F-35 News

[suntsé]

suntsé,

O F-22 já teve o IOC, ou seja está operacional, não estará totalmente, mas opera. O que foi cancelado foi a fabricação de mais.

O F-35 está bem mais além da fase de projecto, está na fase de industrialização.

[[]]'s

Muito obrigado pela atenção.

[soultrain]

Ao dispor meu caro

[Justin Case]

suntsé,

O F-22 já teve o IOC, ou seja está operacional, não estará totalmente, mas opera. O que foi cancelado foi a fabricação de mais.

O F-35 está bem mais além da fase de projecto, está na fase de industrialização.

[[]]'s

Muito obrigado pela atenção.

Amigos, boa tarde.

Não podemos deixar de lembrar que IOC e FOC são eventos.
Já as fases de Desenvolvimento, Industrialização, Produção, Utilização são grupos de atividades que podem ocorrer simultaneamente.
Estão em ordem cronológica, mas não é requerida a finalização de uma fase para o início da outra.
Com certeza, no momento, para o F-35, convivem as fases de desenvolvimento e industrialização.
IOC é um evento da fase de Desenvolvimento (projecto) que autoriza o início da fase de Utilização (operação).
Abraços,

Justin

Obs. IOC - Initial Operational Clearance; FOC - Final Operational Clearance

[rcolistete]

Muito obrigado pela atenção.

Amigos, boa tarde.

Não podemos deixar de lembrar que IOC e FOC são eventos.
Já as fases de Desenvolvimento, Industrialização, Produção, Utilização são grupos de atividades que podem ocorrer simultaneamente.
Estão em ordem cronológica, mas não é requerida a finalização de uma fase para o início da outra.
Com certeza, no momento, para o F-35, convivem as fases de desenvolvimento e industrialização.
IOC é um evento da fase de Desenvolvimento (projecto) que autoriza o início da fase de Utilização (operação).
Abraços,

Justin

Obs. IOC - Initial Operational Clearance; FOC - Final Operational Clearance

Olá pessoal,

Bem explicado. Só para adicionar mais confusão , tem a fase dos aviões demonstradores, protótipos e pré-séries de produção. Alguns projetos pularam algumas dessas fases e deram margem a problemas. Rafale pulou pré-série, com a Marine Nationale "pagando o pato" com uns 2-3 anos de problemas. F-35 teve demonstrador e hoje está com protótipos (por mais alguns anos). Gripen NG está na fase de demonstrador.

Abraços,

Roberto

[PRick]

O F-35 tá com problema de junta!!

[]´s

[P44]

POLITICAL TURMOIL THREATENS JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ACQUISITION

Fresh doubt has been cast on the Netherlands' planned purchase of 85 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters following the collapse of its government.

The search for a multirole replacement for the Lockheed F-16 was launched in 1999, and the defence ministry in 2001 signed a memorandum of understanding to participate in the system development and demonstration phase of the F-35 project.

Its choice was based on six main mission requirements: both offensive and defensive counter-air; air-interdiction; the suppression/destruction of enemy air defences; close air support; and non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Further MoUs were signed in 2006 to participate in production, sustainment and follow-on development of the JSF, and to collaborate with Italy and Norway in supporting future operations of the type. The defence ministry in 2008 signed up for involvement in initial operational test and evaluation of the F-35, with its commitment to require the purchase of two test aircraft.




Faced with pressure from the opposition, the government agreed to re-evaluate its choice, seeking fresh information on the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Advanced F-16 and Saab Gripen NG. The JSF was again selected, and undersecretary of defence Jack de Vries in April 2009 signed for the first conventional take-off and landing test F-35A.

A decision on ordering a second has been postponed until after the election of a new government on 9 June, with a full production commitment not due until 2012.

Even if a right-wing government takes office, the F-35's prospects may not be as bright as before. A recent advisory board report concluded that the air force may need only 50 of the aircraft: sufficient for just two operational squadrons and one training unit.

A deal could be dropped entirely in the event of a left-wing majority, however, with the JSF having been described as too expensive and beyond the operational requirements of the Royal Netherlands Air Force. Such a move would prompt a new contest to replace the F-16.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... dutch.html

[Penguin]

[soultrain]

Lockheed F-35 Projected Cost May Rise an Additional $51 Billion
April 12, 2010, 2:52 PM EDT
More From Businessweek

* add to Business Exchange

By Tony Capaccio

(Bloomberg) -- The cost of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 fighter, the most expensive U.S. weapons program, may rise as much as $51 billion beyond the $328 billion estimate given to Congress April 1, according to a worse-case Pentagon scenario.

The cost per plane would then be $155 million, 91 percent higher than the $81 million projected when the program began in 2002. The program’s total cost, calculated in current dollars, would increase 64 percent to $379 billion.

The Pentagon’s independent cost-analysis office is compiling projections to comply with a law that demands an assessment of any weapons program that exceeds its original projected cost by 50 percent. The Pentagon must also certify to Congress that the program is vital to national security and shouldn’t be canceled.

The lowest projection in the cost group’s fact sheet is the $328 billion stated by the military’s program office. The estimate of $379 billion is the “upper range,” Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan said in an e-mail.

The group’s report won’t be released until its assessment is finished June 1, though the findings to date have been shared informally with some lawmakers.

Senate Hearing

What impact the new figures might have may surface at a hearing tomorrow of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Pentagon’s fiscal 2011 request for aviation programs. When the panel met March 11, the F-35’s estimated cost was $298 billion.

Committee chairman Carl Levin, in opening that hearing, said that while the panel has backed the F-35 program, “people should not conclude we will be willing to continue that strong support without regard to increased costs.” Levin is a Michigan Democrat.

The assumptions supporting the new estimate are more pessimistic than those used by the program office or Lockheed on the pace and progress of laboratory and flight testing, the number of engineers that will needed, and the costs for labor and materials.

Chris Giesel, spokesman for the world’s largest defense company, said Lockheed has “not seen the new data figure of $379 billion.

“However,” he said in an e-mail, “we can foresee no scenario in which F-35 unit costs are even close to the projections of the cost analysts.” The company and its partners “are confident the actual aircraft costs negotiated will be substantially lower.”

Next-Generation Fighter

The F-35 is the U.S. military’s next-generation fighter. Designed for missions that include bombing and air-to-air combat, it will be used by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. It will replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10 and Harrier that are flown by the Marines and the U.K.

The program is already four years behind schedule on key milestones, including completing the development phase and combat testing, beginning full-scale production and then declaring the first Air Force and Navy units ready for combat.

Congress is being asked to approve the purchase of increasing numbers of aircraft as flight testing accelerates -- from 30 planes this year to 43 in fiscal 2011 to 113 in fiscal 2015.

Thomas Christie, who was the Pentagon’s weapons tester from mid-2001 to early 2005, said there’s little likelihood lawmakers will try to cancel the program.

Other than Levin and John McCain of Arizona, the Senate armed services panel’s ranking Republican, “there aren’t that many” lawmakers “who get upset about” the increased cost, said Christie, who favors killing the program because of the rising costs.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a public policy research group in Arlington, Virginia, said the new cost estimates “are likely to make Congress think something has gone wrong with the F-35,” he said.

The projections are based on pessimistic assumptions about the program’s ability to hit revised targets for spending and scheduling, and aren’t driven by major technical problems. As such, they “probably won’t affect” lawmakers’ decisions, he said.

--With assistance from Gopal Ratnam in Washington. Editors: Bill Schmick, Don Frederick

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio at acapaccio@bloomberg.net.

[Junker]

GE, Rolls Royce offer fixed-price deal
By JEN DIMASCIO | 4/27/10 2:36 PM EDT



A Joint Strike Fighter takes off in Fort Worth, Texas. AP


General Electric and Rolls Royce are offering the Pentagon a new fixed-price deal on an F136 engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, hoping that the sweetener will keep their effort to build the engine alive.

Pratt & Whitney is already developing a competing engine for the Pentagon, and defense officials are so opposed to funding two that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly threatened to recommend a presidential veto of any defense bill that includes funding for both engines.

Congress fought past a veto threat last year, and many members continue to support funding two engines, saying that continued competition between two teams will bring down the overall cost of the engines – estimated to run a whopping $100 billion.

GE and Rolls Royce made a similar but less aggressive offer a year ago, and when they did Pratt & Whitney responded with a price break of its own.

That’s why GE and Rolls Royce are counting on the “competitive environment” to make big reductions to the cost of the program — a total of $1 billion over the next five years relative to previous Pentagon estimates and $20 billion over the life of the program. They’re also hoping evidence of price competition will help make their argument that competition will be good for the Pentagon.

The F136 team is offering a “competitive” price on initial engines produced in 2012, with a larger price reduction following in 2013 and 2014. In 2011, the team will still need $485 million to keep its engine development effort humming.

“These are engine costs the government can count on and plan for,” Dan Korte, president of Rolls Royce’s defense division, told reporters Monday.

GE and Rolls Royce are taking on some risk in order to make that offer. Those engines will still be at a stage in development in which they are likely to encounter problems. If delays or changes are required, GE and Rolls Royce will have to absorb the cost.

Jean Lydon-Rodgers, a GE Aviation executive, said the engine is already ahead of schedule, and the company is “thrilled” by test results so far.

The team has briefed the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office as well as the congressional armed services and appropriations committees. And while they’ve requested a meeting with military procurement chief Ashton Carter, nothing has been scheduled at this point.

In a statement, Pratt & Whitney said it “welcomes others to the fixed price solution which we offered to the [Department of Defense] more than a year ago. This belated offer and its timing, coming just prior to Congressional consideration, is simply a distraction,” the statement said, adding that the additional $2.9 billion required to build the GE engine just to save $1 billion isn’t a good deal for taxpayers. “Pratt & Whitney will meet government savings and cost objectives, which is what we are successfully doing today.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36415.html

[Penguin]

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept
Posted by Amy Butler at 5/17/2010 12:30 PM CDT

It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program."

He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.
The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators.

What do you think: Does this new disclosure change the dynamic of the F-35 sustainment cost debate?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

[guilhermecn]

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept
Posted by Amy Butler at 5/17/2010 12:30 PM CDT

It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program."

He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.
The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators.

What do you think: Does this new disclosure change the dynamic of the F-35 sustainment cost debate?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Finalmente vão se livrar da tinta "guache" invisivel.

O b-2 e o f117 também usam essa tinta ou só o raptor utiliza agora?

[Skyway]

O F-117 não usa nada mais porque já ta aposentado.

[guilhermecn]

O F-117 não usa nada mais porque já ta aposentado.

Mas antes de se aposentar ele usava a tinta ou não?

[czarccc]

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept
Posted by Amy Butler at 5/17/2010 12:30 PM CDT

It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program."

He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.
The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators.

What do you think: Does this new disclosure change the dynamic of the F-35 sustainment cost debate?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Acho qué o contrário, não? Para aumentar.

[P44]

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Opening Statement on Markup


(Source: House of Representatives Armed Services Committee; issued May 14, 2010)



WASHINGTON --- The following is the Opening Statement by Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) before the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the HASC (House Armed Services Committee) concerning the markup of H.R. 5136, the FY11 National Defense Authorization Act:

"The proposed mark gives first priority to readiness - by providing equipment needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing response capability to meet natural disasters or crisis response here at home, and by addressing the most urgent needs of the services.

“Our proposed legislation for HR 5136 would:

“- Require the Department of Defense to budget for the F-35 competitive engine, beginning in fiscal year 2012. - Limit the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2011 for development of the F-35 aircraft to 75 percent until the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics certifies that all funds for development and procurement of the F-35 competitive propulsion system have been obligated.

“- Limit obligation of funds to 30 F-35 aircraft until certain conditions are met and certified to by either the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics or the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, as delineated in the legislation.

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter request this year is for nearly $11 billion and 42 F-35s and one additional F-35A in the supplemental request, as an F-15E combat loss replacement aircraft.

continua
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... d-axe.html