[Chicken_Bone]

Acho que é caro demais para os bolsos portugueses. O Typhoon seria mais apropriado. Além de que conseguir o F-35 devera ser dificil para paises fora da "liga".

O projecto deve estar a sofrer atrasos devido ao montão de paises envolvidos e ao super-paranoico ITAR.
Haver tantas entidades envolvidas parece dar azo a um problema semelhante ao q o 787 está a ter, levando a atrasos e retrasos.

[nelson38899]

parece que vem aí mais um corte na compra de f35:

As the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) struggles to cope with the budgetary pressures of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive equipment modernisation process, major cuts in one or more programmes appear to Jane's to be inevitable.

The global financial crisis and the UK's subsequent response in October (including the multi-billion pound buttressing of the banking system and a commitment to increase public spending to offset recession) has since added to the strain felt by the Treasury. Lingering hopes that extra funding would be made available to supplement the defence budget in the short to medium term appear to have been dashed.

Despite already scaling back programmes such as the UK Royal Navy's (RN's) Type 45 destroyer (which has dropped from an initial requirement of 12 ships to six at present) and the UK Royal Air Force's (RAF's) Nimrod MRA.4 maritime patrol aircraft (the originally envisaged 21-aircraft order has since dropped to 12), further cuts are expected to be announced in order to address the deficit in the defence budget.

Speculation over which projects are most at risk is continuing. Jane's Defence Forecasts believes that one programme that could see drastic cuts is the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) programme through which the RAF and RN intend to acquire the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fighter.

According to the MoD, the UK's current planning assumption is to purchase up to 150 short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft.

Jane's believes this total is likely to be reduced down to around 85-100 aircraft when the production contract is finalised, creating savings of at least USD4.5 billion (GBP2.7 billion) to USD5.8 billion in acquisition costs alone.

The potential for cutting the programme stems from the fact that JCA is the only high-profile, high-cost project that the MoD could scale back significantly without detrimentally affecting the capabilities of the UK's armed forces in future.

A reduction in the number of F-35s procured to as few as 85 aircraft would allow the RAF to maintain its current fast jet combat aircraft inventory levels while at the same time increasing the capability and flexibility of the force.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/busin ... _1_n.shtml

[nelson38899]

E começa a faltar o dinheiro:

Young Warns JSF Cuts Could Split Test
Pentagon acquisition chief John Young says the congressional cut to Joint Strike Fighter funding in fiscal 2009 will cause problems executing the test schedule for the program.

Congress cut advance procurement funding for the first three U.S. Navy F-35C carrier variants, which were to have been procured in FY ’10. The aircraft are planned for operational testing. “Those planes are critical,” Young told a group of reporters at the Pentagon Oct. 30.

“If we are not able to buy those airplanes we would potentially have to set up two separate operational tests,” Young says. “That would guarantee a schedule slip and a more costly dual operational test program.”

Congress provided funding for 14 Joint Strike Fighters in the FY ’09 budget, a mix of conventional U.S Air Force F-35As and U.S. Marine Corps short takeoff vertical landing F-35Bs, but deferred two aircraft. Lawmakers also provided advance procurement money for 27 F-35s.

Though the JSF flight-test program is still in its early stages, the acquisition chief says it is so far showing promise. “The truth is the initial Joint Strike Fighter development planes have flown almost flawlessly,” he says. “They have generated almost all of the sorties [planned] and they have returned mission capable after every mission.”

Many skeptics say the multinational Lockheed Martin F-35 program is bound to encounter snags in flight-testing, especially if it follows the path taken by the F-22. But the F-35 program has taken a different approach, Young says.

For example, there are fuel system and hydraulic mockups as well as avionics hardware-in-the-loop labs being used in the test effort that were not part of the F-22 program, he says. “All these things...should yield the ability to get through the test program successfully,” Young says.

The F-35 integrated test force to be based at Edwards Air Force Base in California, Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland, and at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, is already preparing to execute flight-test plans modified after earlier budget cuts. These axed two mission-system test aircraft, forcing increased use of a specially modified Boeing 737-300 as a surrogate F-35.

The CATbird (Cooperative Avionics Test Bed) “will act as a subsonic fourth aircraft” on mission-system tests, says Fred Madenwald, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 flight-test director at Edwards.

He says the first three JSFs to be based at Edwards, a trio of conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35As (AF-1, 2 and 3), are due to arrive between November 2009 and January 2010.

AF-1 and -2 will initially undertake loads and flutter tests in 2010 before graduating to maneuver and weapons work. “AF-3 will be the first mission-system aircraft to work here, and after the first block [of tests] we will bring [STOVL mission-system aircraft] BF-4 and -5 to Edwards from Patuxent River,” says Madenwald. They will work with AF-3 and the CATbird.

The CATBird incorporates the F-35’s power, cooling and cabling infrastructure as well as its sensors and processors. The aircraft’s planned use for mission-system testing at Edwards underlines its increased importance in JSF development following the flight-test program cost cuts. The fourth CTOL test aircraft, AF-4, will be used for high angle-of-attack engine work in 2010, Madenwald adds.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... %20Program

[nelson38899]

OSLO, Norway -- The Norwegian government says it has picked the U.S. developed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace its aging U.S.-made F-16 aircraft in a roughly 60 billion kroner ($8.5 billion) deal.

The U.S. led-consortium had been competing with Sweden's JAS Gripen fighter to replace NATO-member Norway's 48 US-made F-16s.

A news release from the government says the Joint Strike Fighter project led by U.S. company Lockheed Martin Corp. was selected on the basis of price and the aircraft's ability to meet Norway's operational requirements.

Defense Minister Anne-Grete Stroem-Erichsen says the American fighter won in all key areas, including aerial information gathering and combat.

The decision was announced in a statement Thursday.

http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/1049585.html

[nelson38899]

General Dynamics Awarded F-35 Lightning II Gun System Contracts by Lockheed Martin

Charlotte, N. C. � General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), has been awarded two contracts by Lockheed Martin for the production of GAU-22/A gun systems for the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter aircraft. The contracts have a combined value of nearly $9 million.

According to General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Gun Systems Program Manager Howard Brott, �Our GAU-22/A gun system serves a vital role in the F-35 aircraft�s tactical air-to-ground support capabilities. In addition, the 25mm GAU-22/A brings increased range in air-to-air engagements compared to the 20mm guns common on today�s fighters. The gun system�s high rate of fire and consistency are key features for future F-35 pilots, and its reliability contributes significantly to lower operating and aircraft maintenance costs.�

The F-35 Lightning II internal gun system is based on a derivative of General Dynamics� proven GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun. It will be used on the F-35 Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) variant and will include the GAU-22/A gun and its associated components. General Dynamics is also developing an external gun system for other variants of the F-35.

Production is scheduled to begin immediately and extend through August 2010 at General Dynamics� Saco, Maine, facility, the company�s primary facility for production of single and multi-barrel aircraft and crew-served weapon systems. The Saco operations provide complete production capabilities, from design and development to manufacturing, testing and integration. Program management will be performed at General Dynamics� Burlington, Vt.-based Technology Center, which is the company�s engineering center of excellence.
http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/genera ... eed-martin

[nelson38899]

F-35 Sells As Su-30 Stopper

November 24, 2008: Norway has decided to buy the more expensive U.S. F-35, rather than the less expensive Gripen from neighbor Sweden. What changed Norwegian minds was a series of computer simulations by the Norwegian Defense Institute, which concluded that the Gripen could not provide much of a fight against the Russian advanced Su-30 fighters, or the new Russian fifth generation fighter.

Often regarded as an also-ran in the current crop of "modern jet fighters," the Swedish Gripen has long proved to be more competition than the major players (the F-16, F-18, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG-29 and Su-27) expected. Put simply, Gripen does a lot of little, but important, things right, and costs about half as much (at about $30 million each) as its major competitors. In effect, Gripen provides the ruggedness and low cost of Russian aircraft, with the high quality and reliability of Western aircraft. For many nations, like South Africa, the Czech Republic and Hungary, this is an appealing combination. The Gripen is easy to use (both for pilots and ground crews), and capable of doing all jet fighter jobs (air defense, ground support and reconnaissance) well enough.

The Gripen is small (14 ton max weight), but can carry up to 3.6 tons of weapons. With the increasing use of smart bombs, this is adequate. The aircraft entered active service in 1997, and has had an uphill battle getting export sales. Sweden does not have the diplomatic clout of its major competitors, so they have to push quality and service. Swedish warplanes, and products in general, have an excellent reputation in both categories. Nevertheless, the Gripen is still expected to lose out on a lot of sales simply because politics took precedence over performance.

Norway shares a border with Russia, and Russian warplanes have been increasingly active off Norway's northern coast. The decision to go for the F-35 was based largely on the ability of that aircraft to put up some real opposition against the best that Russia has, or will have in the next decade or so.

U.S. Air Force simulations and studies have shown the F-35 to be four times as effective against any current fighter (the best of them known as "fourth generation" aircraft.) The major advantages of the F-35 are engine power (it's one engine generates more power than the two engines used in the Eurofighter or F-18), stealth and the fact that it can fight "clean" (without any pods or missiles hung from its wings, and interfering with maximum maneuverability).

The 27 ton F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs). Plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally, and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. The aircraft is very stealthy when just carrying internal weapons. The first F-35s will be delivered in two years.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc ... 81124.aspx

[nelson38899]

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Flies Supersonic

Fort Worth TX.- The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flew supersonic for the first time yesterday, achieving another milestone. The aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.05, or about 680 miles per hour.

The test validated the F-35 Lightning II’s capability to operate beyond the speed of sound and was accomplished with a full internal load of inert or “dummy” weapons on the one-hour flight.

“The F-35 transitioned from subsonic to supersonic just as our engineers and our computer modeling had predicted,” said Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin’s chief F-35 test pilot. “I continue to be impressed with the aircraft’s power and strong acceleration, and I’m pleased that its precise handling qualities are retained in supersonic flight, even with a payload of 5,400 pounds (2,450 kilograms) in the weapons bays.”

Beesley said it was also a significant achievement for a test aircraft to fly supersonic for the first time with the weight of a full internal load of weapons. The milestone was achieved on the 69th flight of F-35 aircraft AA-1. Beesley climbed to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) and accelerated to Mach 1.05, or about 680 miles per hour, over a rural area in north Texas. The F-35 accomplished four transitions through the sound barrier, spending a total of eight minutes in supersonic flight. The flight was preceded by a high-subsonic mission earlier in the day. Future testing will gradually expand the flight envelope out to the aircraft’s top speed of Mach 1.6, which the F-35 is designed to achieve with a full internal load of weapons.

F-35 AA-1, a conventional takeoff and landing variant (CTOL), and F-35 BF-1, a short takeoff/vertical landing variant (STOVL), together have combined for 83 test flights.

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.
http://pr-canada.net/index.php?option=c ... &Itemid=61

[nelson38899]

Air force needs to buy 100 F-35 joint strike fighters



THE RAAF will need to acquire 100 F-35 joint strike fighters to ensure a credible future air combat capability for Australia, air force chief Mark Binskin has warned.

As financial pressures bear down on the $22 billion defence budget, Air Marshal Binskin has strongly defended the F-35 as the all-round best choice for the air force's combat arm.

The Rudd Government's defence white paper, due to be published early next year, is expected to detail the acquisition of the F-35 in two tranches, the first to be delivered in 2014, at a total cost of about $16billion.

In a national security statement due to be delivered to parliament tomorrow, Kevin Rudd is expected to reaffirm a commitment to publish the white paper before the middle of next year despite pressures to delay the new defence planning document.

Defence sources expect the Government to order an initial 70 F-35s later next year, with another 25 to be ordered from 2012.

Contingency planning by the RAAF indicates that 100 aircraft will be the minimum necessary to sustain a 24-hour combat air patrol in Australia's maritime zones in the case of a high-level threat.

"No matter how you model it, the modelling keeps coming back to 100," Air Marshal Binskin told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

The F-35 will replace the F-111 bombers that will be retired from 2010 and, eventually, the F/A 18 fighters from later next decade.

In the meantime, the RAAF is being re-equipped with 24 F/A 18 Super Hornet fighters from 2010, which will fill any prospective delay in the delivery of the joint strike fighters.

Air Marshal Binskin described the RAAF as the best "small air force in the world" and expressed full confidence in the F-35 as the best choice for Australia. He said they would be easily superior to new Russian Sukhoi fighters already in service with regional air forces, including Indonesia and Malaysia.

"We are looking at what will be the best multi-role aircraft in the world," he said. "It will have the best radar, the best defensive system of any of those aircraft in the world.

"It will be supported by the best airborne early warning and control aircraft and the best tanker in the world and flown, maintained and supported by the best people in the world. I've got to tell you: the system ain't going to get any better than that."

Air Marshal Binskin said the RAAF was in a major transition phase over the next decade that would see nearly every key platform replaced, apart from the four newly acquired C-17 heavy airlift aircraft.

The next decade will see the entry into service of the Super Hornets as well as Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft, tankers and replacements for the AP3C Orion aircraft.

He said the RAAF had been fully stretched on operations ever since the East Timor deployment in 1999, with the maintenance of ageing aircraft a key issue. He said he would like to build up air force numbers from the current 13,500 permanent force to about 14,500.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 77,00.html

[HaDeS]

Preço do F-35 não para de subir

F-35 Fading Under Budget Pressures

December 2, 2008: Development costs for the new U.S. F-35 fighter-bomber will now go up a third, to $60 billion. That means the average development cost of the estimated 5,000 F-35s to be built, will be about $12 million each. The additional development costs are accompanied by an additional two years before the aircraft enters service. Production costs will average about $84 million. With a share of development costs, that makes the per aircraft cost $96 million.

Like the F-22 fighter, the F-35 is stealthy, and is stuffed with lots of new technology. Most (about 60 percent) of the F-35s will be used by foreign nations. The rising cost of the F-35 brings with it reluctance to buy as many aircraft currently planned. The success of smart bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan has also made it clear that fewer aircraft will be needed in the future. In any event, it's likely that F-35s are end up costing more than $100 million each.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc ... 81202.aspx[/b]

[P44]

a SAAB parte a loiça....

Incomplete and Faulty: A Comment [on] the Norwegian Aircraft Procurement
 
 
(Source: Saab AB; issued Dec. 10, 2008)
 


By Norway’s reckoning, the Joint Strike Fighter would be cheaper even if Sweden developed and gave away 48 Gripen NGs free of charge, Saab claims. (Saab photo)

During the past two years, Saab has participated in the procurement process to replace the Norwegian F16 air force fleet. Throughout, Saab has experienced it to be a professional and open process and has had good relations to all concerned Norwegian counterparts. We have provided answers to thousands of technical, economic and organizational questions.

We have also continuously been given clear signals that the answers provided have been satisfactory. It is important for procurement processes of this kind that the potential customer has access to all information considered important to form a fact based decision. We have not once had reason to believe this was not the case.

We were given reason to believe that the Norwegian government wanted a close industrial co-operation between the two countries, and therefore put great emphasis on finding strong and competitive co-operative possibilities.

The Norwegian prime minister’s announcement on 20 November that Norway had chosen the American F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) came as a surprise to Saab. The arguments put forward seemed to have very little, or no, establishment in the preceding procurement process.

We did not recognize ourselves in the assessment of Gripen’s operational capacity or the description of its costs. It sounded like the description of another aircraft. The industrial cooperation we had promised to create, to a value of up to NOK 50 billion, seemed not to have been of any greater importance.

Saab fully respects Norway’s right to procure the aircraft representing its government’s preference. We have been in the industry long enough to know that these types of decisions contain several different considerations; they are sometimes to our advantage and sometimes not.

However, Saab must clearly point out our view that the reasons publicly brought forward by the Norwegian government cannot rest on a thorough evaluation of the alternatives.

The claim that Gripen does not fulfil Norway’s operational demands and that Gripen would prove essentially more expensive must, according to our view, rest on an incomplete, or even faulty, analysis. It is not only important for Saab that certain facts are clarified, it is equally important for existing and future procurers of Gripen as well as for our partners and shareholders.

Saab has conducted a thorough evaluation of the information communicated by the Norwegian government in relation to the decision. We hold that:

- claims that Gripen does not meet the Norwegian air force’s demand rests on simulations containing incomplete or non-existent capacity information;
- the alleged life cycle cost does not rest on experience of the Gripen system but has been calculated by applying own assumptions and models of calculations;
- conditions underpinning the calculation are in parts radically altered and based on internal Norwegian assumptions.

Simulations with incomplete data
The claim that Gripen does not fulfil the operational requirements required by the Norwegian air force is important to understand. It also turns out to be founded on simulations previously unknown to us. To our understanding those simulations must be based on incomplete performance information, simply because such information about Gripen has neither been communicated to us nor requested from us or the Swedish government.

The Norwegian evaluation committee has thereby not had access to the parameters required to reach the announced results. Saab therefore makes the judgment that the basis for the decision cannot have been sufficient for the far-reaching conclusions made in these previously unknown simulations.

Price comparisons with inadequate assumptions
A key argument for Gripen is its extremely competitive life cycle cost. Compared to competing aircraft Gripen is a cost-effective alternative.

Therefore, it was a great surprise to Saab when the Norwegian evaluation committee concluded that Gripen would have a higher life cycle cost. It is not consistent with what we know of the costs of keeping different aircrafts operational over time.

If the claimed estimates are correct it would be cheaper for Norway to obtain JSF, even if Sweden would have developed and given 48 Gripen Next Generation (NG) as a gift to Norway. It should be unreasonable. (Emphasis added—Ed.)

It also turns out that the Norwegian estimates to a large extent rests on previously undisclosed conditions and complex re-calculations and assumptions. It is Saab’s assessment that only 20 percent of the Norwegian evaluation committee’s cost estimates are based on the facts presented in the Swedish offer. Remaining estimates represents, according to our view, assumptions and self-made estimates, not based on information that has been confirmed by us.

The number of aircraft has been changed from 48 to 58 and the operational life cycle has been extended from 25 to 35 years. These are two new conditions entirely decisive for the calculation. That these calculations to a large extent have been conducted without dialogue is most unusual and has contributed to an incorrect picture of the alternatives.

Three examples of assumptions which have great effects on the calculation concerns upgrade costs, crashes and fuel consumption. It is our view that the calculations have a weak or non-existing relation to the Swedish offer or from the gathered experience of Gripen.

Saab’s own calculations of upgrade costs are based on 50 years of experience of developing and upgrading fighter aircraft to customers in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Norway has applied its experiences from the F16 to these costs – a very different and in important aspects non-comparable aircraft.

Upgrade costs according to the Norwegian calculation are several times higher than the costs Saab and Swedish authorities have calculated and provided.

Our estimated value of fuel consumption is based on experience from 120,000 flight hours with Gripen. Even though the Norwegian specification of requirements seeks lowered fuel consumption, the evaluation committee chooses to raise the values we have provided, adding further additional costs.

The cost for replacing aircraft is part of the estimation, with the assumption that almost half of the aircraft fleet will crash in 35 years. This is completely unfounded if applied to Gripen’s statistics. This also adds further billions to the calculation.

Further to this is a number of questions that the Norwegian evaluation group has chosen not to respond to, such as what specific currency rate was used, what price was used for calculating purchase of further aircraft, what other considerations in the calculation that had the procurement price as basis for the calculation and how much the weapon procurement was estimated to.

Saab has not received any information that makes us change our understanding of the accuracy of our initial calculation. However, should we adjust our calculations according to the new information, Gripen is still faced with a total cost that substantially falls short of the published figures.

The evaluation has undergone external quality inspection in Norway. Given that there are in our view many apparent unreasonable assumptions and calculations regarding the economic evaluation, it reasonably also casts some doubt over the operational evaluation.

Moving on towards new markets
Saab respects the Norwegian decision and is fully aware that many considerations, political as well as other, govern this type of procurement processes. From our perspective, it is however entirely unreasonable that our main product has been claimed not to fulfil operational demands for future threats that could come to affect our clients without being able to meet these claims.

It is also entirely unreasonable that the Norwegian evaluation committee, according to us, allocates a price to our product not based on accurate facts.

To Saab it is important to call attention to that claims of Gripen’s insufficient performance and high costs are not founded on recognized facts and experiences.

We now move on and gather strength on markets where there is a real interest to evaluate Gripen based on our offers and a genuine and mutual interest to establish long-term industrial cooperation. Gripen is a very competitive alternative, operationally as well as financially.

Saab’s goal to sell 200 aircraft on the export market remains and today we are pursuing active marketing towards eight potential customer countries. We are confident that we will conduct many more successful deals.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... e=release#

[pchunter]

O gripen NG seria uma boa aquisição para Portugal a quando da reforma dos F16, tem boas prestações, preço acessível e o raio de combate chega para ir aos Açores não é mau. Seria uma escolha equilibrada tendo em conta as restrições orçamentais e de certeza que as contrapartidas seriam excelentes

F35 por $100 milhões unidade é muita fruta.

[Cláudio C.]

Posso estar a dizer uma grande asneira, mas não sou muito a favor de comprar material de guerra aos americanos, por norma tentam sempre só impingir a sucata que já não lhes serve para nada, como as fragatas Perry, e tudo o que seja tecnologicamente mais avançado e novo é tudo caríssimo em relação a produtos equivalentes como os europeus, para não falar das restrições a nível de tecnologia, mesmo quando se trata de vender material a aliados. Penso que não seria preciso muito, nem teriam muitos problemas, para em caso de necessidade nos deixarem "de calças na mão". Falo pelo que leio no geral, corrijam-me se estiver errado  

[nelson38899]

Posso estar a dizer uma grande asneira, mas não sou muito a favor de comprar material de guerra aos americanos, por norma tentam sempre só impingir a sucata que já não lhes serve para nada, como as fragatas Perry, e tudo o que seja tecnologicamente mais avançado e novo é tudo caríssimo em relação a produtos equivalentes como os europeus, para não falar das restrições a nível de tecnologia, mesmo quando se trata de vender material a aliados. Penso que não seria preciso muito, nem teriam muitos problemas, para em caso de necessidade nos deixarem "de calças na mão". Falo pelo que leio no geral, corrijam-me se estiver errado  

Eles não nos tentam impingir nada, nós é que quase nunca temos dinheiro para comprar os equipamentos militares tecnologicamente avançados. Dou-lhe um exemplo se Portugal quiser o typhoon terá que desenvolçar cerca de 50 nilhões de euros (não tenho a certeza, mas o valor do typhoon não deve variar dos 45 milhões do rafale), por avião, ou seja, se quiser-mos ter 33 typhoon os valor a pagar por eles será enorme. Agora pergunto-lhe acha que Portugal vai ter dinheiro para pagar esses 33 aviões?

[Cláudio C.]

Sim do ponto de vista Português tem toda a razão, mas eu ate me referia a nível mais geral, como por exemplo o caso do programa fx no Brasil, em que os EUA não concordarem em vender o caça F-35 ao Brasil, pelo menos com os seus componentes mais modernos.

Cumprimentos

[nelson38899]

Sim do ponto de vista Português tem toda a razão, mas eu ate me referia a nível mais geral, como por exemplo o caso do programa fx no Brasil, em que os EUA não concordarem em vender o caça F-35 ao Brasil, pelo menos com os seus componentes mais modernos.

Cumprimentos

O problema dos brasileiros é que queriam ter um caça de quinta geração, sem se darem ao trabalho de o desenvolver ou ajudar o seu desenvolvimento e isso os americas não são burros, ou seja, os que os brasucas queriam e querem é dar o salto em certos estágios de desenvolvimento de um caça pois ao ficarem com tudo desde as linhas de comando até ao parte aerodinâmica do avião mais tarde ou mais cedo vão dar um pontapé no cu aos franceses, ficando a partir daí com a capacidade de desenvolver o seu próprio caça e ao acontecer é menos um cliente no mercado mundial.