• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

f-35 willdie

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tequila
  • Start date Start date
Tequila said:
yesterday's news since we talk about planes.. .
the f-35 jets that buys Italy.the pentagon: "fly away from the storms"a clamorous defence report reveals that in an attempt to lighten the next generation fighter bombers, the armour of the fuel tank was too thin, with greater danger of explosion not only for the enemy fire.http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2...ccia_f-35_ma_sono_a_rischio-fulmine-50980689/source republic.it
Click to expand...
Despite my total aversion to this project (declared in unsuspected times) I think that certain journalistic statements must be taken for what they are... I don't say anymore.

I have a suspect. Given the dramatic disproportion between the problem (couragement of the tanks) and the consequences (fly away from the storms), which would be like to say that if you remove the crick from the machine you have to stay away from the provincial (because notoriously full of holes), I think that someone in america is preparing to give the "welcome" to the program. To prepare the ground, you need some "noise."
 
President, I am going for a moment but the subject has already been raised by tequila (if not erro).
I read that the story about the risks for the f35 to fly in a storm, connected to the weakness of the protections of the tanks, is a half buffalo in the sense that it would hide a total rethink on the part of the pentagon on the validity of the lightning project (grottesco un lightning put to the ground from a lightning, even more absurd than a hunt can not fly in the presence of adverse weather phenomena).
the plane would have reached unsustainable costs in the face of unsatisfactory results so now, in order to be able to unleash without giving in the eye, it is necessary to raise a dust so as to mask the true deficiencies of the project f35.
I would like to know your thoughts about it.
 
Exatem said:
President, I am going for a moment but the subject has already been raised by tequila (if not erro).
I read that the story about the risks for the f35 to fly in a storm, connected to the weakness of the protections of the tanks, is a half buffalo in the sense that it would hide a total rethink on the part of the pentagon on the validity of the lightning project (grottesco un lightning put to the ground from a lightning, even more absurd than a hunt can not fly in the presence of adverse weather phenomena).
the plane would have reached unsustainable costs in the face of unsatisfactory results so now, in order to be able to unleash without giving in the eye, it is necessary to raise a dust so as to mask the true deficiencies of the project f35.
I would like to know your thoughts about it.
Click to expand...
If you go a little further back you'll find my "quote" to tequila that goes exactly in the direction you're pointing out.
I also have the clear impression that you are feeding a (a series) of journalistic cases to prepare the ground for more draconian acts.
I reiterate my old writing in which I reported that we had to keep an eye on the navy, its version is the most expensive and the most problematic.
If the us navy "molla" (as I am convinced) the development costs of the whole program will explode and the whole program will collapse.
Right now, the game is the one in the hand, we hope we're not the last.
 
Er Presidente said:
(...)
I reiterate my old writing in which I reported that we had to keep an eye on the navy, its version is the most expensive and the most problematic.
If the us navy "molla" (as I am convinced) the development costs of the whole program will explode and the whole program will collapse.
Right now, the game is the one in the hand, we hope we're not the last.
Click to expand...
presidè, you must have someone on "high spot" who listens to you, even if it does exactly the opposite of what you meant.
our governments, and above all our generals, have decided to "hold an eye" so much the marine version of the f35 that on the residues 90 pieces that you should buy 35 are of this type. :eek:
and should also be among the first to be produced, since "urge" replace the harriers boarded on our wetlands with trampoline bridge.

so among the survivors of the almost shipwrecked program f35 we are those with the sniper burning faster. :biggrin:

happy!!! :frown:
 
Meccbell said:
presidè, you must have someone on "high spot" who listens to you, even if it does exactly the opposite of what you meant.
our governments, and above all our generals, have decided to "hold an eye" so much the marine version of the f35 that on the residues 90 pieces that you should buy 35 are of this type. :eek:
and should also be among the first to be produced, since "urge" replace the harriers boarded on our wetlands with trampoline bridge.

so among the survivors of the almost shipwrecked program f35 we are those with the sniper burning faster. :biggrin:

happy!!! :frown:
Click to expand...
The us navy is interested in the "b" version not vertical take-off.
only the English and the American marines and the Italians who are interested in the version "c" (vstol).
Since the marines do not give up the av8-b (harrier) even under torture, they would be the English to support the "c" version useful for our cauliur.
to avoid reconsideration the English have withdrawn from service all harriers.
When cameron went to the government he almost fainted and decided to give up the "c" (practically the version was dead) and asked to relay the catapults on the British carriers to board the "b" of the navy us.
another bullshit and soon, back and back to the "c".

If even the f-35 survives the "c" is at very high risk, very expensive and without a "base" of solid customers, but we would be forced to take them running and without discussing, otherwise the cauliur becomes a helicopter carrier.

The navy, meanwhile, is "rognando" because the "b", a simple navalized version does not reach the prescribed performance ( autonomy), is a monomotor (which at the navy is so much on his balls) and is deciding to give up everything.

The scenario is really panicful, in a few months obama will have to cut military expenses and the f-35 is already graticola (the version "a", the terrestrial one).
at the first "wind breath" (accident, problem, grounded or simply temporal) they send them to shit.

The lightning story is just a half truth. the problem is not lightning, it is that for problems of autonomy, (pare that f-35 is far from the specifications in a worrying way because of an uncontrolled increase of the weight) they began to lighten everything, starting from the armor of the tanks. a serious signal for a military aircraft project.

The pigeon-tree began, the f-35 in America is unconscious to the public, we'll see.
 
Last edited:
solution? Get out soon and play ahead.
the cauliur is held the harriers (magari reconditioned or integrated by other av8-b of the marines and a 50na of fa-18 (like the Spanish and the Swiss) to move forward.
I would choose the cheap and available f-16 (already in service from us), or a really "advanced" choice:
licensed production of saab gripen, a modern project, really multi-role (thinking to retire expensive tornado) and incredibly "cut" on our needs.
 
Last edited:
That's a mess.
so far Italy has invested $2.5 billion in the program, with a return of $807 million. the Italian companies involved at various levels are about 60 even if the thousands of assumptions promises have turned out perhaps a mirror for allodole since they are companies already operating in the field.
 
Exatem said:
That's a mess.
so far Italy has invested $2.5 billion in the program, with a return of $807 million. the Italian companies involved at various levels are about 60 even if the thousands of assumptions promises have turned out perhaps a mirror for allodole since they are companies already operating in the field.
Click to expand...
as always in these cases you must have "sfere" the size and the right place.
If the f-35 program doesn't "work" today, it's late, and/or the performance is not adequate is simple, unpunish the contract and you're back to give the money with the penalty and with that money, tomorrow morning you put in production (always work is) 100 gripen.

I already forgot! What contract? What recess post? What penalty?
Maybe there's not, indeed there will be one that if we "moll" we have to pay them, and we'll miss more!

The real problem is that they make contracts for billions with a protection that is worth less than the commercial guarantee of a Chinese television!

was it complicated to put a post under the "consignments" and the "prestations" that if at the "at the date" the 100 "things" will be "glued" and if they do not respond to the specifications or if, worse still, the "at the day" will not be there, you shackle and puppets and repay me twice what I had to give to you (for the trouble)? .

I would like to give an eye to that supply contract, so to "spanne" I would dare to say that there will be at least 220 pages of our commitments towards them and one for the commitments they took with us.

The problem isn't the f-35, wanting it to work, but who pays?
 
Last edited:
Er Presidente said:
(...)
I already forgot! What contract? What recess post? What penalty?
Maybe there's not, indeed there will be one that if we "moll" we have to pay them, and we'll miss more!

The real problem is that they make contracts for billions with a protection that is worth less than the commercial guarantee of a Chinese television!

was it complicated to put a post under the "consignments" and the "prestations" that if at the "at the date" the 100 "things" will be "glued" and if they do not respond to the specifications or if, worse still, the "at the day" will not be there, you shackle and puppets and repay me twice what I had to give to you (for the trouble)? .

I would like to give an eye to that supply contract, so to "spanne" I would dare to say that there will be at least 220 pages of our commitments towards them and one for the commitments they took with us.

The problem isn't the f-35, wanting it to work, but who pays?
Click to expand...
If other countries, last the canada, are "swimming" to chetichella, releasing us relatively "modeste" figures (some million dollars, just for the "notarile" expenses) or even earning us, even if equally "modestely", do you want to see that the problem lies in our congenital lack of spheres in making public contracts?

more or less the same movie already seen for the bridge on the strait: it takes a project that at the present state of the art "pontatory" is practically impossible to realize, if not at such costs to be already dead before being conceived, put it in the hands of a "general contractor" that in 8 years has not even managed to finish an oven with attached fireplace to burn the muzzle and puts it also black on white that if even, puta case, a postdoman, should come out that the bridge 'a penal'
Ah, I forgot... who had to draft the project that shows that the bridge cannot be done?
simple, the same as it should have done.
 
and think that many countries, including Italy, should base their own air force only on two lines, in our case on the f-35 and on the ef-2000. .
 
excellent commentary by natalino balasso, on his page fb:
"Italian repudiates war. That's why he buys planes that don't work. I feel like everything's paintings. "
 
It would seem that because of the Canadian decision to give up f-35 for the cheapest fa-18 lookheed martin decided to make a discount. not a discount any, but 50%! !
What now? Will they do it to us? Or should we put them on the door first?
Sorry, it's crazy. the discount would originate from "racializations" in the production, perhaps they transferred the production in china.
There are no words.
 
maxopus said:
aridaje, of course that it was born really bad 'sto biroccio :-)
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/201..._per_problemi_al_motore-53212575/?ref=hrec1-1
Click to expand...
problems of this type are almost routine in these cases, a bit of concern, some tremble chair and some torpedo supplier and then depart. the real problems are those "structural" of the project, too optimistic and "without return".
the fact that it is "stealth" but up to a certain point, that it is a hunt, but little manor, a bomber but with little load, all "condition" with an autonomy to say little poor and with exorbitant costs. These are the problems that will kill him.
 
Er Presidente said:
problems of this type are almost routine in these cases, a bit of concern, some tremble chair and some torpedo supplier and then depart. the real problems are those "structural" of the project, too optimistic and "without return".
the fact that it is "stealth" but up to a certain point, that it is a hunt, but little manor, a bomber but with little load, all "condition" with an autonomy to say little poor and with exorbitant costs. These are the problems that will kill him.
Click to expand...
I speak of ships, indeed of submarines, because I have some extra title than if I spoke of planes, but I think I do not miss translating a concept from "my" environment to that air.
There is no "universal" ship, good for everything.
or use compromises or "specialize".
a submarine can never replace a cruiser and vice versa.
when he tried to create the "submersible carrier" he went to meet some horny whistles.
I am surprised that such a simple concept has been ignored by those who, on the other hand, should have clear what it means in a field of high specialization such as that of weapons.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 0 (members: 0, guests: 0)
Back
Top