Por Tierra Mar y Aire
Moderadores: Lepanto, poliorcetes, Edu, Orel
por Orel el Jue Dic 31, 2020 9:18 pm
Se vuelve a posponer la producción full del F-35 ahora indefinidamente...
as officials remain unable to say when the fighter jet will be ready for combat testing
por Pathfinder el Vie Ene 01, 2021 1:44 pm
Orel escribió:Se vuelve a posponer la producción full del F-35 ahora indefinidamente...
Pues eso no es ninguna buena señal y menos tras tantos años madurándolo para conseguirla y aún así retrasándosela una y otra vez.
Porque, frase vital de ese mismo enlace:as officials remain unable to say when the fighter jet will be ready for combat testing
Los militares siguen incapaces de decir cuando podrá empezar las pruebas de combate.
Y feliz año!
“Technical challenges and the impact of Covid-19” have delayed preparation of the simulation facility where the sophisticated testing of the costliest U.S. weapons system will be conducted, Jessica Maxwell, Lord’s spokeswoman, said in a statement when asked about a previously undisclosed Dec. 18 memo by Lord. She said a new date would “based on an independent technical review.”
A decision to allow full-rate production will be a seal of approval from the Defense Department to American taxpayers and foreign customers that the warplane has been fully tested, deemed effective against the highest-level threats, can meet its maintenance goals and can be produced efficiently.
More than 600 of the F-35 program’s potential 3,200 aircraft already have been delivered, and the fighter is in use by the military in nine nations, including the U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps. But it still hasn’t demonstrated its effectiveness against the most challenging Russian and Chinese air defense systems and aircraft. That will be measured in a sophisticated on-ground simulator at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland.
por 14yellow14 el Vie Ene 01, 2021 2:07 pm
Orel escribió:Los militares siguen incapaces de decir cuando podrá empezar las pruebas de combate.
Y feliz año!
The latest hiccup in the F-35 program is a result of delays to operational testing in the Joint Simulation Environment. The F-35 needs to prove itself in these trials in order to complete the IOT&E phase and kickstart the full-rate production review.
This a critical, roughly month-long testing phase was originally supposed to begin in 2017. That schedule subsequently slipped and there had been a hope that those trials would begin this month. Now, the F-35 is not likely to enter the Joint Simulation Environment until mid-to-late 2021.
Jessica Maxwell, Lord’s spokeswoman, told Bloomberg that the latest holdup on operational testing came about due to “technical challenges and the impact of COVID-19.” This indicates that the completion of the Joint Simulation Environment facility at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, is running behind schedule. The site is required to assess the jet’s ability to counter high-end air defense systems, including aircraft and missiles likely to be fielded in the next 10 years.
Maxwell said an “independent technical review” is now required before a revised timeline can be announced, with low-rate initial production (LRIP) of F-35s to continue in the meantime. The first LRIP contract for the Joint Strike Fighter, covering just two F-35As, was signed back in 2007.
...
Even once operational testing is complete, another two to three months will be needed to analyze all the data gathered and prepare a report for the Pentagon, on which to base the decision.
Laura Seal, an F-35 program spokeswoman, told Bloomberg that revised dates for both the Joint Simulation Environment tests and the potential full-rate production decision could be announced by the end of February 2021.
DWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The 412th Electronic Warfare Group is one step closer to bringing the Joint Simulation Environment to life at Edwards Air Force Base. The 412th EWG recently began work to pave the way for ultimately building a new facility to house the JSE.
JSE is a scalable, expandable, high fidelity government-owned, non-proprietary modeling and simulation environment to conduct testing on fifth-plus generation aircraft and systems accreditable for test as a supplement to open-air testing.
“The coders have to really touch and see how to integrate these systems. We’re building products for it so we can develop, compile, test and get feedback on issues,” Lockwood said. “There’s so many components. It’s going to be a large battlespace in an interactive environment.”
The overall goal of the JSE is to allow the testers and engineers the capability to test multiple platforms during the developmental and operational testing phases of a platform.
“We’ve been asked to develop a high-fidelity modeling and simulation environment for initially the F-35 (Lightning II) and F-22 (Raptor) that will allow us to test aircraft in ways that we’re currently unable to test,” Blanco said. “So the environment will encompass things like weather, terrain, multiple other platforms and air and ground threats.”
“We’re going to use the F-35 as the threshold platform to help prove the concept, but the long term potential of JSE is huge when you consider you can integrate virtual and constructive elements with live and open-air capability in a way that creates an environment that we can no longer build or replicate strictly with open-air resources.”
JSE is a state-of-the-art modeling and simulation environment that the DoD is developing to test fifth-generation aircraft systems, such as the F-35 Lightning II and F-22 Raptor.
ASTi products provide the capability for JSE test and development engineers to build high-fidelity, physics-based simulations of voice communications, navigation aids and electronic warfare systems. ASTi-enabled simulators supplement open-air testing of live aircraft by accurately replicating test factors (e.g., terrain, weather, adversary air/ground threats) in a controlled, indoor facility.
ASTi also simulates Link 16 and Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), a next-generation Low Probability of Detection/Low Probability of Interception (LPD/LPI) secure communications link among stealth aircraft. MADL helps connect F-35 pilots to other aircraft, sharing situational awareness data without revealing their locations to enemy forces.
Under previous contract awards, the Air Force acquired ASTi simulated communications systems for the JSE sister facility at Nellis AFB. While Edwards AFB will focus on developmental testing, the Nellis facility focuses on operational testing. However, both facilities will receive similar ASTi system configurations so they can dovetail their capabilities.
Additionally, the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) facility at Patuxent River, MD purchased an extensive ASTi simulation suite supporting developmental/operational avionics testing for F-35 fighter platforms. NAWCAD is currently using the ASTi-equipped simulators to train pilots and test F-35 weapons systems in denied airspace and dense-threat environments. The JSE facility at Patuxent River accommodates 14 F-35 simulators and multiple instructor operator stations. The Air Force used this location as a template for JSE facilities currently opening at Edwards AFB and Nellis AFB.
por Chema el Vie Ene 01, 2021 3:07 pm
por Pathfinder el Vie Ene 01, 2021 3:50 pm
por champi el Lun Ene 04, 2021 1:44 pm
...
Desde punto de vista financiero la desviación del acción programada para el ejercicio económico 2020 como se informó en el DPP anterior 2019-2021 (859 M €) es el resultado de una remodelación de los recursos ya asignados al programa de compromisos contractuales y el inicio contextual de la mencionada fase 2a.Los cargos de la Fase 1 (necesita total de € 7.056,0 millones) cubrir las necesidades de: adquisición de los primeros 28 aviones, de motores relacionados, equipos, gastos iniciales para modernización, soporte logístico hasta 2022, construcción de la planta de Cameri y asistencia técnica relacionada, preparación de sitios nacionales (Amendola, Ghedi, Nave Cavour).
...
Rentabilidad industrial nacional: 4.030 M $ al 31/12/2019 (encuesta anterior 3.281 M $ al 31/12/2018).
por champi el Lun Ene 04, 2021 5:27 pm
Pathfinder escribió:Los modelos armados comienzan más o menos con el lote 6, los cuales adquieren la capacidad operativa inicial.
A partir del lote 8 se considera el avión maduro, y es conocida como versión export. No obstante, creo que a Israel (país cliente y no socio) le llegaron aviones de lotes anteriores, con el Soft 3i que imagino les daba igual porque iban a actualizarlos al 3F o porque están pendientes de meterles ellos su Soft made in Israel.
por Milites el Lun Ene 04, 2021 8:35 pm
Y me llamaban exagerado, de los 5.000 M de coste de cambio de divisa de todos los programas (más del 20% del total del incremento de coste aprobado), el 60% se lo lleva el "más barato que un cuarta", cuando es el 20% de todos los programas de armamento en vigor de Australia, 25. Corto me he quedado.champi escribió:Pathfinder escribió:Los modelos armados comienzan más o menos con el lote 6, los cuales adquieren la capacidad operativa inicial.
A partir del lote 8 se considera el avión maduro, y es conocida como versión export. No obstante, creo que a Israel (país cliente y no socio) le llegaron aviones de lotes anteriores, con el Soft 3i que imagino les daba igual porque iban a actualizarlos al 3F o porque están pendientes de meterles ellos su Soft made in Israel.
Para los australianos, el requerimiento para la IOC es el bloque 3F, pero ellos dicen que se empezó a entregar a partir de finales de la LRIP 9 (no concuerda con la lámina que has puesto): https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/f ... -21_19.pdf
Ya que estamos, el presupuesto aprobado, incluyendo el sobreprecio por el cambio de moneda que hace poco se comentaba:
En cuanto a los contratos, no andan muy contentos pero dicen haber logrado A$1.700 millones para la producción. Respecto a los requerimientos, cumple con todos (99%) y solo hay algo de incertidumbre en cuanto a capacidades de ataque marítimo.
por Observer el Mar Ene 05, 2021 1:26 pm
Milites escribió:Y me llamaban exagerado, de los 5.000 M de coste de cambio de divisa de todos los programas (más del 20% del total del incremento de coste aprobado), el 60% se lo lleva el "más barato que un cuarta", cuando es el 20% de todos los programas de armamento en vigor de Australia, 25. Corto me he quedado.
Al final les van a pagar a USA una parte de su flota.
Exchange rate variations result from projects’ exposure to foreign currencies and movements in foreign exchange rates against the Australian dollar.Budget adjustments aim to maintain the relative buying power of the project budget. Movements in the US dollar and the Euro are the main influences.
Understanding Budget Variation
Real budget variations occur as a result of Government endorsed changes to scope, real cost changes, and scope transfers between projects.
Foreign exchange rate variations do not represent real cost variations as they are managed through funding adjustments on a “no-win/ no loss” basis to offset realised foreign exchange losses or gains. Similarly, in-year variations between Budget, Additional Estimates and Final do not necessarily in themselves represent real cost variations. Defence considers that the Final Budget Forecasts represent the baseline against which in-year Project financial performance should be measured.
In some instances, Real Cost Increases (RCI) require a Government approved budget variation due to unplanned cost and/or scope variation. Historically, there has been minimal requirement to apply RCIs to the project budgets. These instances are outlined in Column E. There have been no RCI’s in this reporting year 2019-20, the listed RCI’s were approved in earlier years.
.
por Milites el Mar Ene 05, 2021 4:11 pm
Observer escribió:Milites escribió:Y me llamaban exagerado, de los 5.000 M de coste de cambio de divisa de todos los programas (más del 20% del total del incremento de coste aprobado), el 60% se lo lleva el "más barato que un cuarta", cuando es el 20% de todos los programas de armamento en vigor de Australia, 25. Corto me he quedado.
Al final les van a pagar a USA una parte de su flota.
El caso de Australia no es el de España, ellos usan su dólar, nosotros el euro, sus fluctuaciones no son las de nuestra moneda así que cualquier intento de extrapolaras es incorrecto, más allá del hecho evidente de que si compras en otra moneda esta puede sufrir variaciones que a su vez pueden suponerte un sobrecosto. También un ahorro si tu moneda se aprecia en vez de depreciarse, cosa perfectamente posible y que obvias.
-Cambio euro/dólar. En los últimos cinco años apenas se ha movido del rango 1,1 a 1,2 euros por dólar: https://www.macrotrends.net/2548/euro-d ... ical-chart
-Cambio dólar australiano/dólar americano. Mira que sucede con su cotización en marzo-junio de 2020. https://www.macrotrends.net/2551/austra ... ical-chart
El dólar australiano también ha sufrido un fuerte bache en 2020 respecto al euro, por eso insisto en que no es extrapolable a nuestro caso:
Además, creo que estáis interpretando erróneamente ese documento. En él se dice:Exchange rate variations result from projects’ exposure to foreign currencies and movements in foreign exchange rates against the Australian dollar.Budget adjustments aim to maintain the relative buying power of the project budget. Movements in the US dollar and the Euro are the main influences.
No solo es con el dólar sino también con respecto al euro, que es nuestra moneda.Understanding Budget Variation
Real budget variations occur as a result of Government endorsed changes to scope, real cost changes, and scope transfers between projects.
Foreign exchange rate variations do not represent real cost variations as they are managed through funding adjustments on a “no-win/ no loss” basis to offset realised foreign exchange losses or gains. Similarly, in-year variations between Budget, Additional Estimates and Final do not necessarily in themselves represent real cost variations. Defence considers that the Final Budget Forecasts represent the baseline against which in-year Project financial performance should be measured.In some instances, Real Cost Increases (RCI) require a Government approved budget variation due to unplanned cost and/or scope variation. Historically, there has been minimal requirement to apply RCIs to the project budgets. These instances are outlined in Column E. There have been no RCI’s in this reporting year 2019-20, the listed RCI’s were approved in earlier years.
Vamos, que el exchange variation que estáis usando tú y champi como referencia no es más que una "foto contable" de un momento concreto y no representa el incremento real de costes. Históricamente ha sido mínima la necesidad de aprobar partidas extras para pagar intereses de cambio de moneda. La tabla importante la tenéis en la página 82:
Conclusión: Los sobrecostes reales (RCI) de Australia por el tipo de cambio han supuesto un monstruoso incremento del 0%. A mí sigue sin caberme en la cabeza que poco menos que digáis que el aparato caro es el Rhino y el barato el EFA, y que el cambio de moneda es un asunto insalvable. Es que hasta los documentos que aportáis para demostrarlo dicen lo contrario, pero debo ser yo el exagerado
Saludos.
por Pathfinder el Mar Ene 05, 2021 8:13 pm
Observer escribió:
(...)
Conclusión: Los sobrecostes reales (RCI) de Australia por el tipo de cambio han supuesto un monstruoso incremento del 0%. A mí sigue sin caberme en la cabeza que poco menos que digáis que el aparato caro es el Rhino y el barato el EFA, y que el cambio de moneda es un asunto insalvable. Es que hasta los documentos que aportáis para demostrarlo dicen lo contrario, pero debo ser yo el exagerado
Saludos.
por Pathfinder el Mar Ene 05, 2021 8:28 pm
por champi el Mié Ene 06, 2021 12:29 pm
por Atticus el Mié Ene 06, 2021 4:34 pm
hoy le ha tocado a los B de la Royal Navy.
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 20 invitados
