F-35 News

[Sterrius]

Bem, tem que se levar em conta que os EUA a tempos perdeu qualquer tecnica de economia!

F22, B2 etc... todos esses projetos foram chegando numa reta crescente por poucos ganhos!

Veremos até onde o bolso americano aguenta!

[P44]

e para ajudar mais á festa...

Leaked Report on JSF Noise Levels Forces Norway to Review Air Base Plans

Bodø Could Lose Main Air Base


(Source: Aftenposten; published Oct. 30, 2009)


(Published in Norwegian; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)



Many people in Norway so far believed that they had been provided with comparisons between the noise generated by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Norway's future fighter, and by the F-16 aircraft that the Norwegian Air Force uses today.

However, it now turns out that the comparison was between JSF and a modern version of the F-16, which is far noisier than our old F-16 aircraft.

A report from Lockheed Martin, which makes the JSF, specifically says that the JSF will makes up to four times as much noise as our F-16, depending on whether the aircraft takes off at full power and with afterburner.
Thus, the gap between the noise that Norwegian airport neighbors experience today, and what they will experience once JSF enters service, will be much larger than expected. The cost to the forced relocation of the airport's neighbors, and the eventual relocation of runways, will thus be much higher.

Secret

The Air Force and the Defense Department classified the Lockheed-Martin report when they received it in late September-early October. Only the Air Force's top leadership, who counts only a handful of individuals, and others in the Defence Ministry's Department FD4, which controls the security policy and long-term planning, has seen the report.

Aftenposten has not seen the actual report, but has received confirmation from several quarters that the noise data for the JSF is dramatic. They match the noise data which is available on the internet about JSF, and that Aftenposten studied.

The bomb from 2007

It struck like a bomb when the defense chief Sverre Diesen in the fall of 2007 pointed out that Bodo was the double winner as main military garrison town. Diesen would not only move the Armed Forces Operational Headquarters (FHO) from Stavanger to Bodø, but also put the future main air base there.

A number of other fighter bases would be closed, among them Orland outside Trondheim. While the move of the headquarters is done, the decision about the main air base has not yet been implemented.

On the one hand, it is "purely military considerations," on the other hand "how many individuals in Bodø, or Orland, must move from their homes because of future aircraft noise"? Bodø's problem is that the civil and military runways are located close to the city's center.

A far greater proportion of individuals will have to leave their home, or get noise insulation, than when Gardermoen was developed as a civilian international airport in the 1990s.

Notification costs
When Diesen presented his recommendation, the Air Force has not yet made its choice of a new combat aircraft. But it was not long before the first reports came on the table that it could be terribly expensive to pay for necessary noise abatement work, whether you selected the Eurofighter, JAS Gripen or JSF. Still, it was clear that the JSF would cost more than the competition.

On the basis of preliminary reports from SINTEF, Defense Construction and the U.S. Air Force, it was already clear before New Year in 2007 that the cost of the noise abatement work would reach between 0.54 and 6.45 billion kroner, depending on whether Evenes, Orland or Bodø was chosen.

Bodø would cost the most because of its population of over 40,000 people. It was estimated that over 2,000 homes would have to be abandoned, and nearly as many would have to have noise abatement work.

Move the problem 700 m

Bodø has responded with a proposal to relocate the military section of the airport over 700 meters away from the city, partially behind a hill, and build a new military runway in part into the sea.

"The military and civilian runways are currently too close. We have been host to air bases in more than 50 years. If we are to continue as a military base, it must be on terms that make for acceptable conditions to Bodo. Therefore, the moving solution is ingenious. Only a few residents will be affected by noise, and large areas are released that can be used for urban development,” Mayor Odd Tore Fygle told Aftenposten.

But airport experts support the Orland option, and calculate that the relocation of Bodo airport can cost between 6 and 10 billion kroner, including the removal of buried fuel facilities and other military technical installations. They also claim that 700 meters is not far to remove the noise problem, and that building the runway into the sea is problematic.

The Ministry of Defense is scheduled to submit its report about the fighter bases before Christmas. Final decision on the case will take the Parliament in the spring.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Several European countries, including Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland, have extremely strict laws governing the maximum levels of aircraft noise that residents near airports, airfields and air bases can be subjected to. These laws can make noise-abatement measures, including rebuilding houses or re-housing residents, obligatory at government expense.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... plans.html

[alexmabastos]

Pra mim muitos dos recursos aplicados na indústria de defesa norte americana não são sempre para o que dizem ser. Sobre o F-35 não digo pois é um "consórcio", agora muitos dos outros...ah...projetos secretos colegas...

Alex

[soultrain]

Já se fala entre dentes, nos corredores, em acabar totalmente com o programa do JSF e substitui-lo por um UCAV da LM.

[[]]'s

[Penguin]

USAF anuncia onze bases candidatas a operar o F-35 nos EUA
http://www.aereo.jor.br/

Na última quinta-feira, 29 de outubro, a Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos (USAF) anunciou a lista de bases candidatas a operar o F-35 Lightning II no país. Foram selecionadas 11 bases.

Para atuarem principalmente como bases de treinamento, foram selecionadas cinco candidatas: Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station, Idaho; Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.; Holloman AFB N.M.; Luke AFB, Ariz.; e Tucson International Airport Air Guard Station, Ariz.

As seis candidatas para bases operacionais são: Burlington International Airport Guard Station, Vt.; Hill AFB, Utah; Jacksonville International Airport Air Guard Station, Fla.; Mountain Home AFB, Idaho; Shaw AFB, S.C.; e McEntire Air Guard Base, S.C.

A Base Aérea de Holoman, citada no primeiro grupo, terá avaliada também sua estrutura já existente para o F-22 Raptor. Ainda no primeiro semestre do ano que vem deverão ser anunciadas as preferidas da lista, sendo esperada para o início de 2011 a decisão final sobre as bases que operarão o Lightning II. Para mais detalhes sobre os critérios de escolha dessas onze candidatas, clique no link “saiba mais” ao final da matéria. No mapa abaixo, marcamos as posições das bases citadas.

[Penguin]

DATE:30/10/09
SOURCE:Flight International
PICTURE: UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter enters assembly
By Craig Hoyle

Northrop Grumman has begun assembling the centre fuselage for the UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at its Palmdale facility in California.

The JSF industry team member says it achieved the milestone three days ahead of schedule, when it moved an all-composite air-inlet duct for short take-off and vertical landing aircraft BK-1 into an assembly jig on 26 October.


Work has begun on assembling STOVL aircraft BK-1 for the UK

Once completed, the centre fuselage for the UK's first of three F-35Bs that will be used to support initial operational test and evaluation of the type will be shipped to Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth final assembly site in Texas. It will be mated with BK-1's BAE Systems-produced aft fuselage and Lockheed-made forward fuselage/cockpit and wings.

BK-1 is the first JSF to enter build for a customer outside the USA. Northrop has previously delivered 25 centre fuselages during the programme's system development and demonstration and early low-rate initial production phases.

As the USA's only Level 1 partner on the JSF project, the UK has previously identified a requirement to buy up to 138 F-35Bs to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. However, severe pressures on the UK Ministry of Defence's budget look certain to see significantly fewer aircraft purchased to replace its remaining BAE Harrier GR7/9s.

The UK ordered its test F-35Bs in March 2009, with the assets to be produced during the JSF programme's third low-rate initial production phase. Deliveries will start in 2011.

[Carlos Mathias]

Ô Soultrain, num fica blasfemando não que o céu vai cair sobre tí, ó pá!!!!!!

[czarccc]

The Hon. Greg Combet AM MP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science

Printer friendly version
02 Nov 2009
91030/09

INTERVIEW WITH GREG COMBET, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE PERSONNEL, MATERIAL AND SCIENCE

Radio National - The National Interest - Peter Mares

Joint Strike Fighter Program

Friday, 30 October 2009

PETER MARES:
The cost of building the state-of-the-art Joint Strike Fighter just keeps going up, with the US Defence Force facing a bill that will be $17 billion higher than originally expected before manufacturer Lockheed Martin can get the plane into mass production.

The Joint Strike Fighter program has been an ongoing concern of the Government Accountability Office in the United States . In March that office reported that the aircraft's development was about two years behind schedule and that fully integrated mission capable plane was not expected to enter flight testing until 2012.

In one example of the JSF's problems, only 30 of the 300 test flights scheduled for the last financial year actually took place.

This leaves little room for error for Australia which is planning to buy 100 of the Joint Strike Fighters to replace the RAAF's ageing fleet of F1-11s.

The man who inherited the Coalition Government's decision to buy the JSF - or Joint Strike Fighter - is the Minister for Defence Materiel, Greg Combet.

He recently toured the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas, where the Fighter is being developed, and he joins us on the line from Newcastle.

Minister, welcome to National Interest.

GREG COMBET:
Thank you very much.

PETER MARES:
Now, it's been reported that the National Security Committee of Cabinet will sign off on the JSF acquisition in late November. Is that true?

GREG COMBET:
Well, National Security Committee of Cabinet meetings are not something that are discussed publicly, but it's certainly the case that we'll be considering the next stage of decision-making for the JSF in the near future.

PETER MARES:
And what is the next stage of decision-making? Does that commit us to buying the plane?

GREG COMBET:
Well, it's just something that, I'm sorry, I can't speculate about and nor can I, of course…

PETER MARES:
No…

GREG COMBET:
...predict the outcome of the discussions.

PETER MARES:
No, no, I didn't mean you to predict the outcome. I meant if we decided to go ahead, does that then commit us to buying the plane?

GREG COMBET:
Oh yes, well, the Government is due to make a decision about the purchase of the aircraft in the very near future and in particular the configuration, if you like, of the way in which we'll purchase it.

PETER MARES:
Now, I - in my introduction I talked about the problems identified by the Government Accountability Office in the United States . What makes you believe that this plane is actually going to get off the ground, as it were?

GREG COMBET:
Well, I've been working on the JSF project myself in two capacities for the last - in excess of 18 months; firstly, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, and since June of this year as the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science.

So I've taken a close interest in it. I've in fact been twice to the Fort Worth facilities of Lockheed Martin in the United States , and only recently I spent a fair deal of time in Washington and talking to our counterparts in the US administration and at the Pentagon as well about progress of the JSF.

I think one of the important things about it that does give the Government confidence about the program overall is that the US is really throwing all of the resources that they have at this particular aircraft.

It's extremely important for the future national security purposes of the United States . It's only recently secured its additional funding, or its funding for the next year from the Congress and now from - with the support of President Obama. And the observation was made to me by many officials in the United States administration, as well as in the military, that the United States has a lot riding on this particular aircraft and there's no way that it's not going to succeed.

Having said that, of course, there are issues about the program that are being ironed out, that this is a fifth generation aircraft that, when successfully developed, will have a tremendous capability and I don't think anyone expects it to be a straightforward effort.

But on all of the information that I have gained from working on the project for a quite a period of time now, the Government does have confidence that this is going to work.

PETER MARES:
What will the cost be to us of these planes?

GREG COMBET:
Well, the Government has budgeted in the ballpark of $16 billion for purchasing up to 100 aircraft. We're confident that we can work within that budgetary projection. But, of course, this is a procurement that will take place over quite a number of years and will - suffice to say, I guess, that the Government is going to be continuing a very close scrutiny of the cost projections for the JSF and to the future. It's one of the issues that we'll be looking at in the very near future again.

But we're also, it needs to be borne in mind, purchasing aircraft further back in the production schedule than the United States will be, and it's typically at those later phases of production when the costs start to come down. And we're looking very carefully at what that profile will look like.

PETER MARES:
Well Australia originally was going to be purchasing quite early in the production phase, in fact compared to other countries. Are you saying we're going to delay our purchases so that we get cheaper planes later in the production run as you say because prices come down as production continues?

GREG COMBET:
Well we've been grappling with quite a number of factors, but in the White Paper that the Government produced earlier this year about six or seven months ago looking at our national security and defence requirements out to the year 2030. The Joint Strike Fighter of course is one of the key elements of our air combat capability that was looked at in detail, and we did allow the - our planned initial operating capability date to slip by 12 months at that time, so that's a decision that's already been taken.

PETER MARES:
So will it slip further though? I mean…

GREG COMBET:
No, no I'm certainly not speculating about that, but our initial operating capability is forecast for that period around 2017 to 2018 or so and that's what we're currently planning on.

PETER MARES:
Other countries are beginning to sort of hedge their bets a bit on the JSF. Denmark , England , England has cut its numbers that it will buy. These decisions all impact on Australia because if other countries cut their orders or if the US were to scale back its order that will push up the price for Australia .

GREG COMBET:
Well there's a very strong commitment for the aircraft. Just to put it in a bit of perspective. In the US the aircraft production run for the purposes of the US Navy and the US Air Force is likely to be in the order of several thousand aircraft. We're talking about up to 100. Great Britain is confronting some quite significant fiscal constraints and that would be conditioning their thinking.

But the overall commitment of all of the alliance partners to the Joint Strike Fighter is strong on all of our experience and engagement with them, and there's a very strong level of support for this.

Whilst a lot of the criticisms of the program of course get a lot of public airing the fact of the matter is that at the level of capability, at the level of cost and the risk that's still in the program, there's a lot of confidence that this program can be delivered and that the risks are being overcome. A lot of work's been done to try and contain cost, and it's a program where there's a strong level of commitment internationally.

PETER MARES:
Yet the plan has not yet been tested or built and the Coalition made a decision to go with the Joint Strike Fighter back in 2002. It abandoned sort of due diligence, comparisons with other fighters that might have been on offer from other manufacturers, European manufacturers for example. Has the Labor Government looked seriously at other options and whether we might get a better deal somewhere else?

GREG COMBET:
Well firstly just to correct the record slightly there. In fact the aircraft is under construction, is in manufacturing. In fact I witnessed the first aircraft on the production, the first full production aircraft on the line while I was at Fort Worth, and of course prior to that a number of test aircraft have been manufactured and worked on.

There are many different areas of activity ongoing and many of these things are maturing quite well. A lot of work's been done as you'd expect on all of the software code that underpins such a complex piece of capability. So all that's ongoing.

Back to your question though. One of the things that the Rudd Government did early in its term going back into early 2008, the former Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon had a good look at this issue and asked the Defence Force to review effectively the decisions that the Howard Government had made in relation to both the Super Hornets acquisition and the Joint Strike Fighter and to re-evaluate what Australia's future air combat capability needs were and the capability that was promised in the form of the JSF.

So we had a status report at that time which concluded that the JSF was a genuine fifth generation fighter aircraft and that the commitment to it was appropriate for the Government to continue. Obviously we have to keep a very careful eye on the issue of costs of the aircraft and to ensure that the capability is delivered…

PETER MARES:
But what's…

GREG COMBET:
…but we're confident of that process is well in train.

PETER MARES:
What's plan B if the time lines slip and the Joint Strike Fighter's not available by 2017, what's plan B?

GREG COMBET:
Well the Government of course is proceeding also with the purchase of the 24 Super Hornet aircraft which will fill the capability gap if you like as the…

PETER MARES:
That's until 2017, but what happens you know if that capability gap, as it's called, continues?

GREG COMBET:
Oh well the Super Hornets will be in operation well beyond 2017.

So the Government's confident we've got the air combat capability issue covered, but more importantly what I've indicated about our confidence in the JSF program is actually the case. And we're watching very closely all of these issues, we've got a very good project team working on the JSF, and I was very encouraged by the extent of the commitment and the work that's being undertaken in the United States to ensure that the JSF program delivers on what has been promised.

PETER MARES:
Minister thanks very much for your time.

GREG COMBET:
That's a pleasure. Thank you.

Media contacts:

Rod Hilton (Greg Combet): 02 6277 4771 or 0458 276 619

Defence Media Liaison: 02 6127 1999 or 0408 498 664

Fonte: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/greg ... entId=9651

[P44]

Lockheed F-35 Still Raises ‘Concerns,’ Pentagon Says (excerpt)


(Source: Bloomberg; issued Oct. 29, 2009)



Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter still poses a risk of cost increases, according to an independent study of the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, the Defense Department spokesman said today.

The new cost estimate is “pessimistic and continues to raise concerns about the course the program is on,” Geoff Morrell, the department’s spokesman, said at a news conference. Ash Carter, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, has been briefed on the analysis by the Joint Estimate Team, Morrell said.

“If the Joint Estimate Team provided especially good news, we would be trumpeting it,” Morrell said. “It provides us a worst-case assessment of how the program will likely develop.”

The Pentagon will weigh the team’s analysis against the Joint Strike Fighter program office, “which is generally much more optimistic,” he said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has bet the Pentagon’s long- term fighter-jet modernization on the F-35 after canceling additional production of the F-22. U.S. lawmakers and international partners such as the U.K. have a stake in the cost of the $298 billion program because of its implications for future budgets.

The cost assessment of the fighter is an update to one completed a year ago. The earlier study estimated the program may need as much as $16.6 billion more than planned through 2015 for research and production. Morrell declined to give precise figures from the latest assessment.

‘Modest Risks’

Lockheed “acknowledges that modest risks to our cost and schedule baselines exist, but we envision no scenario that would justify a substantial delay to completion of development or transition to production milestones,” spokesman John Kent in an e-mailed statement. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full article, on the Bloomberg website. (ends)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... akQUcmpnts

Transcript of Oct. 30 News Briefing with Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell (excerpt)


(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Oct. 30, 2009)



Q: May I ask you about another assessment that's forward- looking? This is on the Pentagon's largest weapons program, the Joint Strike Fighter. I understand that this Joint Estimating Team assessment that reviewed last year's numbers has been recirculated to senior-level officials, including the secretary, Mr. -- and Ashton Carter, and it basically comes to the conclusion that it came last year -- that this program, it all went poorly, with -- based on historic patterns, could need another $16.6 billion through fiscal 2015. Can you shed some light on where it's at and broadly what your conclusions are?

MR. MORRELL: Sure. Sure. Just to clarify a couple things, the Joint Estimating Team's most recent analysis is still a work in progress. The analysis continues. So I'm not going to get into numbers, because numbers could change.

As for the state of its -- it being briefed to senior leaders, I can tell you that it -- that Undersecretary Carter has begun to be briefed on the JET. I think he's completed the first of what will be three briefings on it.

It has not yet gone to Secretary Gates or Deputy Secretary Lynn, although I'm sure Secretary Carter will share it with them at the appropriate time.

What I can tell you is, obviously the JET is a very important tool in the budget process. It provides us a worst-case assessment of how the program will likely develop.

And that is balanced against, on the other extreme, the Program Office's assessment of it, which is generally much more optimistic.

And so what we need to do, what the secretary tries to do, is to sort of figure out the sweet spot, if you will, between those. What's the appropriate balance between the JET's sort of sky-is-falling assessment and the Program Office perhaps rosier view of things?

And just by way of example, in the fiscal year '10 budget, the secretary clearly took a much more conservative approach, to the F-35 program, investing heavily in -- hundreds of millions of additional dollars, in the testing program, trying to buy down some of the risk that had been identified by the JET, in their -- in their -- hundreds of millions of dollars in the last JET.

So the new JET will clearly play a very important role, as we go about figuring out what levels to fund the Joint Strike Fighter program at, going into FY '11 and throughout the Five Year Defense Plan.


Q (Off mike.) This current edition is as pessimistic as last years, although you don't want to talk about the numbers. But you mentioned sky is falling. I mean, that's one extreme. But is it an accurate depiction though that this is still a relatively pessimistic look at the program?

MR. MORRELL: I think that's an accurate depiction, that it still does -- that the JET clearly raises concerns about the course the program is on. And so you know, this is something -- listen, this is -- this is the biggest, most expensive and arguably most complicated program this department has ever pursued. We have a great deal riding on the success of this program.

You saw Secretary Gates go down to Fort Worth and tell Lockheed Martin's president and CEO -- chairman and CEO that he is going to hold their feet to the fire on this, that there are -- that there are timelines and that there are budgets that are going to have to be met, the most immediate being the initial operation -- the IOC [Initial Operational Capability] for the Marine -- for frankly the testing squadron and then the Marine Corps.

And those, despite whatever the JET says, the secretary expects to be met on time. So we will continue to watch this program like a hawk and, if necessary, make adjustments in our budgeting to buy down some of the risks that the JET identifies.


Q: May I ask one follow-up?

MR. MORRELL: Yeah.


Q: Lockheed today put out a statement to us that said, "We acknowledge that moderate risks to our cost and schedule baseline exist." It -- do you agree with that, that the JET said moderate risk, or --

MR. MORRELL: I -- I'm not in a position to characterize it as moderate or -- moderate or serious or minimal. All I know is that we take the JET very seriously, but it is one input into the budgeting process. And as the secretary moves forward with the FY '11 budget, I am sure he will be weighing the view of the JET in how much we fund for the --


Q: It doesn't paint a rosy picture, though, going forward. Is that an accurate --

MR. MORRELL: Listen, if I -- if -- (chuckles) -- I think it's fair to say that if the JET had provided some especially good news, we would be trumpeting it.


Q (Off mike.)

MR. MORRELL: So obviously -- but the JET I don't think ever provides good news. I think that's its job, to be pessimistic, and we appreciate that. And we will -- we will work with their -- with their team and the program office to try to figure out the best way ahead. But there is a lot of pressure on Lockheed. There is a lot of pressure on this building to make sure we get this right. And the secretary is determined to do it. (ends)


What Now, Icarus? Is Western Combat Aviation Falling Out of the Sky? (excerpt)


(Source: The Huffington Post; issued Oct. 30, 2009)



The future of Western combat aviation today rests largely on one airplane: The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The Defense Department currently plans to buy 2,456 of these Lockheed aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. As a "multi-role" fighter-bomber, it will ultimately replace almost all tactical aircraft now in our inventory, except for the F-22, for which production beyond 187 aircraft was canceled this past summer. Major allies, including Britain and much of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel, plan to buy the aircraft. Sales to many others are postulated, and those who do not intend to buy the F-35 plan to copy it to the extent their treasuries, government bureaucracies, and technological development permit.

There are, however, a few problems. The F-35 is unaffordable. It is a technological kluge that will be less effective than airplanes it replaces. And it will increase our own combat losses.

That is not the consensus now; many will vociferously dispute each of the assertions stated above, and below. But, in time the finger pointing will start. That's when someone will have to pick up the pieces to give our pilots a war winning aircraft. The road between here and there will be neither smooth nor pretty, but it is time to take the first step.

A financial disaster? How can that be? Visiting the F-35 plant in Fort Worth, Texas last August, Secretary of D Robert Gates assured us that the F-35 will be "less than half the price ... of the F-22."

In a narrow sense, Gates is right. At a breathtaking $65 billion for 187 aircraft, the F-22 consumes $350 million for each plane. At $299 billion for 2,456, the F-35 would seem a bargain at just $122 million each.

F-35 unit cost will ultimately be much higher. In 2001, the Pentagon had planned to buy 2,866 aircraft for $226.5 billion - $79 million per airplane. It was in 2007 that the expense increased and the quantity went down; resulting in the current - $122 million - unit cost.

In the next few weeks, the program will have to admit to another increase. Gates and his Deputy Secretary, William Lynn, have re-convened a "Joint Estimating Team" (JET) to reassess F-35 cost and schedule. Last year, while a part of the Bush administration, Gates basically ignored the Team's recommendations, but the new JET is about to reconfirm them: the F-35 program will cost up to $15 billion more, and it will be delivered about two years late. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full article, on the Huffington Post website. (ends)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t ... 37564.html


-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%99.html

[kekosam]

Caramba... que guaiaca furada...

[LeandroGCard]

Como eu duvido muitíssimo que a quantidade total encomendada pela lista atual de clientes venha a sequer chegar perto das 2000 unidades, acho que o custo unitário não será menor que US$200 milhões cada.

É bem possível que o tesouro americano pague a diferença, principalmente para as vendas internacionais, afinal para eles é só rodar a maquininha de dinheiro. Mas que o resultado do programa vai sair muito diferente do imaginado inicialmente, isto vai. Aposto que no final ao invés de uma "panacéia universal" que substituiria praticamente todos os aviões do inventário atual das forças aéreas dos países do consórcio, o F-35 vai acabar como o F-22, um equipamento dedicado à missões altamente especializadas, operando junto com um número muito maior de outros aviões mais antigos e convencionais.


Leandro G. Card

[Penguin]

Como eu duvido muitíssimo que a quantidade total encomendada pela lista atual de clientes venha a sequer chegar perto das 2000 unidades, acho que o custo unitário não será menor que US$200 milhões cada.

É bem possível que o tesouro americano pague a diferença, principalmente para as vendas internacionais, afinal para eles é só rodar a maquininha de dinheiro. Mas que o resultado do programa vai sair muito diferente do imaginado inicialmente, isto vai. Aposto que no final ao invés de uma "panacéia universal" que substituiria praticamente todos os aviões do inventário atual das forças aéreas dos países do consórcio, o F-35 vai acabar como o F-22, um equipamento dedicado à missões altamente especializadas, operando junto com um número muito maior de outros aviões mais antigos e convencionais.


Leandro G. Card

Ai reside o problema. O único aparelho "convencional" com perspectiva de ser adquirido pelas FAs americanas é o SH.
A única alternativa acaba sendo F-35.

[]s

[LeandroGCard]

Ai reside o problema. O único aparelho "convencional" com perspectiva de ser adquirido pelas FAs americanas é o SH.
A única alternativa acaba sendo F-35.

[]s

SH para a US Navy, e ainda dá para a USAF ir de Silent Eagle e F-16 Block XX por muito tempo ainda.

Acho que é isso que veremos pelos próximos 20 ou 30 anos, a menos que o número de Rafas e EFA's aumente muito em países fora da lista de BFF's deles, ou se o PAK-FA for um verdadeiro fenômeno hoje inimaginável (ou talvez se aparecer alguma mágica da China).

Leandro G. Card

[Dieneces]

A verdade é que os EUA se adiantaram demais no tempo...fizeram um avião (f-22) que não tem oponente à altura....pelo custo-benefício se tornou uma exorbitância , quase um elefante branco voador...

[WalterGaudério]

Como eu duvido muitíssimo que a quantidade total encomendada pela lista atual de clientes venha a sequer chegar perto das 2000 unidades, acho que o custo unitário não será menor que US$200 milhões cada.

É bem possível que o tesouro americano pague a diferença, principalmente para as vendas internacionais, afinal para eles é só rodar a maquininha de dinheiro. Mas que o resultado do programa vai sair muito diferente do imaginado inicialmente, isto vai. Aposto que no final ao invés de uma "panacéia universal" que substituiria praticamente todos os aviões do inventário atual das forças aéreas dos países do consórcio, o F-35 vai acabar como o F-22, um equipamento dedicado à missões altamente especializadas, operando junto com um número muito maior de outros aviões mais antigos e convencionais.


Leandro G. Card

Ai reside o problema. O único aparelho "convencional" com perspectiva de ser adquirido pelas FAs americanas é o SH.
A única alternativa acaba sendo F-35.

[]s

A USAF deveria ter comprado mais F-16 Block 60 só para segurar as pontas e complementar os F-35. Agora que ajoelhou ..., vai ter que rezar.