officials from Lockheed Martin and the F-35s Joint Program Office in the first week of December, as Oslo seeks further assurances over the integration of the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM) on to the stealthy fighter.

Oslo has committed to acquiring an initial four examples of the F-35A conventional take-off and landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, but securing the ability to field Kongsberg's "fifth-generation" munition was a pre-requisite for its order. It could eventually acquire up to 52 aircraft to replace its fleet of Lockheed F-16s, in a procurement exercise worth a total of NKr61.2 billion ($10.8 billion).

Although Norway has received what Thorshaug describes as "good signals on the political level" in its efforts to ensure integration, largely in the form of a letter from US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, he acknowledges the process "is not finished".

"We are pushing and leaning forward in that respect, towards both [Lockheed] and the US government," he said during an event in Kongsberg to mark the unveiling of the first JSM fuselage. "We will not rest or hesitate in bringing this issue to our partners or important US ally.

 

... intanto in Norvegia First JSM fuselage unveiled, signalling development milestone

 

This is truly a milestone event, and it marks an important step forward in ensuring both our future military capability and industrial opportunities for the Norwegian defence industry, said State Secretary of Defence Eirik Øwre Thorshaug after he Thursday officially unveiled the first completed fuselage for the new Joint Strike Missile, developed by Kongsberg for the F-35.

The JSM is derived from the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), also developed by Kongsberg, which is already operational with the Royal Norwegian Navy. The new missile, the JSM, offers superior capabilities against well defended naval targets, and is capable of being carried internally on the F-35. This allows the aircraft to maintain its low observability while carrying a powerful long range strike capability. The unveiling on Thursday signals that the fuselage design effort has been completed, and that preparations for further testing can continue.

- We have defined a modern and capable anti-surface capability as a key requirement, and as a result we initiated the development of the JSM. We have also received indications that several other partner nations are interested in the capability offered by this missile, and we are making every effort to see that it becomes available to the F-35 user community in the future, said state secretary Thorshaug.

Missile development is carried out in partnership with the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, and in close cooperation with the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. This ensures that the development process is supported by the combined efforts of one of the world’s most advanced missile technology clusters, which has previously generated products such as the Penguin missile, the NASAMS air defence system and the NSM.

There is a world of difference between an F-35 carrying the JSM and one without it, says Brigadier General Morten Klever with the Norwegian F-35 program, who as a fighter pilot participated in the integration of the Penguin missile on the F-16. – We need the ability to defeat heavily defended high-value targets without having to resort to saturating the target with less capable weapons, an option few can rely on in today’s environment. The JSM, with its long range, high manoeuvrability and accuracy, low signature, and advanced guidance provides just the capability we need, Brigadier General Klever concludes.

 

First JSM fuselage

Modificato 3 Dicembre 2012 da Andrea75

[Andrea75]

Il sito defense-aerospace.com prova a fare un pò di chiarezza nell'ultimo contratto, il LRIP 5 Latest F-35 Contract Agreement Hard to Decipher. L'analisi include l'intero assetto (aereo + motore) ed arriva a determinare un costo unitario di $203.3 million.

 

Given that Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon have been negotiating for a full year to finalize the F-35’s fifth Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP 5) contract, it is hard to understand how the agreement announced on Nov. 30 (see at bottom) can be considered to constitute an advance worthy of an announcement.

 

Reuters reported Nov. 30 that “the deal is valued at around $3.8 billion, although the two sides are still finalizing details.” As they have been finalizing details for well over a year, why announce an agreement that is not final?

The Nov. 30 announcement appears to have no other objective than to allow outgoing F-35 Program Executive Officer Vice Admiral Dave Venlet to leave his position on a positive note. In fact, Venlet implied as much when he stated that “the LRIP-5 agreement will end the year on a positive note.”

However, given what he has achieved in getting the program on an even keel, some may question whether it was necessary to fabricate an “agreement” to mark his departure, instead of dwelling on how he injected a badly-needed dose of realism into the troubled program.

In addition, by claiming an agreement has been reached when it clearly hasn’t, the announcement muddies even further the already murky waters surrounding LRIP 5 costs. And, as it does not contain a cost figure, this “agreement” makes it difficult to understand what progress it could possibly embody in the F-35’s long-standing struggle against rising costs.

As detailed below, the three LRIP 5 airframe contracts awarded to date add up to $4,893 million, or $152.9 million for each of the 32 aircraft in the LRIP 5 production lot, excluding the engines. However, once the engines are added, total costs shoot up to just over $6.5 billion, for a unit cost of $203.3 million per aircraft.

This is hardly an enormous improvement, as it shows a decrease of only $100,000 per aircraft compared to our previous LRIP 5 cost estimate, in March 2012.

It is also much higher, even excluding engines and long-lead items, than the price of the previous production lot, LRIP 4, which was contracted at $3.4 billion for 32 aircraft, or an average of $106.2 million per aircraft.

 

 

While neither the Pentagon nor Lockheed Martin have yet released any LRIP 5 cost figures, both seem upbeat as to the progress embodied by the Nov. 30 agreement.

Venlet is quoted as saying that the agreement “is beneficial to the government and Lockheed Martin,” although given the fact that the two are on opposing sides of the negotiating table it is hard to envision how that could be true.

Lockheed spokeswoman Laurie Quincy told defense-aerospace.com in a Nov. 30 e-mail that “The cost for LRIP 5 jets is significantly less than the cost of LRIP 4 jets. Our production performance has been very good despite a three month strike in 2012. Even with flat production rates from LRIP 4 to LRIP 5, the cost for LRIP 5 jets will be about 50 percent less than LRIP 1 jets. Also, LRIP 5 labor costs are 14 percent below LRIP 4 actual costs.”

 

Explanatory Note of LRIP 5 costs

Two separate contracts for the LRIP 5 aircraft (minus engines) were announced in December 2011:

- One, a $4,011,919,310 fixed-price-incentive (firm target) (FPIF) modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0002), covered the manufacture and delivery of 30 Low Rate Initial Production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, including 21 Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for the US Air Force, 6 Carrier Variant aircraft for the US Navy and 3 Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Marine Corps. It was awarded on Dec. 9, 2011.

- Another, a $485,000,000 not-to-exceed, cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0002), covered the “F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter Low Rate Initial Production Lot V production non-recurring requirements inclusive of special tooling/special test equipment and subcontractor technical assistance for the Air Force, Navy, and the Cooperative Partner participants, was awarded on Dec. 27, 2011.

The two above agreements add up to $4,496 million.

However, an “advance acquisition” contract worth $522.2 million had been awarded on July 6, 2010 for “long-lead efforts and materials associated with the production and delivery of 42 low-rate initial production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft (N00019-10-C-0002).”

Subsequently, this contract’s value was reduced as the number of F-35Bs was reduced from 13 to 3 when that variant was placed “on probation,” for a revised total of 32 aircraft. A proportional reduction in the contract’s value reduces it to an estimated $397 million.

The total amount of these three contracts is $4,893 million, or $152.9 million for each of the 32 contracted aircraft.

As aircraft need engines, these were the subject of two separate contracts.

One, awarded on May 10,, 2010, funded long-lead items for the engines, and was worth $138.8 million for 30 engines. Corrected to reflect that the number of engines has increased to 32, its value can be estimated at $148 million.

The second contract, awarded on Dec. 27, 2011 to Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, is worth $1,122,306,649 for 30 engines. Given that the number of engines has increased to 32, a proportional increase pegs this contract’s corrected value to $1,197 million, or $37.4 million per aircraft.

Once the airframe and engine costs are combined, each LRIP 5 aircraft will cost US taxpayers $203.3 million, for a total LRIP 5 cost of $6,505 million.

[Scagnetti]

Grazie, questo fa definitivamente maggiore chiarezza.

Perfettamente in linea col costo di 203 milioni di dollari per aereo LRIP-5 riportato da Silvio Lora-Lamia nella famigerata intervista a DeBortolis.

Modificato 3 Dicembre 2012 da Scagnetti

[Flaggy]

C’è però qualcosa che non mi convince del tutto...

 

Prima di tutto nella tabella vedo 4,011 miliardi di dollari per 30 aerei incrementati a 4,278 perché gli aerei sono passati a 32 per la LRIP 5 e questo passaggio non è del tutto chiaro visto che 4.011 miliardi di dollari (i realtà sono 4,0119 approssimati male...) sono quelli ancora da definire comunicati un anno fa e non i 3.8 definiti in questi giorni. In effetti il contratto da 3.8 miliardi, relativo proprio a 32 aerei e non ai 30 iniziali, in tabella non compare proprio.

 

Per contro i 4 miliardi e rotti di un anno fa erano così definiti:

 

Lockheed Martin has signed an undefinitized contract that establishes a price ceiling for the fifth low rate production lot for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, company officials clarified late on Friday.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/12/dn-pentagon-orders-30-more-f35s-from-lockheed-120911/

 

Ma prendendo anche per buoni i 4.278 (ricalcolati) che l'autore ritiene più definitivi dei 3.8 odierni (nonostante allora fossero provvisori e intesi come tetto massimo) comunque non mi pare che le cifre siano allineate con quelle dell’intervista di Lamia, sebbene compaiano anche qui i famosi 203 milioni.

 

Qui infatti si parla genericamente del quinto lotto e i 203 milioni sono una media per i 32 aerei che ne fanno parte, invece Lamia li attribuisce specificamente alla variante A, assegnando 300 milioni alla variante B...

 

Con il LRIP 4 si diceva che i 17 F-35B finirono col costare 109.4M al pezzo (motore e probabilmente long-lead items esclusi) , gli 11 F-35A di 111.6 e i 4 C di 142.9. (al contratto di iniziale 3.4 miliardi ci furono aggiunti altri contratti per coprire i vari extra e i concurrency cost e gli aerei furono pagati più dei 3.4 miliardi indicati).

 

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/17/f-35-lrip-4-costs-detailed/

 

Ora, nel mix del quinto lotto, oltre a 22 F-35A, ci sono 3 F-35B e 7 F-35C che come sappiamo tirano ben su la media, il C per la navalizzazione della struttura e il B per il costosissimo impianto propulsivo che dovrebbe costare circa il doppio di quelli montati su A e C (a suo tempo si disse 38 milioni contro i 18-19 delle altre due varianti...)

 

In sostanza, anche tenendo buoni i 6.5 miliardi complessivi, i 203 milioni di Lamia per un “A” sono eccessivi perché di fatto qui non sono attribuiti a questa variante ma sono la media dei 32 aerei...

 

Prendendo il totale di 6.5 miliardi visto nell'articolo di defense aerospace (su cui ho comunque il dubbio espresso sopra) e considerando i diversi costi di aerei e motori per le 3 versioni, direi che un costo indicativo dei velivoli del quinto lotto potrebbe essere:

 

190 milioni per un A

 

215 milioni per un B

 

236 per un C.

 

Possiamo suddividere la cifra complessiva in modo diverso, visto che non sono stati comunicai i valori effettivi, ma comunque mi pare che Lamia abbia fatto altri conti rispetto a quelli esposti nell'articolo sopra postato.

 

Attenzione comunque a considerare il contratto del quinto lotto come peggiorativo rispetto al passato solo in base ai 3.8 miliardi rispetto ai 3.4 del precedente. Il Mix del quinto lotto è infatti molto più pesante per quanto riguarda i soli airframe perché rispetto al passato comprende un numero maggiore di costosi C, mentre A e B sono allineati su cifre minori.

 

In sintesi aspetterei qualche giorno che escano i dati ufficiali, possibilmente quelli del GAO, perché mi pare ci sia un po’ di confusione in giro.

 

Per intanto segnalerei un punto postato oggi da Andrea.

 

the case of the tailhook required so that the naval variant of F-35 can land safely on carriers at sea, redesign enabled the tailhook to successfully grab onto arresting cables in 83 out of 83 tests, effectively resolving any concerns about the hook's operational performance.

 

Direi che sono buone notizie per quanto riguarda la variante navale...

Modificato 3 Dicembre 2012 da Flaggy

[Scagnetti]

Allora,

il recente articolo di Defense Aereospace fa riferimento a una precedente analisi dello stesso organo sui costi LRIP-5: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m--%3Ci%3E%28updated%29%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html

 

credo che Lamia aveva fatto riferimento a tale analisi, dove tra l'altro si cerca di fare un breakdown tra i costi delle diverse versioni. A quanto ho capito la finalizzazione del contratto di questi giorni deve rendere tutte le voci "undefinitized" come invece definitive. Cioè si stanno cercando di aggiustare i costi dei precedenti 5 contratti. Perché in questi giorni si parli di 3.8 miliardi di dollari non è del tutto chiaro neanche a me.

 

Ah quella che può essere considerata una buona notiza: avevo già letto l'analisi del 12/13 marzo, ma non riuscivo a ritrovarla. C'è un punto che mi aveva colpito, relativo al contratto principale per le cellule:

 

4. LRIP 5 (production non-recurring requirements): December 27, 2011

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $485,000,000 not-to-exceed cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0002).

A total of $131,500,000 is being obligated at time of award.

This modification provides the F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter Low Rate Initial Production Lot V production non-recurring requirements inclusive of special tooling/special test equipment and subcontractor technical assistance for the Air Force, Navy, and the Cooperative Partner participants.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (30 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (20 percent); Wharton, United Kingdom (20 percent); Turin, Italy (15 percent); Nashua, N.H. (8 percent); and Baltimore, Md. (7 percent).

[Flaggy]

Si, si, avevo visto che le due analisi erano collegate, ma non mi convince che la cifra di 4.11 di qualche mese fa venga usata ancora come base per i nuovi conti (fatti con una proporzione).

In ogni caso volevo sottolineare come l'analisi di Lamia in realtà non sia in accordo con questa, ma molto peggiorativa.

Se hanno preso gli stessi dati, non li hanno interpretati alla stessa maniera, perchè l'F-35A di Lamia non può proprio costare come la media di defense aerospace degli aerei della LRIP 5.

Modificato 3 Dicembre 2012 da Flaggy

[ChriF18]

ecco perche il mondo va allo SFASCIO.. se questi spendono millemila miliardi di euro, per dei caz*o di aerei che non serveno ad un'emerita cippa se non per farsi i fighi nei video, e nelle esibizioni in pubblico.. i bombardamenti aerei sono solo roba per film e videogiochi, la realtà e un'altra!!!

[Scagnetti]

Ah, mi era sfuggito, quello che avevi scritto prima:

 

Qui infatti si parla genericamente del quinto lotto e i 203 milioni sono una media per i 32 aerei che ne fanno parte, invece Lamia li attribuisce specificamente alla variante A, assegnando 300 milioni alla variante B...

 

 

No. Lamia, parlò di 203 milioni come costo medio complessivo, per tutte e tre le varianti, non per la A.

 

A marzo il Pentagono ha reso noto che i 30 aerei del LRIP-5, il lotto precedente a quello cui apparterranno i nostri primi tre aeroplani, tenendo conto di tutti i 5 contratti stipulati (dal maggio 2010 al dicembre 2011), avranno un

costo medio complessivo di 203 milioni di dollari, con la versione STOVL che sfiora i 300.

 

http://www.analisidifesa.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Intervista-DeBortolis.pub_.pdf

[ChriF18]

Ah, mi era sfuggito, quello che avevi scritto prima:

 

 

No. Lamia, parlò di 203 milioni come costo medio complessivo, per tutte e tre le varianti, non per la A.

 

 

 

http://www.analisidifesa.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Intervista-DeBortolis.pub_.pdf

ecco 300 milioni ma questi sono fuori !!!

[Flaggy]

Hai ragione, ricordavo i 203 per la A perchè mi sono sempre parsi esagerati i 300 per la B...

Probabilmente nei conti di Lamia il "B" paga la gran parte dei concurrency cost di questi mesi, ma non so quanto sia corretto e soprattutto indicativo dell'effettivo prezzo applicabile non tanto ai soli 3 B della LRIP 5, ma soprattutto alla grande serie.

In ogni caso aspetterei il "saldo finale"per chiarire questi aspetti...

 

@ChriF18, siamo a pagina 181 e ci stiamo impegnando a rendere costruttiva e utile questa discussione. Se ne sei in grado, ti spiace dare un valore aggiunto alla discussione invece che scrivere banalità, prima che siano i moderatori ad invitarti a farlo? Grazie...

Modificato 3 Dicembre 2012 da Flaggy

[cloyce]

ecco perche il mondo va allo SFASCIO.. se questi spendono millemila miliardi di euro, per dei caz*o di aerei che non serveno ad un'emerita cippa se non per farsi i fighi nei video, e nelle esibizioni in pubblico.. i bombardamenti aerei sono solo roba per film e videogiochi, la realtà e un'altra!!!

Prova a pensare a ciò che c'è stato durante la rivoluzione libica e all'intervento della NATO.

Ti sembrano film e videogiochi?

[TT-1 Pinto]

Superate le 5000 ore di volo ....

 

Dal "Daily Report" dell'AFA di questa mattina ....

 

 

Racking up the Flight Hours ....

 

The F-35 strike fighter program surpassed 5,000 flight hours in late November, announced the F-35 program office.

 

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20121130_5000TESTHOURS.pdf

 

All three variants of the stealth fighter—the Air Force's F-35A, Marine Corps' F-35B, and Navy's F-35C—contributed to those flight hours, according to the office's Nov. 30 release.

 

That includes F-35s, both developmental test aircraft and production airframes, flying from Lockheed Martin's production facility in Fort Worth, Tex., as well as at Edwards AFB, Calif., Eglin AFB, Fla., and NAS Patuxent River, Md.

 

The first flight of an F-35 occurred in December 2006.

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2006/December%202006/December%2018%202006/1030jsf.aspx

 

Since then, F-35s have flown more than 3,464 times, according to the program office.

 

[Andrea75]

il sito defence-aerospace ci ripensa: Latest F-35 Contract Agreement Hard to Decipher (Corrected)

 

Given that Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon have been negotiating for a full year to finalize the F-35’s fifth Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP 5) contract, it is hard to understand how the agreement announced on Nov. 30 (see at bottom) can be considered to constitute an advance worthy of an announcement.

 

Reuters reported Nov. 30 that “the deal is valued at around $3.8 billion, although the two sides are still finalizing details.” As they have been finalizing details for well over a year, why announce an agreement that is not final?

 

The Nov. 30 announcement appears to have no other objective than to allow outgoing F-35 Program Executive Officer Vice Admiral Dave Venlet to leave his position on a positive note. In fact, Venlet implied as much when he stated that “the LRIP-5 agreement will end the year on a positive note.”

 

However, given what he has achieved in getting the program on an even keel, some may question whether it was necessary to fabricate an “agreement” to mark his departure, instead of dwelling on how he injected a badly-needed dose of realism into the troubled program.

 

In addition, by claiming an agreement has been reached when it clearly hasn’t, the announcement muddies even further the already murky waters surrounding LRIP 5 costs. And, as it does not contain a cost figure, this “agreement” makes it difficult to understand what progress it could possibly embody in the F-35’s long-standing struggle against rising costs.

 

Lockheed spokeswoman Laurie Quincy told defense-aerospace.com in a Nov. 30 e-mail that “The cost for LRIP 5 jets is significantly less than the cost of LRIP 4 jets. Our production performance has been very good despite a three month strike in 2012. Even with flat production rates from LRIP 4 to LRIP 5, the cost for LRIP 5 jets will be about 50 percent less than LRIP 1 jets. Also, LRIP 5 labor costs are 14 percent below LRIP 4 actual costs.”

 

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was substantially edited Dec. 4 to correct mistakes in estimating the cost of LRIP 5 aircraft. We will revisit the issue once the costs of the final contract are released. We apologize for the errors.)

[Flaggy]

Sbaglio o hanno fatto sparire la fantomatica tabella assieme ai famosi 4.278 miliardi?

Come si diceva magari è meglio aspettare qualche giorno che si chiariscano le cose...

[madmike]

era fantomatica la tabella, ma sono fantomatiche anche le percentuali indicate: meno 50%, de che? - 14%, de che?

 

Da una inflazione di numeri, siam passati a 0' numeri....

[Flaggy]

Come si diceva magari è meglio aspettare qualche giorno che si chiariscano le cose...

 

Si era capito che vale per tutti o servono i sottotitoli?

[madmike]

Si era capito che come al solito non hai capito.

[Flaggy]

Da che pulpito...

Ieri mi sono limitato a esprimere un dubbio sulla validità di quella tabella e oggi semplicemente constato che chi l’ha proposta l’ha anche ritirata.

Visto che quella tabella è lì da mesi ed è mesi che la si commenta, posso quindi serenamente dire di non aver perso troppo tempo chiacchiere che non meritava...

Com’è che ami dire tu? Le chiacchiere stanno a zero? Ecco, vorrei stessero a zero anche queste...

 

PS: E vorrei evitare le solite polemiche su chi ha detto cosa, visto che io, Pinto e Scagnetti satavamo discutendo in modo mi pare costruttivo.

Modificato 4 Dicembre 2012 da Flaggy

[madmike]

Flaggy, la mia considerazione era semplice: posto che hanno tolto la tabella, non eè rimasto UN SOLO DATO salvo delle percentuali che, come noto, dovranno pure riferirsi a qualcosa.

 

Se tu dici che una cosa è calata del 50%, dirai che costava 100 e oggi 50, o no?

 

Ecco, manca anche quello. Ovvero, non si sa minimamente (fonte LM, che è la fonte delle percentuali indicate) un numero assoluto. Il che mi pare bizzarro.

 

Semplice considerazione, appunto.

[Andrea75]

Bogdan To Assume F-35 Program Leadership Dec. 6

 

U.S. Air Force Gen. Christopher Bogdan will officially be named as head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office on Dec. 6, Defense News has learned.

 

Bogdan is currently deputy program manager for the JSF. In August, he was nominated to head the program by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. He takes over for retiring Vice Adm. David Venlet.

 

The news was confirmed by program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova.

[Andrea75]

RCAF Faces Significant Refuelling Issue With Future Fighter Purchase

 

Editor’s note: Defence Watch has received this from a recently retired RCAF officer.

 

Here is what he writes:

The cheapest version of the F-35 is built to USAF specifications which means it will be equipped to be refuelled in the air using the boom system which the USAF uses.

Our CF-18s were built to USN specs so they use the drogue and probe system. This means of course that all of our Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) systems (on two Airbuses and five Hercules) are incompatible with the version of the F-35 which is the cheapest and which is (probably?) the version that is the basis for the current cost numbers. In addition, the boom style of AAR requires a specially trained operator in the tanker aircraft, something we don’t have and would have to acquire.

So, if we buy the USAF version of the F-35 we would immediately be without national AAR capability compatible with our newly acquired fighter aircraft. We were without it for a while in the late 90′s and early 00′s when our old 707′s were retired and the Air Force pressed hard and constantly until we spent several hundred million dollars to get two Airbuses modified to provide this capability using, of course the probe and drogue system.

We had also bought five KC-130s in the mid 90′s with the same system, though they are not ideal for refuelling the CF-18s because of mismatched speeds/altitude capabilities of the two platforms and so the push was on to get the system in the Airbuses. None of these aircraft have the boom system and I would estimate it would be technologically impossible and/or prohibitively expensive to modify them.

The boom system is a bit more of an engineering and structural challenge and if we needed it to match the version of the F-35 we acquire I would predict that the Air Force will bring forward the need for a new aircraft with this capability. That said, our Airbuses are getting along in years. I wonder what you would find if you asked about the possibility of our needing a new fleet of Transport/AAR aircraft (something like the versions of the Airbus being built right now for the British) coincidental and associated with the acquisition of the F-35s. Or, are we just ignoring this issue until the F-35 decision is made, and then we will take up the discussion about Transport/AAR requirements in the context of the new fighter?

You’ll probably find a few old hands around who still remember that when we bought the CF-18s it was only after that contract was signed that we pointed out to the government that the Air-toAir missiles on the legacy aircraft that the CF-18 replaced were incompatible with the CF-18 and a separate bill for several hundred million dollars was to be paid in order to arm these new fighters. It’s easy to see where some people get their suspicions of the process.

So this AAR issue might be a significant issue given that several of the other aircraft in discussion, not least the upgraded Super Hornet F-18 are configured for drogue and probe aerial refuelling and would not precipitate this issue were they to be acquired as replacements for the CF-18.

[Flaggy]

Non è ben chiaro perchè la questione torni fuori in questi termini (riequipaggiare un'intera flotta di tanker invece che adattare gli aerei) ma il costuttore aveva già risposto.

 

Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Forces refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter in this case, on the As spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?

A: OBryan: We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. Weve done a number of studies funded studies, not projects funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. Its a relatively easy … doable change.So if youre keeping score at home, you could almost count this as a fourth variant of the F-35 because this program wasnt complicated enough.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/

 

Se come affermato quello spazio è rimasto libero sull'F-35A, in fondo si tratta di implementare quanto già utilizzato dalle varianti B e C (sonda, pannelli, componenti stutturali e presumibilmente parte delle tubazioni), con un ridotto valore di eventuali componenti specifiche.

Insomma sembra implicito che il Canada sia tra i paesi che abbiano fatto questa richiesta, abbia finanziato gli studi e che le modifiche siano di semplice implementazione.

Se poi qualcuno in Canada è giunto alla conclusione che sia necessario rifare la flotta di tanker dovrebbe spiegare meglio questo passaggio.

Modificato 5 Dicembre 2012 da Flaggy