Citação de: Luso em Dezembro 12, 2016, 05:24:16 pmParece que também está boquiaberto são os apreciadores deste tipo de brinquedos, que se estão a demonstrar uma fraude a todos os níveis. Se a decisão não é racional, não sei o que será.Agora os outros que alinharam na coisa sem saber no que se estavam a meter, então que paguem por isso. Mas esses já devem ter mamado o que tinham a mamar e já não estão no poder.O que dá melhores resultados é "fly before you buy", não capacidades de treta, impingidas por chico espertos que depois vão trabalhar para as companhias que as fazem.O que é altamente sensurável é a criatura ter feito semelhante afirmação em público. Ele já não está em campanha. Esses assuntos deve discutir com quem estiver envolvido..... qualquer dia está a divulgar a lista de agentes da CIA (para vingar-se do relatório da ajuda Russa), e por aí a fora.....
Parece que também está boquiaberto são os apreciadores deste tipo de brinquedos, que se estão a demonstrar uma fraude a todos os níveis. Se a decisão não é racional, não sei o que será.Agora os outros que alinharam na coisa sem saber no que se estavam a meter, então que paguem por isso. Mas esses já devem ter mamado o que tinham a mamar e já não estão no poder.O que dá melhores resultados é "fly before you buy", não capacidades de treta, impingidas por chico espertos que depois vão trabalhar para as companhias que as fazem.
Conheço um líder que deve estar a rebolar a rir-se com estas tiradas!!!!E algumas dezenas de outros aqui na Europa incrédulos com o que a criatura diz!!!!!!! E preocupados, principalmente quem comprou o F-35!!!!
Citação de: Viajante em Dezembro 12, 2016, 03:56:05 pmConheço um líder que deve estar a rebolar a rir-se com estas tiradas!!!!E algumas dezenas de outros aqui na Europa incrédulos com o que a criatura diz!!!!!!! E preocupados, principalmente quem comprou o F-35!!!!É a maneira Trump de dizer: "Ou reduzem custos para o Governo ou estão lixados". E a "lixadela" começou logo no rombo que as acções levaram, tanto da LM como da Boeing, relativo ao Air Force One (o CEO da Boeing fez logo uma chamada para o eleito presidente a "suavizar" a coisa, ou seja, "apresentando desconto à vista". O CEO da LM já deve ter também ligado e em breve aparecerá com certeza o teor do "desconto", perdão da conversa http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/12/07/boeing-ceo-calls-trump-after-air-force-one-criticism.html ). Saudações
Citação de: mafets em Dezembro 13, 2016, 09:48:49 amCitação de: Viajante em Dezembro 12, 2016, 03:56:05 pmConheço um líder que deve estar a rebolar a rir-se com estas tiradas!!!!E algumas dezenas de outros aqui na Europa incrédulos com o que a criatura diz!!!!!!! E preocupados, principalmente quem comprou o F-35!!!!É a maneira Trump de dizer: "Ou reduzem custos para o Governo ou estão lixados". E a "lixadela" começou logo no rombo que as acções levaram, tanto da LM como da Boeing, relativo ao Air Force One (o CEO da Boeing fez logo uma chamada para o eleito presidente a "suavizar" a coisa, ou seja, "apresentando desconto à vista". O CEO da LM já deve ter também ligado e em breve aparecerá com certeza o teor do "desconto", perdão da conversa http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/12/07/boeing-ceo-calls-trump-after-air-force-one-criticism.html ). SaudaçõesCerto! Mas eu não coloco em causa as críticas muito provavelmente justas quer ao F-35 quer ao Air Force One! O que me admiro é que o faça em público! Não está certamente a defender os interesses americanos, e tendo sido ele eleito para o nº 1 do país...... há coisas que se dizem em privado e certamente sendo ele o Presidente eleito, com certeza que as empresas americanas aceitavam as críticas.O que ele fez, secalhar propositado, foi provocar uma desvalorização das acções das empresas visadas. Sei lá se abusando das funções não terá pedido à querida Ivanka ou ao genro, para investir mil milhões de dólares na queda das acções dessas empresas. Desconfio mais disso que da comprovada incompetência da criatura. Os senhores da Guerra Republicanos não devem estar nada contentes Ivanka querida, aposta aí na queda das acções da Apple que eu vou escrever aqui umas coisas no twitter
O Estado terá perdido perto de 30 milhões de euros quando o governo de Passos Coelho negociou a venda da participação pública numa empresa que estava ligada à exploração de três minas de diamantes em Angola, em novembro de 2015, escreve esta segunda-feira o Correio da Manhã. Segundo o jornal, a venda foi feita no dia 6 de novembro de 2015, apenas quatro dias antes de o executivo de Passos Coelho ter sido chumbado no parlamento.
Trump calls Boeing to price Super Hornet against F-3522 December, 2016| SOURCE: Flightglobal.com| BY: Leigh Giangreco| Washington DCPresident-elect Donald Trump has hit the F-35 programme once again, this time courting Lockheed Martin competitor Boeing for the Joint Strike Fighter mission. Trump delivered the news in a 21 December tweet: “Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!"Trump’s tweet follows meetings with several US generals, including F-35 programme executive officer Lt Gen Chris Bogdan. The president elect’s reaction indicates Bogdan’s attempt to present a more nuanced picture of the F-35 programme and costs failed to sway Trump.While noting the programme’s costs and schedule have improved since its rebaseline in 2011, Bogdan did not present the most optimistic picture of the F-35 programme during a roundtable with reporters on 21 December. The programme may need up to $532 million more to finish development, but Bogdan says the real number is closer to $265 million. The Department of Defense still owes the Joint Programme Office $100 million which it borrowed to pay other expenses and the F-35 programme requires $165 milllion to accommodate new requirements such as redesigning the autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) to make the system deployable."If you put $500 million of overrun, please explain that half of that was supposed to be money that I had already in the bank, the $265 million," Bogdan said in a plea to reporters and perhaps the president-elect.It was not immediately clear how an F/A-18E/F proposal could be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations between Trump and Lockheed.The short take-off and vertical landing F-35B could not be replaced by the F/A-18E/F, which needs a catapult to take-off from a carrier and an arresting system to land. The F/A-18E/F is a natural, albeit non-very low observable (VLO) stealth, replacement for the F-35C, but that variant represents a fraction of the overall programme of record. To achieve significant savings, Trump may have to propose the F/A-18E/F as an alternative for the F-35A, an aircraft operated by the US Air Force, which has never shown interest in the navy's fighter.Trump’s provocative tweets have reverberated across the Defense Department and industry since his election in November. During a roundtable with reporters on 21 December, Bogdan made the only sure forecast amid an already tempestuous presidency.“I cannot predict what the new administration will do and I’ll just leave it at that,” Bogdan says.Boeing has previously been attacked by another one of Trump's tweets about "out of control costs" in the Air Force One replacement programme, but the company may now sense an opportunity to take business away from a key rival.Within an hour of Trump's F-35 tweet on 22 December, Boeing's official corporate Twitter account responded: "Ready to work with @realDonaldTrump's administration to affordably meet US military requirements."https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/trump-calls-boeing-to-price-super-hornet-against-f-3-432706/
Given Donald Trump’s statements, an opportunity exists now to drastically change the direction of this disastrous program. If the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin still can’t field a useable system after 25 years of development, it seems hardly likely that there is any hope for ever redeeming the F-35. Lockheed Martin’s CEO has pledged to bring down the cost, but these promises appear to be little more than an effort to knock off a few million dollars with a volume discount. In other words, taxpayers would need to buy more planes of dubious combat utility in order to bring down the costs. . Now may be the right time to cut our losses and reinvest the money in some better-conceived fighter programs that quickly expand our decimated air-to-air and close air support forces—and to do so with planes that are demonstrably more combat effective than the F-35. If the new administration is serious about this effort, we recommend immediately cancelling the Joint Strike Fighter program and doing the following: 1. To fill the near-term hole in our air-to-air forces, start a program to refurbish and upgrade all available F-16A/B/C/Ds and F-18A/B/C/Ds with the much higher thrust F-110-GE-132 (F-16) and F-404-GE-402 (F-18) engines, as well as with new lighter weight, more effective off-the-shelf passive electronics. This will give us fighters that are significantly more effective in air-to-air combat than either the later F-16 and F-18 models or the F-35. Add airframes from the boneyard if needed to bring pilot training hours up to the minimum acceptable level of 30 hours per month. 2. To fill the far more serious near-term hole in close air support forces, complete the re-winging of the 100 A-10s the Air Force has refused to rewing and then expand the inadequate existing force of only 272 A-10s by refurbishing / rewinging to A-10C standards every available A-10 in the boneyard. 3. Immediately undertake three new competitive prototype fly-off programs to A) design and build a more lethal and more survivable close air support plane to replace the A-10; and B) design and build two different air-to-air fighters far smaller and far more combat effective against competent enemies equipped with radar missile and stealth countermeasures, one to replace Air Force F-16s and F-22s and the other to replace Navy F-18s. These programs should follow the model of the Lightweight Fighter and A-X Programs in the 1970s, particularly in regard to live-firing, realistic-scenario competitive flyoff tests. These programs resulted in the F-16 and the A-10, two indisputably highly effective aircraft that were each less expensive than the preferred Pentagon alternatives at the time. And they became operational after testing in less than 10 years, not 25. (end of excerpt) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/180245/watchdog-explains-why-the-f_35-in-not-too-big-to-fail.html
Lockheed CEO Brilliantly Outmaneuvered Trump on F-35(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; posted Jan 16, 2017)By Giovanni de BrigantiPARIS --- Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson out-maneuvered US President-elect Donald J. Trump last week, deftly turning the tables on him to conclude a three-week skirmish about the cost and affordability of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.In a low-key maneuver which helps explain how she became chairwoman, president and chief executive of the biggest defense contractor in the world, Hewson first managed to recover unscathed from an initial faux pas after her first Dec. 21 meeting with Trump.Lockheed CEO StumblesIn stark contrast with the CEO of Boeing, who on the same day cheerfully explained to reporters that he would accommodate Trump’s request for a much lower price tag for the two Air Force One presidential jets in development, Hewson declined to speak to reporters and instead issued a press release saying “I had a productive meeting with President-elect Trump this afternoon. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we've made in bringing the costs down,” which is a rather offhanded way to respond to her largest single customer.This obviously did not placate Trump, nor ease his worries about excessive F-35 costs, because the next day he fired a shot across Lockheed Martin’s bow with the following tweet: Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016…which solicited the following tweet from Boeing Defense: Ready to work with @realDonaldTrump's administration to affordably meet U.S. military requirements. — The Boeing Company (@Boeing) December 22, 2016Lockheed to Action StationsThis is probably when Lockheed Martin’s leadership was called to action stations.The specifics of the company’s internal processes are of interest only to management consultants, but however it played out the result was remarkably effective, as on Friday, January 13, Hewson fired off her own, twin-barreled response to Trump.In addition to the spoken message, there is also a subliminal one: this time, Hewson responded via Twitter, instead of by press release, thus sending Trump a clear message that she is on his same wave-length, that she is adapting to his customs and thus is not offering any resistance. LM CEO Marillyn Hewson’s statement on today’s meeting with @RealDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/7FwNPJNczR — Lockheed Martin (@LockheedMartin) January 13, 2017But reality is far different, and here is how Hewson is, in fact, twisting Trump around her little finger.Lockheed faces two difficulties in negotiating future F-35 production contracts: first, the Pentagon’s Joint Program Office (JPO) is exerting pressure to lower costs, and for the last contract went as far as unilaterally imposing its own, lower price for Lot 9 production aircraft.Secondly, both Lockheed and JPO want to convince foreign partners and customers to sign a “block buy” contract for the next several hundred aircraft, which they claim would reduce unit costs by spreading production costs over a larger number of aircraft. This move is resisted by some, both in the United States and overseas, who are trying to keep the production rate as low as possible, to fix the F-35’s many technical faults and failings before spooling up production.“Block buy” is simply another name for “multi-year contract,” but only for foreign buyers -- the Pentagon cannot yet award one because the F-35 is still in the low-rate initial production phase.Trump hoisted with his own petardIn fact, with her Jan 13 tweet, Hewson hoisted Trump with his own petard.The 1,800 “new jobs” at Lockheed Fort Worth plant are those that Lockheed had already planned, as it ramps up production rates from 57 aircraft in Lot 9 to 90 in Lot 10 (“the next 90 aircraft) she mentions in her tweet. So, by implying these are newly-inspired 1,800 jobs, she is in fact pandering to Trump’s very public negotiating tactics by pretending he has already scored a victory on this point.The most important sentence in Hewson’s tweet however, is that she “had the opportunity to share some of our ideas on how to continue to drive the cost down in the F-35.”The only action that Lockheed has so far come up with to lower costs is multi-year contracts covering hundreds of aircraft at once. Hewson saw how she could use Trump’s very public demands for lower costs to Lockheed’s advantage: proposing a “block buy” which Trump would jump on.No matter that it would provide no benefit to the United States, because the main goal of the block buy is to produce as many aircraft as fast as possible to take the program securely beyond the point of no return.Trump now has no choice: he must be seen to pressure the Pentagon to stop wasting time award the Lot 10 contract “for the next 90 aircraft” as fast as possible, so Lockheed can start cutting costs. Delaying the Lot 10 contract would also be saying no to 1,800 new jobs, and that would be politically impossible.Trump also has precious little leeway with the “block buy”: he must accept the principle, and pressures allies and customers into signing one because, if he doesn’t, Hewson would simply say Trump’s not really interested in cutting costs, and doesn’t do what’s necessary to achieve them.So, either Trump does what Lockheed wants, and gets more jobs and lower costs to announce to voters and taxpayers.Or he doesn’t, and his Tweeter campaign is shown to be an empty gesture. This would also take the pressure off Lockheed’s top management, and show Trump to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.Today, only one real question remains: did Hewson hatch this strategy because she is of a Macchivellian disposition, or did she simply recover brilliantly from her initial error in treating with Trump?Either way, Lockheed wins -- as has been true since the program’s inception.