Todo sobre el F-35 Lightning II
-
- Teniente
- Mensajes: 982
- Registrado: 27 Dic 2007, 18:15
No creo que la configuracion de armamentos sea la misma los primeros dias de cualquier ofensiva, que una vez conseguida la superioridad aerea. Eso no quiere decir que en superioridad aerea, se dejen los misiles AA en casa. De hecho en el caso del EFA:
4 BVRAAM y 2 SRAAM van en todas las configuraciones, lo cual ya es bastante en superioridad AA. Cuantos cazas actuales no saldrian a la fuga al ver un EFA (sabiendo que como minimo lleva 4BVR+2SRAAM)
En el caso USA, ellos quieren el F22 como superioridad aerea, y el F35 para todo lo demas. Ademas, que el F22 y F35 sean stealth y que ello condicione que no puedan llevar armamento externo, no significa que una vez con superioridad aerea no puedan llevar este armamento externo.
Lo normal para los USA, seria abusar de F22 en los primeros dias y dedicar los F35 a quitar defensas terrestres. Una vez terminado dominado el cielo, y con menos riesgos desde tierra, cubrir con algunos F22 los movimientos de los F35.
Por otro lado, si los rusos estan "diseñando" su futuro avion, esta claro que van a poner a los EFA, Rafale, F35 y F22 como referencias. En ese sentido, seguro que en USA estaran esperando el movimiento ruso, para evolucionar sus F22/F35
saludos
(perdon por el tocho)
Editado:
Armas del F22
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s-2006.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s-mg27.gif
y F35
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... stores.jpg
4 BVRAAM y 2 SRAAM van en todas las configuraciones, lo cual ya es bastante en superioridad AA. Cuantos cazas actuales no saldrian a la fuga al ver un EFA (sabiendo que como minimo lleva 4BVR+2SRAAM)
En el caso USA, ellos quieren el F22 como superioridad aerea, y el F35 para todo lo demas. Ademas, que el F22 y F35 sean stealth y que ello condicione que no puedan llevar armamento externo, no significa que una vez con superioridad aerea no puedan llevar este armamento externo.
Lo normal para los USA, seria abusar de F22 en los primeros dias y dedicar los F35 a quitar defensas terrestres. Una vez terminado dominado el cielo, y con menos riesgos desde tierra, cubrir con algunos F22 los movimientos de los F35.
Por otro lado, si los rusos estan "diseñando" su futuro avion, esta claro que van a poner a los EFA, Rafale, F35 y F22 como referencias. En ese sentido, seguro que en USA estaran esperando el movimiento ruso, para evolucionar sus F22/F35
saludos
(perdon por el tocho)
Editado:
Armas del F22
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s-2006.gif
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s-mg27.gif
y F35
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... stores.jpg
-
- Teniente Coronel
- Mensajes: 2410
- Registrado: 18 Dic 2005, 14:28
Jashugun:
¡Claro que sí!
¿No me digas que no has visto fotos de EFAs, Rafales, SuperHornets, Gripens, operando como cazas de defensa aérea para su país, en ejercicios realistas (nacionales e internacionales), etc.
Y además están las configuraciones expuestas oficialmente como "normales" en las cuales nunca se llega a esas cifras astronómicas de misiles.
Los lanzadores dobles que fotografiaste en aquellas puertas abiertas son anecdóticos, para casos especiales... ¿sabes que nuestros EF-18 disponen de lanzadores dobles para el Sidewinder y el AMRAAM? ¿Y cuantas veces los has visto con ellos?
¿Hemos visto algun avion de estos operativamente?, los F15C es que simplemente no pueden llevar mas misiles. El su-27 si se suele ver con 10 misiles ¿y el que el EFA lleve lanzadores dobles?.
¡Claro que sí!
¿No me digas que no has visto fotos de EFAs, Rafales, SuperHornets, Gripens, operando como cazas de defensa aérea para su país, en ejercicios realistas (nacionales e internacionales), etc.
Y además están las configuraciones expuestas oficialmente como "normales" en las cuales nunca se llega a esas cifras astronómicas de misiles.
Los lanzadores dobles que fotografiaste en aquellas puertas abiertas son anecdóticos, para casos especiales... ¿sabes que nuestros EF-18 disponen de lanzadores dobles para el Sidewinder y el AMRAAM? ¿Y cuantas veces los has visto con ellos?
-
- Teniente
- Mensajes: 982
- Registrado: 27 Dic 2007, 18:15
En una foto de este doc (pdf - segunda imagen de la primera pagina)
http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/20 ... p38-40.pdf
se puede ver 2 misiles en el mismo sitio. Cuando lo vi, creia que era un efecto optico, y no estaban en el mismo, ya que pensaba que estarian en horizontal, en vez de en vertical. Curioso
http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/20 ... p38-40.pdf
se puede ver 2 misiles en el mismo sitio. Cuando lo vi, creia que era un efecto optico, y no estaban en el mismo, ya que pensaba que estarian en horizontal, en vez de en vertical. Curioso
-
- Teniente Coronel
- Mensajes: 2410
- Registrado: 18 Dic 2005, 14:28
Yo creo Dacer que en esa imagen están en pilones distintos. Aquí tienes una imagen (gracias a Jashugun) del pilón doble del EFA para AAM:
http://picasaweb.google.com/jashugita/MoronAB211208?authkey=RRpMYgh3X_I#5282284313166546434
Y aquí una de un pilón doble para bombas en el EFA:
http://www.aereimilitari.org/immagini/Immagini%20aerei/Eurofighter%202000/EF-2000_24b.jpg
http://picasaweb.google.com/jashugita/MoronAB211208?authkey=RRpMYgh3X_I#5282284313166546434
Y aquí una de un pilón doble para bombas en el EFA:
http://www.aereimilitari.org/immagini/Immagini%20aerei/Eurofighter%202000/EF-2000_24b.jpg
-
- Suboficial
- Mensajes: 507
- Registrado: 12 Sep 2005, 22:52
Orel . escribió:¿No me digas que no has visto fotos de EFAs, Rafales, SuperHornets, Gripens, operando como cazas de defensa aérea para su país, en ejercicios realistas (nacionales e internacionales), etc.
Y además están las configuraciones expuestas oficialmente como "normales" en las cuales nunca se llega a esas cifras astronómicas de misiles.
Los lanzadores dobles que fotografiaste en aquellas puertas abiertas son anecdóticos, para casos especiales... ¿sabes que nuestros EF-18 disponen de lanzadores dobles para el Sidewinder y el AMRAAM? ¿Y cuantas veces los has visto con ellos?
Los canadienses si los he visto en configuración 4 sidewinders (2 en un lanzador doble) y 3 sparrow. Dependerá la misión, no es lo mismo una patrulla o interceptación que una barcap donde hay que ir barriendo y todo misil que se tenga es poco.
-
- Comandante
- Mensajes: 1637
- Registrado: 03 Oct 2008, 23:48
- Ubicación: Ucrania
Lockheed Martin debuts first F-35C for US Navy
By Stephen Trimble
Lockheed Martin has unveiled the first naval variant for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme in a roll-out ceremony at its final assembly plant in Fort Worth, Texas.
'"It's an honour and a privilege and it is a great day", says Adm Gary Roughhead, chief of naval operations. The US Navy plans to operate 260 F-35C carrier variants among the 2,443 aircraft in the current US programme.
"This airplane will top anything that comes it's way," Roughead adds.
The first prototype CV model to roll off the production line - CF-1 - follows the debut of a conventional variant for the US Air Force in December 2006 and a short take-off and vertical landing F-35B in June 2008.
The naval variant uses the same propulsion system as the air force fighter, but adds other modifications, including an expanded wing and strengthened landing gear.
The F-35C will be the first tactical aircraft to enter naval service in the USA for several decades that is powered by a single engine. It will also be the first carrier-based jet fighter featuring all-aspect stealth.
The navy's first F-35C unit is scheduled to enter service in fiscal year 2015, although one Pentagon estimate projects a two-year delay.
The CF-1 prototype model is now expected to start flight tests in late December, reflecting a three-month schedule slip. It is projected to be the fourth F-35 prototype to enter flight test, following the non-production configuration AA-1, and STOVL aircraft BF-1 and BF-2.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -navy.html
"A los esclavos, no los dejan ir al Cielo". Ivan Sirkó.
- cancrexo
- Sargento
- Mensajes: 216
- Registrado: 04 Oct 2008, 17:47
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... 090819.pdf
En este pdf, viene el precio final aproximado de cada versión del F-35.
el F-35B vendría a costar sobre 60M$.
En este pdf, viene el precio final aproximado de cada versión del F-35.
el F-35B vendría a costar sobre 60M$.
Somos dueños de nuestros silencios y esclavos de nuestras palabras.
- Emile Zola
- Capitán
- Mensajes: 1427
- Registrado: 25 Sep 2007, 16:00
- Ubicación: Lyon, tercera ciudad de Francia
Parece que la posibilidad para las fuerzas aereas clientes del F35 de optar por el reactor General Electric-Rolls Royce F136, en vez del Pratt§Whitney F135, sea una vez más amenazada, o al menos puesta en tela de juicio :
" U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated his support for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — along with his opposition to an alternative engine for the aircraft — during a tour of Lockheed Martin’s final-assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, Aug. 31.
Gates predicted the F-35 at peak production rate will be half the cost of an F-22, adding the program “seems to be on schedule for the first training squadron” in 2011. “Most of the high-risk elements are largely behind us,” he said.
Repeating the Obama administration’s threat to veto the fiscal 2010 defense budget if Congress funds the F136 alternate engine at the expense of the F-35 program, Gates said: “At this point we are trying to count every dollar” and cannot afford the second engine. "
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/GATES090109.xml&headline=Gates%20Supports%20F-35,%20Opposes%20Second%20Engine&channel=defense
A mi parecer si los yankees decidieran de no darle el visto bueno al programa del F136 sería tanto un verdadero "golpe de navaja" para con el socio principal británico, como una estupidez de visión a corto plazo ; dado que Rolls-Royce es involucrado por 40% en el F136 y que este motor ha demostrado a lo largo de sus primeras pruebas ofrecer un poco más potencia que su rival mientrás consumiendo un poco menos.
Los Britanicos lo tragaran verdaderamente malo, tanto más cuanto que ya le había sentado como un tiro lo de los codigos de aceso a los "Softwares secretos" del nuevo aparato y que me parece probable que los australianos también elijan el motor de GE y Rolls-Royce si sea posible.
Saludos
" U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated his support for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — along with his opposition to an alternative engine for the aircraft — during a tour of Lockheed Martin’s final-assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, Aug. 31.
Gates predicted the F-35 at peak production rate will be half the cost of an F-22, adding the program “seems to be on schedule for the first training squadron” in 2011. “Most of the high-risk elements are largely behind us,” he said.
Repeating the Obama administration’s threat to veto the fiscal 2010 defense budget if Congress funds the F136 alternate engine at the expense of the F-35 program, Gates said: “At this point we are trying to count every dollar” and cannot afford the second engine. "
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/GATES090109.xml&headline=Gates%20Supports%20F-35,%20Opposes%20Second%20Engine&channel=defense
A mi parecer si los yankees decidieran de no darle el visto bueno al programa del F136 sería tanto un verdadero "golpe de navaja" para con el socio principal británico, como una estupidez de visión a corto plazo ; dado que Rolls-Royce es involucrado por 40% en el F136 y que este motor ha demostrado a lo largo de sus primeras pruebas ofrecer un poco más potencia que su rival mientrás consumiendo un poco menos.
Los Britanicos lo tragaran verdaderamente malo, tanto más cuanto que ya le había sentado como un tiro lo de los codigos de aceso a los "Softwares secretos" del nuevo aparato y que me parece probable que los australianos también elijan el motor de GE y Rolls-Royce si sea posible.
Saludos
El éxito es lo de intentar, no lo de lograr (Richard Branson)
- Emile Zola
- Capitán
- Mensajes: 1427
- Registrado: 25 Sep 2007, 16:00
- Ubicación: Lyon, tercera ciudad de Francia
Una pequeña video publicitaria acerca del APG81 AESA radar desarollado por la empresa Northrop-Gruman, parece que hará todo (AA, AS, guerra electrónica ...), exepto la comida para el piloto :
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35aesaradar/assets/apg81video.html
Saludos
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35aesaradar/assets/apg81video.html
Saludos
El éxito es lo de intentar, no lo de lograr (Richard Branson)
-
- General de División
- Mensajes: 6180
- Registrado: 03 Abr 2005, 23:23
- Ubicación: Gerona,Cataluña,ESPAÑA
Mas spam de otra pagina, por si alguno cree que es un invento de las fuerzas del mal sitas en europa.
Lockheed Surprised By EVMS Decertification
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... e=Lockheed Surprised By EVMS Decertification&channel=defense
Lockheed Surprised By EVMS Decertification
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... e=Lockheed Surprised By EVMS Decertification&channel=defense
A España, servir hasta morir.
FUERZA Y HONOR \\"Soy una hoja al viento, mirad como vuelo\"\
FUERZA Y HONOR \\"Soy una hoja al viento, mirad como vuelo\"\
- Emile Zola
- Capitán
- Mensajes: 1427
- Registrado: 25 Sep 2007, 16:00
- Ubicación: Lyon, tercera ciudad de Francia
Una pequeña video mostrando la variante F35C en vuelo (con su pintura, esta vez) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw4Ek1YaP24&feature=player_embedded
Con sus alas ampliadas me gusta más la versión C del F35 "Lightning II" que las otras
Saludos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw4Ek1YaP24&feature=player_embedded
Con sus alas ampliadas me gusta más la versión C del F35 "Lightning II" que las otras
Saludos
El éxito es lo de intentar, no lo de lograr (Richard Branson)
-
- Teniente Primero
- Mensajes: 1035
- Registrado: 02 Jun 2005, 20:35
Se reportan problemas para el F-35:
Yet Still Another Embarrassing F-35 Problem
December 3, 2010: The U.S. Navy has yet another problem with the new F-35 fighter it will soon be operating off its carriers. It seems that no one bothered to check if the engine for the F-35C could fit into the C-2 aircraft the navy currently uses to deliver jet fighter engines to carriers. Normally, carriers go to sea with 30-35 spare engines for their F-18 fighters (that the F-35s will replace). In the course of a six month deployment, a dozen or more of these engines will be flown to, or from, the carrier.
The F-35 engine can be disassembled into five major components, and the largest of these can be carried by sling under an MH-53E helicopter or V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft. Both of these aircraft are normally carried by amphibious ships, along with a battalion of marines, and are usually near a carrier task force. But the range for the MH-53E (carrying the heaviest component) is only 550 kilometers, if the weather is good. The V-22 has had problems landing heavy sling loads on carriers, and more research is needed there. The heaviest component, including the shipping container, weighs 4.3 tons, and is too heavy to transfer at sea using the normal methods of underway replenishment (with the supply ship moving along side and using cables and hoses to move material and fuel.) This leaves delivering the engine via the supply ship. This requires very calm weather, and getting close enough to use cranes to haul the engine aboard the carrier. This can be tricky, even in good weather, on the high seas. All this is a big problem, as within eight years, F-35Cs will be operating off Nimitz class carriers, and getting fresh engines on, and broken ones off, will become a real issue. The navy will improvise some kind of solution, but this is not the first major hassle with F-35s operating on carriers.
Nearly three two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that the engine exhaust heat from its two newest aircraft, the tilt-rotor MV-22 and the vertical takeoff F-35Bs, was too hot for the deck plates on some of the carriers. The gas turbine engines of both aircraft, which blow their exhaust right on to the deck of the carrier while waiting to take off, caused high enough temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the understructure. The navy also discovered that the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
The navy sought a solution that would not require extensive modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks, both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs. This began looking like another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long development of either aircraft. Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a real problem.
In any event, inexpensive solutions were found, sort of. For the MV-22, the navy developed portable heat shield mats, that deck crew could drag into place under the exhausts of the MV-22s, if these aircraft were expected to be sitting in one place for a while.
For the F-35B, the heat shield mats don't work as well (the F-35B engines put out more heat), so the exhaust nozzle on the F-35B engine is being redesigned, to spread the exhaust over a larger area, thus lowering the peak heat build up to the deck plates. This would also help solve the problem of the F-35B turning asphalt surfaces to a liquid state. Both the MV-22 and F-35B are expected to continue creating "heat management" problems. In contrast, the weight problems with the F-35 engine are not nearly as worrisome.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 01203.aspx
Desconozco el nivel de credibilidad por parte de los foristas de esa página web, pero encontré interesante el artículo.
Saludos
Yet Still Another Embarrassing F-35 Problem
December 3, 2010: The U.S. Navy has yet another problem with the new F-35 fighter it will soon be operating off its carriers. It seems that no one bothered to check if the engine for the F-35C could fit into the C-2 aircraft the navy currently uses to deliver jet fighter engines to carriers. Normally, carriers go to sea with 30-35 spare engines for their F-18 fighters (that the F-35s will replace). In the course of a six month deployment, a dozen or more of these engines will be flown to, or from, the carrier.
The F-35 engine can be disassembled into five major components, and the largest of these can be carried by sling under an MH-53E helicopter or V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft. Both of these aircraft are normally carried by amphibious ships, along with a battalion of marines, and are usually near a carrier task force. But the range for the MH-53E (carrying the heaviest component) is only 550 kilometers, if the weather is good. The V-22 has had problems landing heavy sling loads on carriers, and more research is needed there. The heaviest component, including the shipping container, weighs 4.3 tons, and is too heavy to transfer at sea using the normal methods of underway replenishment (with the supply ship moving along side and using cables and hoses to move material and fuel.) This leaves delivering the engine via the supply ship. This requires very calm weather, and getting close enough to use cranes to haul the engine aboard the carrier. This can be tricky, even in good weather, on the high seas. All this is a big problem, as within eight years, F-35Cs will be operating off Nimitz class carriers, and getting fresh engines on, and broken ones off, will become a real issue. The navy will improvise some kind of solution, but this is not the first major hassle with F-35s operating on carriers.
Nearly three two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that the engine exhaust heat from its two newest aircraft, the tilt-rotor MV-22 and the vertical takeoff F-35Bs, was too hot for the deck plates on some of the carriers. The gas turbine engines of both aircraft, which blow their exhaust right on to the deck of the carrier while waiting to take off, caused high enough temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the understructure. The navy also discovered that the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
The navy sought a solution that would not require extensive modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks, both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs. This began looking like another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long development of either aircraft. Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a real problem.
In any event, inexpensive solutions were found, sort of. For the MV-22, the navy developed portable heat shield mats, that deck crew could drag into place under the exhausts of the MV-22s, if these aircraft were expected to be sitting in one place for a while.
For the F-35B, the heat shield mats don't work as well (the F-35B engines put out more heat), so the exhaust nozzle on the F-35B engine is being redesigned, to spread the exhaust over a larger area, thus lowering the peak heat build up to the deck plates. This would also help solve the problem of the F-35B turning asphalt surfaces to a liquid state. Both the MV-22 and F-35B are expected to continue creating "heat management" problems. In contrast, the weight problems with the F-35 engine are not nearly as worrisome.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 01203.aspx
Desconozco el nivel de credibilidad por parte de los foristas de esa página web, pero encontré interesante el artículo.
Saludos
- Emile Zola
- Capitán
- Mensajes: 1427
- Registrado: 25 Sep 2007, 16:00
- Ubicación: Lyon, tercera ciudad de Francia
galix escribió:Se reportan problemas para el F-35:
Yet Still Another Embarrassing F-35 Problem
December 3, 2010: The U.S. Navy has yet another problem with the new F-35 fighter it will soon be operating off its carriers. It seems that no one bothered to check if the engine for the F-35C could fit into the C-2 aircraft the navy currently uses to deliver jet fighter engines to carriers. Normally, carriers go to sea with 30-35 spare engines for their F-18 fighters (that the F-35s will replace). In the course of a six month deployment, a dozen or more of these engines will be flown to, or from, the carrier.
The F-35 engine can be disassembled into five major components, and the largest of these can be carried by sling under an MH-53E helicopter or V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft. Both of these aircraft are normally carried by amphibious ships, along with a battalion of marines, and are usually near a carrier task force. But the range for the MH-53E (carrying the heaviest component) is only 550 kilometers, if the weather is good. The V-22 has had problems landing heavy sling loads on carriers, and more research is needed there. The heaviest component, including the shipping container, weighs 4.3 tons, and is too heavy to transfer at sea using the normal methods of underway replenishment (with the supply ship moving along side and using cables and hoses to move material and fuel.) This leaves delivering the engine via the supply ship. This requires very calm weather, and getting close enough to use cranes to haul the engine aboard the carrier. This can be tricky, even in good weather, on the high seas. All this is a big problem, as within eight years, F-35Cs will be operating off Nimitz class carriers, and getting fresh engines on, and broken ones off, will become a real issue. The navy will improvise some kind of solution, but this is not the first major hassle with F-35s operating on carriers.
Nearly three two years ago, the U.S. Navy discovered that the engine exhaust heat from its two newest aircraft, the tilt-rotor MV-22 and the vertical takeoff F-35Bs, was too hot for the deck plates on some of the carriers. The gas turbine engines of both aircraft, which blow their exhaust right on to the deck of the carrier while waiting to take off, caused high enough temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the understructure. The navy also discovered that the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
The navy sought a solution that would not require extensive modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks, both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs. This began looking like another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long development of either aircraft. Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a real problem.
In any event, inexpensive solutions were found, sort of. For the MV-22, the navy developed portable heat shield mats, that deck crew could drag into place under the exhausts of the MV-22s, if these aircraft were expected to be sitting in one place for a while.
For the F-35B, the heat shield mats don't work as well (the F-35B engines put out more heat), so the exhaust nozzle on the F-35B engine is being redesigned, to spread the exhaust over a larger area, thus lowering the peak heat build up to the deck plates. This would also help solve the problem of the F-35B turning asphalt surfaces to a liquid state. Both the MV-22 and F-35B are expected to continue creating "heat management" problems. In contrast, the weight problems with the F-35 engine are not nearly as worrisome.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 01203.aspx
Desconozco el nivel de credibilidad por parte de los foristas de esa página web, pero encontré interesante el artículo.
Saludos
Tal acumulación de problemas de desarollo y retrasos para un programa de caza que alardeaba ser lo de un "caza asequible de buenas prestaciones como el actual F16" tiene algo de sorprendente y quizás inquietante (¿ la industría US hubiera "perdido la mano", o que ?) ...
A ver si logren poner en grada F35 con un "Software" verdaramente operacional antes que 2016 o 2017 ...
Saludos
El éxito es lo de intentar, no lo de lograr (Richard Branson)
- flanker33
- Teniente Coronel
- Mensajes: 2238
- Registrado: 18 Jun 2005, 12:02
Los holandeses siguen sin estar contentos con el aumento del precio del F-35 y proponen crear un frente europeo para mostrar su disgusto:
-Fighter Plane Price Increase Dismays Dutch Defence Minister
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... rease.html
Saludos.
-Fighter Plane Price Increase Dismays Dutch Defence Minister
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... rease.html
Saludos.
- flanker33
- Teniente Coronel
- Mensajes: 2238
- Registrado: 18 Jun 2005, 12:02
Sobre precios del F-35:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ogram.html
y otra noticia del mismo tema:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Released
En esta dan algo más de información y dicen que el precio del F-35C es de $142.9 million y los motores para las versiones convencionales es de alrededor de 19 millones de dolares y el del V/STOL de 38 millones.
Saludos.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ogram.html
Lot 4 Prices
Separately, the Pentagon F-35 program office released today the per-aircraft costs of the 42 jets to be bought in the fourth low-rate production contract awarded Nov. 19. The Air Force version will cost $111.6 million, the Marine Corps short-takeoff and vertical landing model is projected at $109.4 million and the Navy carrier model will be $109.4 million.
The price includes one-time expenses for production equipment, flight-test instruments and manufacturing support equipment, the Pentagon said. It doesn’t include the propulsion system.
y otra noticia del mismo tema:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Released
En esta dan algo más de información y dicen que el precio del F-35C es de $142.9 million y los motores para las versiones convencionales es de alrededor de 19 millones de dolares y el del V/STOL de 38 millones.
Saludos.
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 1 invitado