Shadowmon
Kenraali
Miksei muuten EU:n projektejen kehitysvaiheen asioista ole missään mitään raportteja? Vai enkö vain osaa etsiä / eikö niitä kaiveta foorumille?
F-35 Lightning II
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Hejsan
- Aloitus PVM
Miksei muuten EU:n projektejen kehitysvaiheen asioista ole missään mitään raportteja? Vai enkö vain osaa etsiä / eikö niitä kaiveta foorumille?
Sarek1
Ylipäällikkö
Jos en ole väärin ymmärtänyt ketjua lukiessani, tuo amerikkalaisten tapa raportoida poikkeaa muista. Ja nyt suuta ilmeisesti ollaan pistämässä suppuun. (Trump mainittu)
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/20...ive-and-its-hurting-national-security/152345/
Trump’s DoD is rolling back the kind of basic transparency that prevents waste and fraud, enables Congressional oversight, and promotes public trust.
At a time of rampant executive branch corruption and large increases in defense spending, Americans are rightly concerned about the need for governmental transparency. People deserve to know how their money is being used, and what life-or-death decisions the Pentagon bureaucracy is making in their names. As President Trump asks for more defense dollars and relies more than ever on the military to conduct the country’s business, his administration should be taking commensurate steps to increase openness and strengthen accountability to the public.
Instead, the Defense Department under this administration has been doing the exact opposite. Its current leaders declared war on transparency in their earliest days on the job. On issue after issue, they have made conspicuous decisions to roll back transparency and public accountability precisely when we need it most.
The message from the top has been to withhold information from Congress, the public, and the press, even as President Trump has simultaneously taken inappropriate steps to politicize the military. Certainly, we must always be mindful of the need to protect sensitive national security information, and we have long invested in crucial efforts—such as the classification system—in order to safeguard it. But the Trump administration’s actions have gone far beyond the proper balance, in ways that do not serve the public interest.
To take just a few examples, the administration has regularly sought to prevent DoD officials from testifying before Congress on major issues—such as the annual defense budget request—when hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. It aggressively curtailed once-standard interactions between DoD leadership and the press, only to partially reinstate them after a prolonged outcry. Instead of providing our servicemembers, the American public, and Congress with candid assessments of military readiness challenges and transparency about DoD’s plans to address them, DoD leaders have issued edicts chilling such discussions. DoD recently classified the inspection grades for the safety, security, and control of nuclear weapons. It also stopped making public a basic schedule of planned missile defense tests, a decision I helped overturn by passing a law requiring transparency as part of this year’s defense bill. It attempted to scrub use of the term “climate change” despite Congressional intent. And the Navy recently stopped publicly posting its accident reports, at a time when pilot safety is a major concern for our servicemembers and for Congress.
Trump’s DoD is rolling back the kind of basic transparency that prevents waste and fraud, enables Congressional oversight, and promotes public trust.
At a time of rampant executive branch corruption and large increases in defense spending, Americans are rightly concerned about the need for governmental transparency. People deserve to know how their money is being used, and what life-or-death decisions the Pentagon bureaucracy is making in their names. As President Trump asks for more defense dollars and relies more than ever on the military to conduct the country’s business, his administration should be taking commensurate steps to increase openness and strengthen accountability to the public.
Instead, the Defense Department under this administration has been doing the exact opposite. Its current leaders declared war on transparency in their earliest days on the job. On issue after issue, they have made conspicuous decisions to roll back transparency and public accountability precisely when we need it most.
The message from the top has been to withhold information from Congress, the public, and the press, even as President Trump has simultaneously taken inappropriate steps to politicize the military. Certainly, we must always be mindful of the need to protect sensitive national security information, and we have long invested in crucial efforts—such as the classification system—in order to safeguard it. But the Trump administration’s actions have gone far beyond the proper balance, in ways that do not serve the public interest.
To take just a few examples, the administration has regularly sought to prevent DoD officials from testifying before Congress on major issues—such as the annual defense budget request—when hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. It aggressively curtailed once-standard interactions between DoD leadership and the press, only to partially reinstate them after a prolonged outcry. Instead of providing our servicemembers, the American public, and Congress with candid assessments of military readiness challenges and transparency about DoD’s plans to address them, DoD leaders have issued edicts chilling such discussions. DoD recently classified the inspection grades for the safety, security, and control of nuclear weapons. It also stopped making public a basic schedule of planned missile defense tests, a decision I helped overturn by passing a law requiring transparency as part of this year’s defense bill. It attempted to scrub use of the term “climate change” despite Congressional intent. And the Navy recently stopped publicly posting its accident reports, at a time when pilot safety is a major concern for our servicemembers and for Congress.
Viimeksi muokattu:
Shadowmon
Kenraali
Ok. Ainakin projektin "julkisuuskuvaan" on vaikuttanut aikalaillakin se että läpinäkyvyys on ollut niin suurta. Ajatelkaapa vaikka ketjun yhtä vakiokirjoittelijaa joka tasaisesti postailee näitä uutisia kun kehitysvaiheessa on komponentin X kanssa ongelmia. Tästä vedetään helposti johtopäätöksiä että muilla ei olisi ongelmia (kenties vielä suurempia?).
Mikäli vaikkapa Ruotsi ja Venäjä olisi tiedottanut yhtä avoimesti niin voisihan se olla pikkaisen vaikuttanut julkisuuskuvaan. Esim. PAK-FA:n kehityskaari on varmasti ollut täysi katastrofi (projekti jäädytetty), mutta mikäli julkisia lähteitä lukee niin se on ollut suorastaan SUPER-hävittäjä joka nyt sitten laitettiin hetkeksi paussille kun olemassaolevatkin koneet on riittävän hyviä tuhoamaan joka NATO:n hävittäjä
Voisi sitä Gripenistäkin olla meheviä juttuja kuinka ohjelmistot bugaa, rakennevirheitä sun muuta, jos siis olisi julkista matskua.
Shadowmon
Kenraali
Jaa-a. Mä taidan olla täällä foorumilla surullisen tunnettu kun olen usein hokemassa ettei sitä Venäjän karhua kannata liikaa pelätä ja SUPER-aseista jutut tulisi lukea varauksella. Kuitenkin HX-hankkeen koneet otetaan meillä käyttöön 2025 alkaen ja niiden olisi tarkoitus palvella vuoteen 2060 joten ehkä se Venäjäkin voi tuolla aikavälillä potkia hävittäjäprojektejaan käyttökuntoon asti.
https://english.rekenkamer.nl/latest/news/2018/10/31/stricter-checks-of-jsf-invoices
"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) does undertake annual audits of the JSF programme, but has not to date audited the financial processes involved."
"In other words, no independent US audits have been carried out into the financial processes relating to the JSF programme on which the national audit offices in the partner countries can rely. This makes it difficult for these institutions to give assurances to their parliaments that JSF programme funding has been spent in a lawful (regular) manner."
"In order to make sure that the Dutch government is paying the right sums of money for the JSF, we performed a joint audit, together with the Norwegian Office of the Auditor General, of the financial processes at the JPO in Washington. To this end, we exercised the audit rights written into the programme "
///
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/F...ablished_between_F-35_US_Navy_vessel_999.html
F-35:n ja laivan välille saatu muodostettua link-16 yhteys.
"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) does undertake annual audits of the JSF programme, but has not to date audited the financial processes involved."
"In other words, no independent US audits have been carried out into the financial processes relating to the JSF programme on which the national audit offices in the partner countries can rely. This makes it difficult for these institutions to give assurances to their parliaments that JSF programme funding has been spent in a lawful (regular) manner."
"In order to make sure that the Dutch government is paying the right sums of money for the JSF, we performed a joint audit, together with the Norwegian Office of the Auditor General, of the financial processes at the JPO in Washington. To this end, we exercised the audit rights written into the programme "
///
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/F...ablished_between_F-35_US_Navy_vessel_999.html
F-35:n ja laivan välille saatu muodostettua link-16 yhteys.
Viimeksi muokattu:
wargame
Kapteeni
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-with-uss-wasps-anti-cruise-missile-d-453285/
For the first time a US Marine Corps F-35B made a Link 16 connection with the USS Wasp s Ship Self Defense System (SSDS), allowing the stealth fighter to securely share digital tactical data with the US Navy vessel and surrounding support fleet, information that could be used for defense against an air attack.
For the first time a US Marine Corps F-35B made a Link 16 connection with the USS Wasp s Ship Self Defense System (SSDS), allowing the stealth fighter to securely share digital tactical data with the US Navy vessel and surrounding support fleet, information that could be used for defense against an air attack.
BarrelNut
Kenraali
388th Fighter Wing completes combat exercise
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Dis...388th-fighter-wing-completes-combat-exercise/
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Dis...388th-fighter-wing-completes-combat-exercise/
https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/eerste-f-35-s-worden-pas-in-2025-in-ons-land-verwacht~add2b0c5/
Ensimmäinen F-35 saapuu Belgiaan 2025. Ensimmäiset 8 konetta jäävät USA:han koulutuskäyttöön, näiden luovutus alkaa 2023.
Ensimmäinen F-35 saapuu Belgiaan 2025. Ensimmäiset 8 konetta jäävät USA:han koulutuskäyttöön, näiden luovutus alkaa 2023.
HotShot
Luutnantti
Samanlaisia uutisia on julkaistu muistakin F-35 käyttäjistä. Onkohan tämä pysyvä ratkaisu että lentäjien koulutus tapahtuu pääosin USA:ssa ?
Varmaan helpompi kouluttajille. Saavat olla kotona ja koulutettavat tulee koulutusajaksi sinne.
Kouluttajien ei tarvitse myöskään opetella miten eri maiden lentokenttä yms. käytännöt toimii. Tehokkaampaa kaikin puolin.
Falangi
Kenraali
Esim. Norjassa nykyään kaikki sotilaslentäjät lähetetään peruskoulutettavaksi USA:aan. USAF kouluttaa hävittäjät, US Army helikopterit ja Navy monimoottorikoneet. USA:n etelävaltiossa on hyvät sääolosuhteet lentämiseen ja sen koulutukseen, en tiedä lieneekö ainoa syy mennä sinne.
https://forsvaret.no/lfs
Google-käännetty
![fyw59bi[1].gif](https://maanpuolustus.net/data/attachments/25/25019-5510d8702480c031000cf29bcd84ad0f.jpg "fyw59bi[1].gif")
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11/09/italy-signals-slowdown-on-f-35-orders/
"Italy will stretch out the order of F-35 fighter jets, buying six or seven of the aircraft in the next five years instead of the previously planned 10 jets, a government source told Defense News. "
"Italy will stretch out the order of F-35 fighter jets, buying six or seven of the aircraft in the next five years instead of the previously planned 10 jets, a government source told Defense News. "
Yksi mahdollinen selitys on, että on verrattu omenoita ja appelsiineja. SAR-raportista RCS: DD-A&T(Q&A)823-198 löytyy tämmöinen taulukko:
Annual O&S Costs BY2012 $K
Cost Element F-35 Aircraft Average Annual Cost Per Flying Hour F-16C/D (Antecedent) Cost Per Flying Hour ($)
Unit-Level Manpower 8.470 10.042
Unit Operations 4.923 5.632
Maintenance 11.126 5.501
Sustaining Support 3.179 2.075
Continuing System Improvements 2.108 2.291
Indirect Support 0.000 0.000
Other 0.000 0.000
Total 29.806 25.541
(Pahoittelen huonoa muotoilua...) Tässä on siis koetettu verrata F-35:n ja F-16:n kuluja ns. tasaisella: Nykyhetkessä ja huomioiden kaikki kulut ja erilainen käyttö. En nyt mene sanomaan, onko vertailu oikein, mutta kyllä tämä antaa osviittaa miksi f-35:lle ilmoitetaan niin suuria lukuja. Tätä avataan myös tekstissä:
"The F-35 PEO believes that the inherent differences between the F-35 and the F-16 estimates, such as mission planning costs being included in F-35 but not F-16 and the fact that the F-16 is a mature weapons system with many reliability and maintenance costs “leaned out” over the years, result in an overstating of the differences in cost per flying hour between the two. Regardless of the difference, the F-35 program office is committed to, and has enacted multiple programs to drive the O&S costs of the F-35 down."
Nyt pitäisi enää selvittää miten F-16 ja Gripen vertautuvat samoilla reunaehdoilla...
Viimeksi muokattu:
https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...-to-fortify-f-35-weak-points-against-hacking/
"The U.S. Air Force is devoting fresh energy to plugging cybersecurity holes in the F-35's external support systems, as they are deemed the easiest entry points for hackers into the fifth-generation combat jet, according to a key service official."
"The U.S. Air Force is devoting fresh energy to plugging cybersecurity holes in the F-35's external support systems, as they are deemed the easiest entry points for hackers into the fifth-generation combat jet, according to a key service official."
Tekniikka & talous:
Pentagon teki jättitilauksen Suomellekin tarjotuista F-35-hävittäjistä: 255 konetta huimaan 22,7 miljardin dollarin hintaan
Pentagon teki jättitilauksen Suomellekin tarjotuista F-35-hävittäjistä: 255 konetta huimaan 22,7 miljardin dollarin hintaan