Bisognerebbe puntare a dei modelli diversi, continuare a credere a questi "giochini", arricchisce pochissimi impoverendo la popolazione. In un momento di crisi dei mercati, dove gli stabilimenti stanno chiudendo ad uno a uno, secondo me e' impensabili un investimento di nicchia così grande, togliendo respiro a tutti gli altri.Hartmann ha scritto:A che scopo fare ricerca se poi non vogliamo le novità tecnologiche?Flyfree ha scritto:In un Paese con Università e ricerca allo sfascio, con le industrie considerate di eccellenza pure, con le forze dell'ordine senza un euro per il carburante, con i giovani senza futuro, con milioni di famiglie verso la soglia di povertà....eco ora facciamo i fighi e comprimiamo gli jdf....che poi sappiamo bene a chi dobbiamo accontentare.
A che scopo avere industrie se poi non compriamo?
Non investiamo, che futuro vogliamo dare ai giovani?
E con questo non voglio dire che tu non abbia ragione, mi pare di aver già scritto che visti i nomi della aziende italiane coinvolte nel progetto, è lecito immaginare il fiume di danaro che ha cambiato mani
JSF
Moderatore: Staff md80.it
Re: JSF
Re: JSF
Ora e' il momento che ci vorrebbero fatti immediati in operazioni veramente trasparenti, non (evventuali) opportunità future.FAS ha scritto:io sono a favore del T3B /T4 del Tifone e dei vari programmi Restore, ma ti ricordo che l'industria italiana é coninvolta nel JSFFlyfree ha scritto: Dipende dalle priorità. Tra l'altro la crescita e' data dall'esportazione, invece in questo affare mi pare soprattutto il contrario....
Ref.: Pagine Difesa
Roma, 25 settembre, 2008 – Lockheed Martin e Alenia Aeronautica, una società Finmeccanica, hanno firmato oggi il primo contratto che dà il via alle attività industriali di Alenia Aeronautica per la produzione delle ali dell’F-35 Lightning II Joint strike fighter.
Il contratto, del valore totale di oltre 15 milioni di dollari, è il primo di una serie che riguarderà le attività a lungo termine di Alenia Aeronautica nell’ambito del programma JSF. Secondo il Memorandum of Understanding, firmato dalle due società nel 2006, si prevedono opportunità di business per l’industria italiana del valore di oltre sei miliardi di dollari.......................
Re: JSF
Riporto l'articolo apparso sul sito del corriere della sera:
http://www.corriere.it/economia/12_genn ... 38c1.shtml
Mi sembra interessante il virgolettato finale del ministro Di Paola:
http://www.corriere.it/economia/12_genn ... 38c1.shtml
Mi sembra interessante il virgolettato finale del ministro Di Paola:
«il ridimensionamento non riguarderà solo il personale ma anche i mezzi. Quanti Jsf acquisiremo non lo so. Quel velivolo è comunque importante, è uno strumento con capacità fantastiche, ritengo che si debba investire sulle capacità, in che misura non sono in grado di dirlo, non posso fare numeri, 131 è una cifra che si riferisce ai programmi fatti all’inizio, ma ora va rivista».
Re: JSF
MatteF88 ha scritto:Riporto l'articolo apparso sul sito del corriere della sera:
http://www.corriere.it/economia/12_genn ... 38c1.shtml
Mi sembra interessante il virgolettato finale del ministro Di Paola:«il ridimensionamento non riguarderà solo il personale ma anche i mezzi. Quanti Jsf acquisiremo non lo so. Quel velivolo è comunque importante, è uno strumento con capacità fantastiche, ritengo che si debba investire sulle capacità, in che misura non sono in grado di dirlo, non posso fare numeri, 131 è una cifra che si riferisce ai programmi fatti all’inizio, ma ora va rivista».
Ecco... questo ha già più senso... vista la crisi può essere giusto ridurre il numero di mezzi acquistati, ma uscire in toto da un programma pluridecennale in cui ci abbiam già messo una valanga di soldi è assurdo...
Re: JSF
Sempre che gli Stati Uniti, ove continua ad infuriare la polemica sull'escalation dei costi e sui problemi tecnici incontrati dalla versione "B", non decidano, alla luce dei preventivati tagli alle spese della difesa, di cancellarla ..... allora si che la MM si troverebbe nei guai ..... mentre i Marines avrebbero pur sempre la possibilità di operare con la versione "C", di cui hanno ordinato, almeno per ora, 80 esemplari, dalle grandi portaerei della US Navy .....Draklor ha scritto: 3) Non puoi cancellare del tutto un programma in cui hai investito già 2,5 mld di $,in cui hai ottenuto la FACO a Cameri e di cui COMUNQUE dovrai ordinarne almeno la ventina che serve all'MM e per cui NON VI E' ALTERNATIVA
http://www.difesanews.it/archives/accor ... -i-marines
http://goo.gl/bEqP7
Re: JSF
Sempre che gli Stati Uniti, ove continua ad infuriare la polemica sull'escalation dei costi e sui problemi tecnici incontrati dalla versione "B", non decidano, alla luce dei preventivati tagli alle spese della difesa, di cancellarla ..... allora si che la MM si troverebbe nei guai ..... mentre i Marines avrebbero pur sempre la possibilità di operare con la versione "C", di cui hanno ordinato, almeno per ora, 80 esemplari, dalle grandi portaerei della US Navy .....
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18010
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18115
Queste me l'ero perse...a mio modo di vedere i marines si aspettano che lo sviluppo dell' F-35B Vada molto per le lunghe..
Re: JSF
Il manico è sempre il manicoMolti di loro ancora non hanno compreso caratteristiche prestazionali tipo Carefree Handling....
Come durante la Battaglia d'Inghilterra... Vuoi mettere avere la "brezza" sul viso e poter evoluire con un biplano? Vabbè, imbottiti di carta per non morire assiderati, ma non ha importanza ( al contrario di chi volava su caccia monoplani, veloci, bene armati, con ossigeno e tute riscaldate).
E' sconcertante quanto hai riportato sulla delega del pool italiano del NETMA!
Ho pianto, ho riso... Ho fatto scelte sbagliate, altre giuste... Sono amico di molti, voglio bene a pochi, non odio nessuno... Parlo poco ma dico sempre quello che penso... Qualcuno mi vuole bene, altri mi detestano... Pazienza è la vita!
Re: JSF
Le future portaerei inglesi quando sono lunghe rispetto alla Cavour?
Nemmeno la possibilità la modificare i CAVOUR in modalità STOBAR e prendere i F-35C?
Nemmeno la possibilità la modificare i CAVOUR in modalità STOBAR e prendere i F-35C?
Re: JSF
La Prince of Wales sarà circa 40 metri piú lunga, c'è questo interessante articolo sulla futura portaerei inglese
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18156
che avrà il sistema EMALS..
Credo sia un impresa al limite dell'impossibile modificare il Cavour per poter lanciare e recuperare l'F-35C..
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18156
che avrà il sistema EMALS..
Credo sia un impresa al limite dell'impossibile modificare il Cavour per poter lanciare e recuperare l'F-35C..
Re: JSF
imbarazzanteELTAR ha scritto:E' sconcertante quanto hai riportato sulla delega del pool italiano del NETMA!
Anche perche le due forze aeree impiegano il velivolo seguendo filosofie differenti, ed i bisogni ed i requisiti degli inglesi sono totalmente diversi da quelli italiani.
"Il buon senso c'era; ma se ne stava nascosto, per paura del senso comune" (Alessandro Manzoni)
Re: JSF
La turchia prende 2 esemplari di F-35
http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/06/jsf-p ... rkey-deal/
http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/06/jsf-p ... rkey-deal/
Re: JSF
Così parlò Leon .....
Fonte ..... AviationWeek.com ..... http://goo.gl/ZUPzv“We now believe that because of your work the Stovl variant is demonstrating the kind of performance and maturity that is in line with the other two variants of JSF,” Panetta said here Jan. 20.
“The Stovl variant has made — I believe and all of us believe — sufficient progress so that as of today I am lifting the Stovl probation.”
Re: JSF
La "libertà vigilata" sta per finire ..... ma ....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... out-woods/The U.S. military is committed to developing the Marine Corps version of the next-generation strike fighter jet, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday, but he warned that the program is "not out of the woods yet."
Re: JSF
Ci mancava solo questa .....
Backwards parachutes ground some F-35s
By: Stephen Trimble (Washington DC) - 7 hours ago
Source:
At least 15 Lockheed Martin F-35s are grounded for about 10 days to repack improperly installed parachutes, according to the programme office.
The grounding suspends all high-speed ground and flight tests at Edwards AFB, California; Eglin AFB, Florida and Fort Worth, Texas, the F-35 programme said.
Eight F-35s based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, remain flightworthy.
The grounded aircraft are equipped with new versions of the Martin Baker US16E ejection seat, the F-35 programme said.
The wrong packing instructions were sent to the ejection seat manufacturer, the F-35 programme said. As a result, Martin-Baker packed the parachutes backwards, the programme said.
The ejection seats must be sent back to Martin Baker in the UK to reverse the parachutes.
The problem only involves newer ejection seats designated as -21 and -23. The F-35Bs and F-35Cs stationed at Patuxent River have older ejection seats with parachutes that were packed correctly, the programme said.
Despite two fleet-wide grounding orders last year, the programme completed all flight tests for 2011 in mid-November, although the number of test points accomplished lagged slightly behind.
Re: JSF
Anche "Aviation Week & Space Tecnology" riporta la notizia ..... fornendo maggiori dettagli .....
Ejection Parachute Issue Grounds F-35As
By Amy Butler (WASHINGTON) - Jan. 30, 2012
Fifteen new Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters, some of which are participating in the flight testing so critical to moving the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program forward, have been grounded owing to improper loading of parachutes in their ejection seats.
The suspension of flight and high-speed ground testing began Jan. 26 and affects aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif., Eglin AFB, Fla., and Lockheed’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, according to Joe Dellavedova at the U.S.-led JSF Joint Program Office. The root cause was “improperly drafted packing procedures,” he adds.
The problematic chutes are not affecting eight test aircraft at NAS Patuxent River, Md., because they carry an earlier version of this seat and the parachutes were properly loaded, he says.
Parachutes for the Martin-Baker US16E-21 and -23 seats were “reversed 180 deg. from design during installation,” Dellavedova says, and replacement seats from British manufacturer Martin-Baker are expected to take 10 days to arrive. “This issue will not prevent the pilot from executing a successful ejection and landing in the unlikely event of a pilot ejection,” Dellavedova says. The problem was uncovered during a routine review, he says, adding that it is premature to discuss any penalties as a result of the mishap.
One industry source notes, however, that an ejection “would have likely caused passenger load factor injury” because pilots would “have hit the ground going backwards.” Because the parachutes were loaded backwards, their steering lines would also have been reversed, affecting a pilot’s ability to guide himself to a landing site.
The affected equipment will have to be shipped back to Martin-Baker’s factory in the U.K. for repair; the repacked chutes will then first be put on the six grounded aircraft at Edwards to return them to flight testing. The six F-35As and three F-35Bs at Eglin AFB, Fla. were already limited to ground operations pending “military flight release” from the Air Force to fly the aircraft unmonitored in the area. So they will be next to receive the newly packed boxes. Eglin flights were held up owing to concerns cited from the Pentagon’s chief tester last fall. Among them was a warning not to fly over water until the -24 seat, the model intended for the operational F-35, is available, owing to concerns of pilot drowning with the older seat versions.
“Aircraft in production at Fort Worth were also affected but their parachutes will be repacked prior to the first acceptance flights,” Dellavedova says.
This mishap comes as Goodrich, the only remaining U.S. ejection seat manufacturer, is in the final throes of attempting to unseat Martin-Baker on the F-35A, which is likely to be purchased by at least 11 countries, with the U.S. Air Force potentially buying as many as 1,763. Without a major program like the F-35, the company’s opportunities to get the Aces 5, the latest in its Aces family of seats, into a new service platform are grim in the near future. The next major opportunity would be the Air Force’s T-38C replacement program, which has yet to formally be kicked off.
Booz Allen Hamilton studied whether the USAF Air Combat Command’s (ACC) use of the Aces 5 seat for its F-35As would save money over the life of the fighter for the service, due to commonality with the Aces 2 seats already in its fleet. “That exhaustive analysis led us to conclude that, while there are potential savings associated with the Goodrich Aces 5 seat, the amount is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the risk and up-front cost of integrating a new ejection seat into the F-35 weapon system at this time,” says Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, an ACC spokeswoman. “ACC and the Air Force strongly support the Joint Program Office’s commitment to pursue efficiencies in order to secure greater value for all JSF stakeholders.”
Lawmakers last year requested information on the study, and the Air Force recently notified staffs of the conclusions. The study or its data will not be released, according to Ferrau, because it contains proprietary information about the pricing of the seats.
The Pentagon was slated to decide in a Joint Executive Steering Board meeting whether it would be open to adding the Goodrich seat to the F-35A in December. But the U.S. decision to slice as many as 179 F-35s from purchasing plans through 2017 prompted officials to move the meeting to March.
Re: JSF
Dal "Daily Report" dell' AFA di questa mattina .....
(*) ..... http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20120126_PARACHUTES.pdfFirst F-35 Returns to Flight at Edwards After Parachute Reinstallation
AF-1, an Air Force F-35A test aircraft, resumed flying at Edwards AFB, Calif., after technicians installed a properly packed parachute for its ejection seat.
F-35 spokesman Joe DellaVedova said AF-1 returned to the skies on Feb. 3.
It is the first of more than 15 F-35s to resume flights after test officials discovered improperly packed parachutes in them (*) —six F-35As at Edwards and six F-35As and three F-35Bs at Eglin, AFB, Fla.—and temporarily suspended their high-speed ground and flight tests.
DellaVedova said more head box assemblies containing properly packed parachutes are expected to arrive at Edwards, allowing additional aircraft to return to flight early this week.
Other assemblies will arrive in the coming days at Eglin and at Lockheed Martin's production plant in Fort Worth, Tex., for jets in assembly, he said.
The temporary suspension did not affect the eight F-35 test aircraft at NAS Patuxent River, Md., since they have properly packed parachutes, said DellaVedova
Re: JSF
I senatori criticano Panetta ..... "L'aver posto fine alla libertà vigilata è stata un'azione prematura" .....
Fonte: AviationWeek.com
Senators: F-35B Probation Lift Premature
By Jen DiMascio
WASHINGTON - Feb. 6, 2012
The leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee are taking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to task for undercutting their work on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — not once, but twice.
On Jan. 20, Panetta lifted probation on the F-35B, the Marine Corps short-takeoff-vertical-landing variant of the jet, just about one year after the time-out, originally anticipated to be in place for two years, was imposed.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) say that decision appears “premature,” in a Feb. 6 letter. And the probation decision came shortly after the Pentagon moved forward with negotiations on the fifth production lot of JSFs, while the committee was working to include criteria for lifting probation into its defense authorization bill.
“We are seriously concerned about the lack of notice and consideration,” write McCain and Levin, who say they learned about both decisions from the press.
The letter comes one week before Panetta will testify before the committee on the fiscal 2013 budget request, teeing up yet another controversial issue for the Feb. 14 hearing.
But it also comes after the late November release of the “Quick Look Report” that called for a “serious reconsideration of procurement and production planning,” after the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation reported that the program was not on track to meet operational effectiveness, and after 15 test versions of the F-35 were grounded for improperly loaded parachutes in their ejection seats.
“We appreciate that the development of F-35B has enjoyed some success over the last few months, after several years of having fallen short,” write Levin, the committee chairman, and McCain. “We similarly understand that engineering solutions to known problems with the F-35B’s structure and propulsion have been identified. However, in the intervening time since probation was imposed, more problems with the F-35B’s structure and propulsion, potentially as serious as those that were originally identified a year ago, have been found. This is salient where the F-35B has completed only 20% of its developmental test plan to date. Your decision, therefore, appears at least premature.”
The letter includes 14 specific questions for Panetta, including whether the Pentagon’s technical experts “specifically” participated in reaching the decision to lift probation and whether improvements in the bulkhead, the auxiliary inlet door, the lift-fan clutch, and the lift-fan drive shaft had improved enough to merit being removed from probation.
“We continue to be frustrated that the Department is failing to communicate with this committee on key developments relating to this program and ask that you rectify this problem as soon as possible,” the senators write in the Feb. 6 letter.
Along with the letter to Panetta, the senators are calling on the comptroller general to review the extent to which the program has resolved the issues that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had flagged when he placed the program on probation, and to describe the extent to which any additional structural or propulsion issues have cropped up since that time.
Re: JSF
Altre critiche ..... questa volta dall'interno del Pentagono .....
http://goo.gl/1VWwX
Sullo stesso argomento interviene, sul blog “Ares”, Bill Sweetman ..... e si scatena l’ennesima discussione .....Fonte: AviationWeek.com
Kendall: Early F-35 Production a Mistake
By Amy Butler
WASHINGTON - Feb. 6, 2012
Acting Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall says it was “acquisition malpractice” to approve production of the Lockheed Martin F-35 years before the first flight of the single-engine stealthy fighter occurred.
“It should not have been done,” Kendall told an audience Feb. 6 hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But we did it.”
Then-procurement chief Kenneth Krieg approved the first lot of production in 2006. The contract for long-lead articles came in April 2006 for low-rate initial production Lot 1, and that aircraft rolled off of the production line in 2008.
At the time, program executives, including the incoming director of the program, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, argued that swift entry into production was of paramount importance to aggressively ramp up production numbers quickly, thereby attaining a low per-unit cost as quickly as possible.
Davis, now a three-star general, commands the Air Force’s Electronic Systems Center, which has oversight of such key programs as the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program and the next-generation space surveillance fence. He and Lockheed Martin executives also contended that the use of new modeling and design tools dramatically diminished the likelihood of major problems being discovered in flight testing that could prompt a costly redesign.
Kendall, who is the acting procurement czar awaiting Senate approval, takes issue with that view.
“What we are seeing is that the optimistic predictions when we started the production of the F-35—that we now have good enough design tools and good enough simulation and modeling that we wouldn’t have to worry about finding things in test—were wrong,” Kendall said. “We are finding problems in all three of the variants that are the types of things, historically in a state-of-the-art, next-generation fighter aircraft, you are going to find, where our design tools are not perfect.”
These include so-called structural hot spots on all three F-35 variants that have yet to be fully understood or addressed. Today, the program has achieved only 20% of its flight-test program, and Pentagon procurement officials have sharply reduced the purchase numbers in recent years to curtail the potential of discovering major problems in testing that would cause a redesign and retrofit of a growing fleet.
This problem, dubbed “concurrency,” is frustrating senior Pentagon leaders because of its unknown scope. During an interview last year with Aviation Week, JSF program executive Vice Adm. David Venlet said the real risk of encountering major concurrency cost is retired around 2015 if testing goes as planned.
Meanwhile, after contentious discussions last year, he and Lockheed Martin executives agreed to equally split the cost of any concurrency modifications for low-rate-initial-production Lot 5 aircraft. This was the first such arrangement in the program and sets the precedent for burden sharing moving forward.
Despite institutional frustration at the Pentagon over the concurrency problem, Kendall says, “We don’t, at this point, see anything that would preclude continuing production at a reasonable rate.”
Testing, however, is not without its hiccups. After a grounding of six F-35 test aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif., owing to poorly packed ejection seat parachutes, the Joint Program Office (JPO) announced that AF-1 resumed flying Feb. 3.
The aircraft were grounded because personnel at seat-maker Martin Baker installed some parachutes backward. The “head-box assembly” for AF-1 was installed the morning of Feb. 3 and a crew flew later in the day, JPO spokesman Joe Dellavedova says.
Three more head-box assemblies were expected to be delivered over the weekend and are slated for installation. The test jets are the first slated to undergo the fix, with the nine training aircraft at Eglin AFB, Fla., next in line. Training operations there have not been affected as the Air Force has not yet given the nod to conduct those flights yet.
http://goo.gl/1VWwX
Re: JSF
Apperó.. pesantucce come dichiarazioni...o no?richelieu ha scritto:Fonte: AviationWeek.com
Kendall: Early F-35 Production a Mistake
“What we are seeing is that the optimistic predictions when we started the production of the F-35—that we now have good enough design tools and good enough simulation and modeling that we wouldn’t have to worry about finding things in test—were wrong,” Kendall said. “We are finding problems in all three of the variants that are the types of things, historically in a state-of-the-art, next-generation fighter aircraft, you are going to find, where our design tools are not perfect.”
These include so-called structural hot spots on all three F-35 variants that have yet to be fully understood or addressed. Today, the program has achieved only 20% of its flight-test program, and Pentagon procurement officials have sharply reduced the purchase numbers in recent years to curtail the potential of discovering major problems in testing that would cause a redesign and retrofit of a growing fleet.
Re: JSF
-40 esemplari:
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_febb ... 5f9f.shtml
Fonte:Annunciati interventi anche sugli armamenti. In particolare saranno acquistati 90 caccia F-35 invece dei 131 previsti dal programma Joint Strike Fighter, con una riduzione di 40 unità. «La componente aerotattica - ha sottolineato Di Paola- è irrinunciabile: ora è assicurata da Tornado, Amx e Av-8B, che nell'arco di 15 anni usciranno per vetustà dalla linea operativa. Saranno sostituiti da Jsf, che è il miglior velivolo in linea di produzione, nei programmi di ben 10 Paesi». L'Italia, ha aggiunto, «ha già investito 2,5 miliardi di euro. Ci eravamo impegnati ad acquistarne 131, ora il riesame del programma ci porta a ritenere perseguibile l'obiettivo di 90 velivoli, un terzo in meno».
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_febb ... 5f9f.shtml
Re: JSF
Una riduzione nel numero era cosa logica, oltre che sensata visti i tempi di vacche magre..
sarebbe stato stupido invece (parere mio) uscire completamente dal programma visti i soldi già investiti, l'obsolescenza a breve termine dei modelli in servizio ora e l'avere una Portaerei a rischio di rimanere senza aerei da portare..
sarebbe stato stupido invece (parere mio) uscire completamente dal programma visti i soldi già investiti, l'obsolescenza a breve termine dei modelli in servizio ora e l'avere una Portaerei a rischio di rimanere senza aerei da portare..
- lorenzo-radi
- 01000 ft
- Messaggi: 135
- Iscritto il: 11 novembre 2010, 19:21
- Località: coi piedi (ancora) per terra
Re: JSF
Tra questi 40 velivoli quanti "B" che dovevano essere destinati all' AM dovrebbero esserci?
Engineering student in Pisa
ATC:"N123YZ, say altitude"
N123YZ:"ALTITUDE!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say airspeed"
N123YZ:"AIRSPEED!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say cancel IFR"
N123YZ:"Eight thousand feet, one hundred fifty knots indicated."
ATC:"N123YZ, say altitude"
N123YZ:"ALTITUDE!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say airspeed"
N123YZ:"AIRSPEED!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say cancel IFR"
N123YZ:"Eight thousand feet, one hundred fifty knots indicated."
Re: JSF
E secondo me hanno fatto bene a rinunciare. Costa anche meno dal punto di vista logistico.
- lorenzo-radi
- 01000 ft
- Messaggi: 135
- Iscritto il: 11 novembre 2010, 19:21
- Località: coi piedi (ancora) per terra
Re: JSF
Condivido!sidew ha scritto:E secondo me hanno fatto bene a rinunciare. Costa anche meno dal punto di vista logistico.
E poi, di che se ne facevano dello STOVL?
Engineering student in Pisa
ATC:"N123YZ, say altitude"
N123YZ:"ALTITUDE!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say airspeed"
N123YZ:"AIRSPEED!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say cancel IFR"
N123YZ:"Eight thousand feet, one hundred fifty knots indicated."
ATC:"N123YZ, say altitude"
N123YZ:"ALTITUDE!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say airspeed"
N123YZ:"AIRSPEED!"
ATC:"N123YZ, say cancel IFR"
N123YZ:"Eight thousand feet, one hundred fifty knots indicated."
Re: JSF
Visto che precedentemente si era parlato di gun pod:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ed-368756/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ed-368756/
- Valerio Ricciardi
- FL 500
- Messaggi: 5453
- Iscritto il: 22 agosto 2008, 8:33
Re: JSF
Sempre assolutamente troppi in relazione a quanto recita una Costituzione che, allo stato, non è stata cambiata.richelieu ha scritto:- 40 .....
Amen .....
E considerato a quali sacrifici in termini di età pensionistica e regressione del vitalizio in rapporto all'anzianità e ai contributi versati sono stati per forza di cose imposti alla popolazione.
MAI avrei permesso l'acquisto di cacciabombardieri stealth, in un Paese come il nostro, con una Costituzione come la nostra.
Quanto costa il più economico dei Saab?
Quanto, alla fine, a conti fatti costerà davvero quando funzionerà decentemente bene un esemplare di JSF?
"The curve is flattening: we can start lifting restrictions now" = "The parachute has slowed our rate of descent: we can take it off now!"
Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger
Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger
- Valerio Ricciardi
- FL 500
- Messaggi: 5453
- Iscritto il: 22 agosto 2008, 8:33
Re: JSF
Ma noi prima li pagheremo, poi apriremo il pacchetto e vedremo se il regalo dentro la scatola è bello.MatteF88 ha scritto:Apperó.. pesantucce come dichiarazioni...o no?
"The curve is flattening: we can start lifting restrictions now" = "The parachute has slowed our rate of descent: we can take it off now!"
Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger
Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger
Re: JSF
Un sequel per "Top Gun" in arrivo ..... ..... "Top Gun 2" ..... starring ..... F-35 JSF & again Tom Cruise .....
..... l'annuncio è venuto, nientepopodimeno, da Tom Burbage, responsabile del programma JSF ..... e Stephen Trimble, titolare del blog "The DEW Line", ci ha ricamato sopra ..... inventando addirittura una fantastica trama .....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/02/top_gun_2/
E' mia impressione che, se Bill Sweetman replicherà sul blog "Ares", se ne vedranno delle belle .....
..... l'annuncio è venuto, nientepopodimeno, da Tom Burbage, responsabile del programma JSF ..... e Stephen Trimble, titolare del blog "The DEW Line", ci ha ricamato sopra ..... inventando addirittura una fantastica trama .....
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -35-t.htmlMaverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme's enemies, led by the snearing Bill "Iceman" Sweetman and Karlo "Slider" Kopp, take advantage of Maverick's absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That's when Maverick's love interest -- a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee -- intervenes. She gives Maverick her father's last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot ... just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and -- for the finale -- lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week's building in downtown Washington DC. And that's when Kenny Loggins starts singing.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/02/top_gun_2/
E' mia impressione che, se Bill Sweetman replicherà sul blog "Ares", se ne vedranno delle belle .....