F-35 Lightning II

tutka kirjoitti:
"You cannot compare the operating costs of the F-35 A with other fighter jets," replies Darko Savic, project manager for the new fighter aircraft. Manufacturers often do not present the costs transparently. "The operating costs per flight hour are between 55,000 and 60,000 francs."
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Öh, kuulostaa aika kovalta vai onko tuossa jotenkin välittynyt tieto huonosti? 55 000 frangia on noin €50k. Vrt. edellisessä vertailussa julkituotu arvio Gripen NG:n käyttökustannuksista 24 000 frangia, jota foorumeilla pidettiin liian kalliina?
 
Teräsvilla kirjoitti:
Kertokaas kuka muistaa millainen huollon yhteistyökuvio Sveitsillä ja Suomella oli Horneteista?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Tietoja on vaihdettu (kuten muidenkin käyttäjämaiden kanssa) ja joitakin laitteita huolletaan yhdessä yrityksessä molempien tarpeisiin. Ehkä suurimpana MLU:t (+muuta) on kehitetty osittain samaan aikatauluun ja konfiguraatioon, jolloin kehityskustannuksia on saatu jaettua. Mikään em. ei ole oikein relevanttia F-35 -maailmassa.
 
fulcrum kirjoitti:
Öh, kuulostaa aika kovalta vai onko tuossa jotenkin välittynyt tieto huonosti? 55 000 frangia on noin €50k. Vrt. edellisessä vertailussa julkituotu arvio Gripen NG:n käyttökustannuksista 24 000 frangia, jota foorumeilla pidettiin liian kalliina?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
No niin, eihän siihen kauan mennyt kun savuava ase jo löytyi.
 
fulcrum kirjoitti:
Niin, jotkut esittävät kysymyksiä. Tuntuu olevan mullistava konsepti joillekin muille.

Noilla journoilla ei kyllä pääosin kovin hyviä kyssäreitä ollut. 'Miksi Ferrari kun volkkari riittäisi, entä naapurimaat, yhyy...'.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Ei tuo jälkimmäinen turha kysymys ole; hyvin relevantti. Vastauksen sisältö sitten valaisee asiaa, jos ja kun hyviä vastauksia on antaa.

Kun Sveitsin laskelmassa tämä kone lentää 20% vähemmän lentotunteja ja 50% vähemmän nousuja ja laskuja kuin nykykalusto, olisi kiva tietää mitä muut ovat sanoneet samasta asiasta, tai millainen kysymyksenasettelu on ollut. Joka tapauksessa HX:ssä Lockheedin tarjouksessa luultavasti on jotain samansuuntaista, vaikka maiden lentotoiminta on luultavasti hyvin erilaista.

(Tuo 20%/50% kuulostaa hiukan mekaaniselta; aikovat sitten ajaa täysiä tankkeja aina kerrallaan tyhjäksi ja joka lento kestää keskimäärin 60% pidempään?)
 
4 results
4.1 Cost-benefit analysis
The evaluation of the offers shows that all candidates are fit for the troops.
The offers were evaluated on the basis of the evaluation criteria specified and communicated in advance by the DDPS. As a result, the F-35A is the most suitable combat aircraft for Switzerland from the point of view of technical and operational evaluation. The F-35A is the best candidate in terms of both total benefits and total costs (procurement and operating costs over 30 years), with a distinct advantage in terms of benefit considerations.
As far as the overall benefit determined by evaluating the four main criteria (effectiveness, product support, cooperation, direct offset) is concerned, the F-35A achieved the highest evaluation by a clear margin. With 336 points, it shows the highest overall benefit, with a clear gap of 95 or more points to the other candidates. The big lead of the F-35A in terms of overall benefit results from the fact that the candidate achieved the highest rating in the three main criteria of effectiveness, product support and cooperation, especially in the main criterion of effectiveness with a clear margin.
The result of the F-35A in the area of effectiveness is based on a clear technological lead over the other candidates, with which capabilities are greatly expanded or newly created in many areas.
Based on this, the F-35A has novel, very powerful and comprehensively networked systems for the protection and monitoring of the airspace. In this way, the F-35A achieves superior information and enables the pilots to be more aware of the situation in all areas of activity than with the other candidates. This also applies in particular to the daily air police service.
In addition, only the F-35A is designed from the ground up in such a way that it is difficult for other weapon systems to detect. The resulting high survivability is a particular advantage for the Swiss Air Force.
Ultimately, as the most modern weapon system, the F-35A can be assumed to have a technological lead well into the future. Given the intended useful life of at least 30 years, this is a major advantage over the other candidates.
In product support, the F-35A achieved the highest rating due to its efficient operation and maintenance, advanced training and high security of supply during the entire service life. This is also due to the fact that the F-35A is produced in the largest number of units and is also used in Europe by the largest number of countries.
The F-35A also shows the best result in cooperation. It offers extensive opportunities for collaboration in operations and broad access to data and technical resources.
In terms of direct offset, the concept of the F-35A does not achieve the best result at the time the offer is submitted. The offset obligation of 60 percent of the order value must be completely fulfilled no later than 4 years after the last delivery.
The fleet size was determined on the basis of the findings of the evaluation. The VBS requirements for the procurement of a NKF were used as the basis for the computational design model for dimensioning. The analysis shows that 36 aircraft are required for all candidates.

The planned flight and simulator hours were recorded in the evaluation. These are based on the information provided by the respective air forces or the navy in the manufacturing countries, as requested identically from all candidates as part of the offer request. The candidates' responses were compared with the Air Force's experience with the F / A-18C / D and the findings from the evaluation. It turns out that the F-35A requires around 20 percent fewer flying hours than the other candidates. The number of simulator hours, on the other hand, is comparable for all candidates. The lower number of flying hours agrees with the findings from the evaluation, in particular that the training content changes thanks to the particularly simple system operation and the information superiority of the F-35A. Due to the flight hours required and the longer training missions on average, the number of take-offs and landings with the F-35A can be reduced by around half compared to the current operation of the F / A-18C / D and F-5. As a result of the reduction in flight hours, the expected effective operating costs to be covered by the army budget also decrease during the service life of the NKF.
The F-35A achieves the best result in terms of both procurement and operating costs. The total costs for the procurement and operation of the F-35A over 30 years amount to almost 15.5 billion Swiss francs, at least 2 billion francs less than for the other candidates. The contractual structure for the procurement of the F-35A is based on contracts between Switzerland and the government of the United States (Foreign Military Sales, FMS).

4.2 Noise and environmental pollution
To determine the noise exposure, noise measurements were carried out in cooperation with the Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt (EMPA) during the flight tests. At launch, the F-35A is on average around 3 db (A) louder than today's F / A-18C / D. 3db (A) represent a noise difference that is just noticeable in everyday life in an airport environment.
However, the results of the candidates' noise measurements from the flight test are fraught with uncertainty, as the launch procedures practiced during the test in Payerne are only comparable to a limited extent.
In addition to the noise at take-off, the number of aircraft movements is important for estimating the total noise exposure during a year. The individual training missions take a little longer with the F-35A due to the fuel that is carried. Due to the planned flight hours and the average longer training missions, the flight movements with the F-35A can be reduced by about half compared to the current operation of the F / A-18C / D and F-5. This means that the overall noise exposure of the F-35A will remain within the same range as the current exposure.
In the vicinity of the airfield, aircraft also make noise while taxiing. The number of taxiing movements on an airfield is proportional to the number of take-offs. The total noise in the military training room and on the return flight is directly dependent on the total flight hours per year. The fewer flight hours that are flown per year, the lower the corresponding burdens. The lower number of flight movements in the F-35A is advantageous here.
With the F-35A, the total CO2 emissions are reduced by around 25% compared to the operation of the current F / A-18C / D and F-5 fleet, due to the overall significantly lower number of flight hours.

5 dependencies
5.1 Introduction
If combat aircraft are procured, technological dependencies on the manufacturer or the country of manufacture must be accepted. This cannot be avoided unless Switzerland develops its own combat aircraft (including all hardware and software components), which Swiss industry would not be able to do.
Nevertheless, Switzerland must have the greatest possible degree of autonomy so that the necessary freedom of action is guaranteed when using the NKF. At the same time, it has to establish good cooperation with the country of manufacture in order to operate the aircraft for the next 30-40 years at a reasonable cost and to keep their capabilities up to date.
When it comes to the procurement of western combat aircraft, the technological dependency on the United States of America is generally high, because manufacturers of combat aircraft from other countries also often use systems based on US technology, especially for voice and data communication Example for the Link-16 data link.
Dependencies were checked as part of the evaluation with regard to interoperability, data autonomy, logistics and technology. It was shown that all candidates guarantee the required interoperability and the necessary data autonomy. The offer analysis confirms that all candidates are dependent on the individual manufacturers and manufacturer countries and also on the USA, particularly in the area of tactical data transmission and secure voice communication.

5.2 Interoperability
According to the requirements of the DDPS for the procurement of a new fighter aircraft, interoperability with neighboring states and participating states of the Partnership for Peace, in particular in the areas of tactical data transmission, secure aeronautical radio, friend-foe detection and military precision navigation (satellite navigation GPS or Galileo) exist, even if dependencies must therefore be accepted. For these interoperability-related functions, Switzerland is particularly dependent on the USA, regardless of the type of aircraft. This applies to both the technology itself and the encryption codes for using it, because both are ultimately the sovereignty of the USA.
The skills associated with the four areas serve the cooperation with neighboring states, for example in conference protection, and are mandatory prerequisites for all participating states in international exercises (for example within the framework of the Partnership for Peace) and for operations (for example cross-border Air police service). In any case, Switzerland decides independently which data and information are exchanged.
All candidates guarantee the required interoperability, although all candidates are dependent on the USA in terms of voice and data communication as well as encryption.
Should Switzerland want to completely forego the use of these interoperable capabilities, it can do so at any time. The performance of the sensors and weapons is retained in such a case. On the other hand, the capabilities for networked operations, friend-foe detection, military precision navigation and secure aeronautical radio are no longer available.

5.3 Data autonomy
Data is generated during the operation of combat aircraft. Switzerland alone decides which data is exchanged with the manufacturer or the country of manufacture (for example, which data is exchanged on data connections).
The exchange of logistical data is in the interests of the DDPS and part of the maintenance concept. The advantage of exchanging this data is that it can be used to optimize logistics. Switzerland thus also benefits from the knowledge of other users. For example, it is recognized at an early stage throughout the fleet if the spare parts dimensioning needs to be adjusted. This not only optimizes maintenance costs, but also improves aircraft availability.
All candidates equally guarantee the necessary data autonomy.

5.4 Logistical dependencies
Since the combat aircraft are procured from abroad, certain dependencies on the country of manufacture also have to be accepted in the area of logistics, especially in the area of component maintenance. A completely self-sufficient ability to manufacture and repair all components would exceed Switzerland's resources. If defective components cannot be repaired in Switzerland, this is done abroad.
In the requirements of the DDPS for the procurement of a new combat aircraft, it is required that the logistics package offered must at least be designed in such a way that flight operations can be permanently guaranteed with open borders and guaranteed spare parts management to and from abroad. In addition, if the borders are closed and the spare parts management from and abroad is not guaranteed, it must be possible to maintain air sovereignty for around six months and to guarantee the training and education operations. For this purpose, Switzerland was offered a corresponding logistics package, which guarantees sustainability at least for this period. These requirements are met by all candidates. As the material competence center, RUAG AG will take on tasks for all candidates that the troops cannot perform themselves. This involves the areas of technical system support, material management between Germany and abroad and aircraft maintenance.

5.5 Technical dependency in further development
During the service life of a fighter aircraft, further developments are necessary so that the capabilities remain relevant or new regulatory requirements such as those for integration into civil airspace are met.
A large number of user countries on the one hand and high numbers on the other increase the security that the aircraft will be kept up-to-date for the entire planned service life of the Swiss fleet. In the case of candidates with fewer user countries and smaller quantities, the manufacturer could at best limit or stop further development to maintain the capabilities after a few users had left the company.
The number of current users of the F-35A is the highest compared to the other candidates. The same applies to the number of items. In addition, the planned worldwide deployment will extend beyond the year 2070. This is why the negative effects of technical dependency are reduced most in the further development of the F-35A through the participation of many users.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Enemmän polttoainetta, vähemmän lentoja ja melua. WWF:n (se luonto, ei vapaapaini) valinta, luonto kiittää luonnon ystävää.
 
Eli F-35 vaatii 20 prosenttia vähemmän lentotunteja kuin kilpailijansa. Ja mikäli kilpailijat vaatisivat saman verran kuin Hornet, tarkottaisi meillä tuo vuosittaisten lentotuntien pudotusta 7000 tuntiin.
 
Air2030: Federal Council decides to procure 36 F-35A fighter aircraft
Bern, 30.06.2021 - The Federal Council is set to propose that Parliament approve the procurement of 36 F-35A fighter aircraft from US manufacturer Lockheed Martin and five Patriot fire units from US manufacturer Raytheon. An evaluation has revealed that these two systems offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost. The Federal Council is confident that these two systems are the most suitable for protecting the Swiss population from air threats in the future. The Federal Council took the decision at its meeting on 30 June.

The Air Force’s current equipment will reach the end of its service life in 2030. To ensure Switzerland’s continued protection against threats from the air, the Federal Council intends to replace its current fleet of fighter aircraft and procure a new system for longer-range ground-based air defence (GBAD). In the referendum on 27 September 2020, a planning decision was adopted which set a budget cap of CHF 6 billion for the procurement of new fighter aircraft. In addition, CHF 2 billion will go towards a longer-range GBAD system. (Both figures according to the National Consumer Price Index in Jan. 2018.)
The Federal Council based its decision on a comprehensive technical evaluation of four new fighter aircraft candidates (Eurofighter by Airbus, Germany; F/A-18 Super Hornet by Boeing, USA; F-35A by Lockheed Martin, USA; Rafale by Dassault, France) and two candidates for a longer-range GBAD system (SAMP/T by Eurosam, France; Patriot by Raytheon, USA).

Fighter aircraft: F-35A offers highest overall benefit at lowest cost by far
All the candidates met the requirements set for the evaluation. For both the fighter aircraft and the longer-range GBAD system, the candidate promising the highest benefit was also the one priced the lowest. In the case of the fighter aircraft, this candidate is the F-35A. With 336 points, it showed the highest overall benefit and was the clear winner with a lead of 95 points or more over the other candidates. This aircraft scored best in three of the four main criteria evaluated:
  • In terms of effectiveness, the F-35A achieved the best result because it has a marked technological advantage over the other candidates: it includes entirely new, extremely powerful and comprehensively networked systems for protecting and monitoring airspace. The F-35A is able to ensure information superiority; this means pilots benefit from a higher situational awareness in all task areas when compared with the other candidates. This is especially true for day-to-day air policing. What is more, the F-35A is the only aircraft that has been designed from the ground up to be especially difficult for other weapons systems to detect. The resulting high survivability is a great advantage for the Swiss Air Force. In addition, because the F-35A is comparatively easy to operate and is able to provide information superiority, it requires less training and has a better ratio of flight to simulator hours. Because of this, the F-35A requires about 20% fewer flight hours than other candidates, and about 50% fewer take-offs and landings than the Air Force’s current jet aircraft, which the F-35A will be replacing. Finally, it can be assumed that as the newest of the weapons systems evaluated, the F-35A will be able to sustain its technological lead well into the future. Given the planned service life of 30 years, this is a major advantage over the other candidates.

    • In terms of product support, the F-35A achieved the highest rating because of its efficient operation and maintenance, modern training design, and the high security of supply throughout its service life. This is attributable in part to the F-35A being manufactured in the highest numbers and it being the aircraft most commonly used by air forces in Europe.

    • The F-35A was also the best performer in terms of cooperation, offering extensive opportunities for operational collaboration and broad access to data and technical resources.

    • In direct offset, the F-35A did not(!) achieve the best result at the time the bid was made. The offset obligation of 60% of the order must be fulfilled in full no later than four years after receipt of the final delivery. As far as fleet size is concerned, for all four candidates a fleet of 36 aircraft would be large enough to cover Switzerland’s airspace protection needs over the longer term in a prolonged situation of heightened tensions. The Air Force must be able to ensure that Swiss airspace cannot be used by foreign parties in a military conflict.

Data autonomy ensured
When making its decision, the Federal Council also took account of existing technological dependencies of the manufacturer and manufacturing country. While dependencies cannot be ruled out completely when systems are procured, all candidates were able to guarantee data autonomy. In the case of the F-35A, the system’s cyber management, the security of its computer architecture and its cyber protection measures combine to ensure an especially high level of cyber security.
As with all other candidates, with the F-35A Switzerland controls which information to exchange with other air forces via data link, and what logistics information to report back to the manufacturer. In addition, the aircraft will be operated and maintained in Switzerland by the Swiss Air Force and RUAG Switzerland.

F-35A to cost around CHF 2 billion less than competitors
In addition to the benefits, the F-35A also achieved by far the best result in terms of costs. Both procurement and operation costs are the lowest for this aircraft. At the time the bids were made in February 2021, the procurement costs amounted to CHF 5.068 billion – well under the financial cap of CHF 6 billion set by voters. Even when accounting for inflation up to the time of payment, procurement costs will remain below the credit limit.
The F-35A also has the lowest operating costs of all of the candidates evaluated. The total costs of the F-35A (i.e. procurement plus operating costs) amounts to approximately CHF 15.5 billion over 30 years.
This is around CHF 2 billion less than the second-lowest bidder.

Longer-range ground-based air defence: Patriot with better benefits and lower costs
In the evaluation of longer-range GBAD systems, Patriot won out against SAMP/T in all four main categories, in some cases by a very clear margin, and in particular in the main category, effectiveness. With the Patriot system, areas can be protected both independently and in combination with fighter aircraft. Patriot has an effective altitude of well over 20,000 metres (vertical) and an effective distance of well over 50 kilometres (horizontal). This is an extraordinary operational distance for a longer-range GBAD system that will allow Patriot to contribute significantly to Switzerland’s integrated air defence.
The area to be defended is 15,000 square kilometres; this can be achieved with five Patriot fire units.
In terms of costs, Patriot is the less expensive option of the two. Its procurement costs including inflation and VAT up to the time of payment amount to CHF 1.97 billion. Combined with its projected operating costs over 30 years, the total costs for the Patriot system will be around CHF 3.6 billion – significantly less than its competitor. The offset obligation of 100% of the order must be fulfilled in full no later than four years after the final delivery.

External review of results
Federal Councillor Viola Amherd commissioned Zurich-based law firm Homburger AG to conduct a plausibility check on the procurement of the new fighter aircraft. This check included examining the evaluation methodology, the criteria used to award the contract and financial aspects of the bids received, while taking into account the planning decision approved by voters. Homburger AG concluded that armasuisse’s cost-benefit analysis and ranking of bidders is plausible.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Air2030: Federal Council decides to procure 36 F-35A fighter aircraft

Current information from the Federal Administration. All press releases from the Federal Administration, the departments and offices.
www.admin.ch www.admin.ch

Tässä on HX:lle viesti tiivistettynä: "The resulting high survivability is a great advantage for the Swiss Air Force."
 
Olisi kyllä hieno peli suomen maalle. Herättää tuosta lasketumisesta sellainen strateginen kysymys. Voisiko suomi valita kyseisen hävittäjän myös sen perusteella, Että pystyy vara kentille laskemaan mm kenttille mitä on käytetty jatkosodissa. Mitkä ovat heikkakenttiä metsien keskellä syrjäseuduilla.
 
Yritänpä jotenkin pukea ajatuksiani ymmärrettävien sanojen muotoon.

Tähän asti en ole nähnyt realistisena mahdollisuutena nähdä kolmefemmaa Suomen ilmavoimien tunnuksilla varustettuna lähinnä muualta maailmalta kantautuneiden huimien kustannusten takia, mutta nyt Sveitsistä kantautuneiden uutisten myötä ja heidän valinnan perustelujen jälkeen kolmevitosen mahdollisuus nousi aika paljon ylöspäin. Ehkä sittenkin meillekin saadaan 5gen hävittäjä, riippuu ihan siitä minkälaisen tarjouksen Lämäri on pöytään lätkäissyt ja miten esim. tarjottu huollon osuus vaikuttaa siihen paljon puhuttuun kokonaissuorituskykyyn, mutta hyvältähän tämä alkaa HX:n osalta vaikuttamaan ellei HX:n porukka laske asioita ihan eri tavalla yhteen kuin monet muut.
 
Sandelzz kirjoitti:
Olisi kyllä hieno peli suomen maalle. Herättää tuosta lasketumisesta sellainen strateginen kysymys. Voisiko suomi valita kyseisen hävittäjän myös sen perusteella, Että pystyy vara kentille laskemaan mm kenttille mitä on käytetty jatkosodissa. Mitkä ovat heikkakenttiä metsien keskellä syrjäseuduilla.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Jatkosodan aikaiset hiekkakentät ja F35 koneet. Ihanan MP.nettiläistä.:love:
 
Protheon_93 kirjoitti:
Eli F-35 vaatii 20 prosenttia vähemmän lentotunteja kuin kilpailijansa. Ja mikäli kilpailijat vaatisivat saman verran kuin Hornet, tarkottaisi meillä tuo vuosittaisten lentotuntien pudotusta 7000 tuntiin.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Mistäs tuo luku tuli?

Pitäisin huonona, jos valmistaja määrittelee minkä verran koneella lennetään jotta piloteista tulee päteviä. Suomessa tunnetusti lentäjät ovat pätevimmästä päästä. Ilmavoimien mukaan tällaista palautetta on tullut useissa harjoituksissa. Siksi näkisin, että on ilmavoimien tehtävä määrittää paljonko lentotunteja tarvitaan. Toki simut auttavat, mutta eivät korvaa aitoa lentämistä.
 
Teräsvilla kirjoitti:
Mistäs tuo luku tuli?

Pitäisin huonona, jos valmistaja määrittelee minkä verran koneella lennetään jotta piloteista tulee päteviä. Suomessa tunnetusti lentäjät ovat pätevimmästä päästä. Ilmavoimien mukaan tällaista palautetta on tullut useissa harjoituksissa. Siksi näkisin, että on ilmavoimien tehtävä määrittää paljonko lentotunteja tarvitaan. Toki simut auttavat, mutta eivät korvaa aitoa lentämistä.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
No juurihan tuossa oli sveitsiläisten arvio, että F-35:n simulaattorit ovat sen verta edistyneet, että koneella lennettäviä tunteja voidaan karsia se viidennes pois.

Ja kun ottaa meillä huomioon tuon tiukan 10 prosenttia puolustusbudjetista rajan, niin ilman muuta tuo on varmaankin yksi toimenpiteistä, joilla F-35 64 kappaleellaan mahdutetaan meidän budjettiin.

Tähän vielä kun laskee Lämärin lupaukset leikata lentotuntihintaa 25000 dollariin v. 2025, niin kyllä näistä erinäisistä kokonaisuuksista saadaan kustannuksia käyttämisessä ja ylläpidossa alaspäin niin että pysytään siinä 10 prosentin hujakoilla.
 
Protheon_93 kirjoitti:
Mikäli hankimme JASSM XR:n F-35:n kanssa, katsoin Google mapsilla etäisyyksiä niin voisimme ampua jopa Volgogradiin asti Suomen rajojen sisäpuolelta asti. Itse asiassa melkeinpä koko Uralien länsipuolinen Venäjä olisi kantamamme sisällä.

Tuo olisi kyllä sellainen kynnysasejärjestelmä, että Venäjällä kuluisi monen monta kuppia kahvia ja tupakkaa vittuuntuessa tuollaisen huomioon ottamisessa sotatoimien suunnitteluissa. Esimerkiksi ballististen ohjusten laukaisualustat olisivat suuressa osaa Venäjää vaaran alla joutua JASSMitetuksi.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Ja hyvin todennäköisesti, tälläistäkin aktiivisen puolustautumisen skenaariota on prosessin kuluessa käytetty kokonaisvaikutusta hankkeelle mallittaen. Jos ei nyt aivan tällä tavoin, niin ikäänkuin vastaavasti.

Oletuksena on se, että mikäli hankintaan myös oleellisesti liittyy - ei tässä ja nyt päätettäviä ja rahoitettavia asejärjestelmiä (ja näin tosiasiallisesti on) - niin tuo potentiaali kuitenkin huomioidaan jollakin tasolla pisteyttäen. Kuinka oikeastaan muuten voisi ollakaan. Arvioiden suorituskykymahdollisuuksia osan ikäänkuin sisäänrakennetusti futuuriin katsoessa, lopputuloksen täytyy tuota potentiaalikenttää heijastella.

Tältäkin osin, oma arveluni ja toiveeni osuu väistämättä F-35:n suuntaan.
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top