F-35 Lightning II (JSF)

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 december 2010 15:41 schreef Vronsky het volgende:
6e generatie.. ik weet dat er een paar bedrijven zich er nu momenteel mee bezig houden: Maar reken er maar gewoon op dat dit nog een jaar of 50 gaat duren.
Is voornamelijk gewoon concept ontwikkeling en weinig echte ideeën :p.

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 december 2010 16:18 schreef TurkishBaklava het volgende:

[..]

weet ik..? dus?

het is niet zo dat turkije gelijk gaat produceren zonder usa toestemming.. dan gaat de us-tur relatie verloren.

en vliegen kunnen wij zeker.. zeker na eeuwen lange gevechten in de lucht.
f16 hebben wij na usa de meeste vlieguren.
turkije heeft 60% onder 35 populatie.
turkije heeft de meest zwaarste en meest gedisciplineerde soldaten.
dus de piloten zullen zware tijden en trainingen doormaken.
en ze presteerden en nog steeds presteren ze geweldig.
laatst hadden wij de amerikanen afgemaakt in red flag...dus ja..

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 december 2010 16:18 schreef TurkishBaklava het volgende:

[..]
en vliegen kunnen wij zeker.. zeker na eeuwen lange gevechten in de lucht.

quote:

turkije heeft de meest zwaarste en meest gedisciplineerde soldaten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 december 2010 16:34 schreef Lone_Gunman het volgende:

[..]

Als je vliegende tapijten meerekend kan dit wel kloppen ja.

[..]

Ik betwijfel of obesitas een voordeel kan zijn in het veld.

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 december 2010 16:35 schreef TurkishBaklava het volgende:

[..]

over de tapijten was nutteloos.
over die zwaarste bodoelde ik trainingen.

quote:

'Kamer onjuist geïnformeerd over JSF'
Uitgegeven: 29 december 2010 16:32
Laatst gewijzigd: 29 december 2010 17:56
AMSTERDAM - De Tweede Kamer is meerdere malen onvolledig geïnformeerd over de Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Het ministerie van Defensie hield alarmerende rapporten over de ontwikkelingskosten van het gevechtsvliegtuig achter en was onduidelijk over de prijs.

Dat meldt NRC Handelsblad op basis van eigen onderzoek.
Het ministerie zou gezwegen hebben over een rapport van het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie. Hierin stond dat de ontwikkeling van het vliegtuig aanzienlijk duurder zou worden dan aanvankelijk gedacht werd.

Bovendien hanteerde Defensie in de begroting de laagst mogelijke prijs per toestel. Maar in plaats van 38 miljoen euro per stuk, waaraan Defensie vasthield, komen de kosten uit op ruim 75 miljoen euro.
Vragen
De Tweede Kamer heeft duizenden vragen gesteld over de JSF. De regering overstelpte parlementariërs met informatie, maar duidelijker werd het daar niet op, vinden zij. Jasper van Dijk (SP) klaagt dat de informatie gebrekkig is en niet klopt, evenals PVV-Kamerlid Hero Brinkman.
"Je wordt overladen met informatie, maar als je een concrete vraag stelt wordt hij niet beantwoord", stelt Brinkman.
Het ministerie van Defensie zegt zich niet te herkennen in het beeld dat de informatievoorziening te wensen overlaat. "Alle relevante informatie is met de Kamer gedeeld", zegt een woordvoerder tegenover NRC Handelsblad.
Budget
Nederland stapte in 2002 in het JSF-project. Toen werd ervan uitgegaan dat voor de aanschaf van 85 vliegtuigen 4,5 miljard euro nodig was. Inmiddels is het budget 7,6 miljard euro voor hetzelfde aantal toestellen.

quote:

Norway in F-35 ‘Price is Right’ squeeze

Lockheed Martin’s finished F-35 Lightning IIs have not even left the production chocks yet, but could already give the Norwegian government a financial headache.

Pentagon prices recently released by Aviation Week show the Conventional-Takeoff-and-Landing (CTOL) version of the Lightning II (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter/JSF), which Norway is planning to buy, costs 116 million USD, approximately 660 million kroner.
The Pratt and Whitney F135 engines are not included, which come roaring in at cost of 19 million dollars on average, an estimated 115 million kroner.
Negotiations between Lockheed Martin and the Norwegian government are still ongoing, according to Aftenposten. However, its WikiLeaks collection of documents from the US embassy in Oslo show the entire project could end up costing the country a total of 30 billion kroner (USD 5 billion), 12 billion kroner more than originally projected.
Shoot to kill?
In 2008, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s government announced it was to replace the country’s ageing fleet of F-16s. 48 planes were mentioned, whilst the government now says it is looking to buy 52, plus 4 training aircraft.
The JSF’s two other competitors, SAAB and Eurofighter, either pulled out or were ‘outcompeted’. The ‘Wikileaked’ documents show the US Government (USG) exerted pressure on Norway to buy the aircraft at the time.
Former US Ambassador to Oslo Benson K Whitney’s memorandums, reproduced by US paper The Star Telegram, show that “after an extensive, coordinated USG effort, the Norwegian Government decided to buy F-35s...instead of the Saab Gripen,” he claims.
There was talk of why “in Norway the capabilities of the JSF vs. the Gripen were the strongest suit, and Embassy and Lockheed Martin efforts focused on discussions of why the JSF’s capabilities were the best match for Norway’s needs, especially in the High North,” part of NATO’s Northern Flank.
However, behind it lay a Theodore Roosevelt-inspired US policy of “speak softly but carry a big stick”.
"In the fall of 08, we invited a number of USG officials to visit Oslo to make the public case on why the F-35 is an excellent choice, and the private case on why the choice of aircraft will have an impact on the bilateral relationship,” alleges Ambassador Whitney.
“Deciding our line on this was critical, given Norwegian sensitivities. We needed to avoid any appearance of undue pressuring (which was construed as “threatening” Norway in its sovereign decision-making process), but we couldn’t let stand the view that the choice didn’t matter for the relationship. We opted for “choosing the JSF will maximize the relationship” as our main public line. In private, we were much more forceful,” he continues.
Ministerial compliance
The deal with Lockheed Martin, announced by the government on 20th November 2008 “using unusually strong language (for domestic and political reasons),” Ambassador Whitney alleges, secured contracts for Norwegian businesses worth hundreds of millions of kroner. It was agreed, despite initial opposition from the Socialist Left Party (SV).
“The Socialist Left Party had been the most critical of the F-35 and the fighter competition but apparently has been brought to heel by the Labour Party (Ap) on this issue. Parliament will vote to approve or reject the proposal made by the Government of Norway (it cannot choose another plane),” writes the Ambassador in an earlier memorandum.
The memos also raise questions as to the role of State Secretary (Deputy Minister) Espen Barth Eide, who was attached to the Ministry of Defence at the time.
He has admitted giving the Americans positive signals at the time, but told VG “what [the Americans] have written are subjective assessments and are not my problem.”
Ambassador Whitney alleges, “in a call on November 21, Deputy Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide...praised USG efforts for being nuanced, calm, and non-controversial (although persistent) in promoting the F-35. Barth Eide said that this was key to avoiding a backlash...Commenting on the press coverage of the JSF, Barth Eide said that Aftenposten (the paper of record) had “gone off the deep end” with its open anti-JSF campaign of disinformation.
"Looking ahead, Barth Eide said we were now on the same side and it would be very helpful if the USG were to publicly stress the strength of the F-35 and the viability of the JSF program... [and] ...confirm there was no USG political pressure to buy the plane.”
‘Powerless’
Meanwhile, the Norwegian government will be footing the bill, and there is no price guarantee on the F-35s. Lockheed Martin says discounts may apply, but only based on the number of planes ordered by all countries in total, blaming development costs.
3,200 aircraft are due to be produced for the USA and seven partner nations. Israel has said it now needs 40 in total, reports Bloomberg, but the UK has drastically cut its defence spending. The final bill will have to divided.
Pål Bjørseth, Director of the Ministry of Defence’s War Plane Project, tells Aftenposten he believes the prices in Aviation Week will not be those Norway ends up paying. However, he does warn that “we are at the mercy of the planned order rate.”

quote:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is considering pulling back the Pentagon's commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the costliest procurement project in the department's history, defense officials said.

At issue is how many of the supersonic, stealthy aircraft the U.S. is willing to buy, how much it will to pay for them and how long it will wait for them to enter service.

While the program isn't at risk of outright cancellation, a more exotic version of the aircraft is in the budget-cutting crosshairs. And with the Department of Defense putting the finishing touches on its fiscal-year 2012 budget request, and Washington in deficit-cutting mode, the decades-long, $382 billion tab is under close scrutiny.

"Secretary Gates and his team are in the midst of building the FY12 budget and, as part of that process, every program, including the Joint Strike Fighter, is being thoroughly scrutinized, but no decisions have been made yet," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. "That said, the secretary remains committed to developing the JSF into the backbone of our tactical air fleet for decades to come."

The Joint Strike Fighter was envisioned as an affordable, versatile jet to replace a variety of aircraft currently in service with both U.S. and allied militaries. The U.S. has long-term plans to buy at least 2,400 aircraft; foreign partners are expected to buy hundreds more. But the program, like many technologically ambitious weapons-development programs, has been beset by cost overruns and schedule delays.

In early 2010, Mr. Gates ordered a complete revamp, firing the program manager, withholding more than $600 million from prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. and reducing the Pentagon's planned purchase by 122 aircraft over five years. Despite the shake-up, top Pentagon officials remain frustrated with the program's progress.

"I won't conceal the fact that I haven't been happy with the performance overall of the Joint Strike Fighter program," said Pentagon procurement chief Ashton Carter at a Dec. 1 conference in New York.

Mr. Carter said the Pentagon estimates the planes will cost roughly $92 million apiece in 2002 dollars, the measure used by the Pentagon to track cost growth. The estimate is up from $50 million, and Mr. Carter said that price tag might "drive away" customers for the aircraft.

"We're not going to pay more for the airplane," he said. "There isn't going to be ever more money. And so we've got to get cost growth on the Joint Strike Fighter under control."

Under particularly close scrutiny is the F-35B, the jump-jet version of the aircraft that can take off and land from improvised airstrips and amphibious ships, according to Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps wants the F-35B to replace three aircraft currently in its inventory: the F-18 Hornet, the AV-8B Harrier and the EA-6B Prowler. But the jump-jet version, which is able to hover and land vertically, faces some of the most significant technical hurdles.

In November, the co-chairmen of President Barack Obama's deficit panel recommended outright cancellation of the Marine Corps version. And in a sweeping review of its defense-spending priorities, the U.K. government recommended dropping the F-35B in favor of buying a less complex aircraft-carrier version.

Gen. Amos has urged Mr. Gates to spare the F-35B, also known as a short takeoff, vertical landing, or STOVL, aircraft. "I had an opportunity to sit down with the secretary of defense about 10 days, two weeks ago, and tell him about the importance of STOVL aviation for the United States," he told reporters Tuesday.

Describing the discussion as "my day in court," Gen. Amos said his briefing was "received positively" by Mr. Gates. But he acknowledged the F-35B has technical issues, particularly in the transition from horizontal to vertical flight.

"I would like to see it farther along in the test program," he said. "But we are where we are."

The Joint Strike Fighter is a particularly challenging program because contractors are building early versions and testing them at the same time. Lockheed said it is hitting targets for testing and development. The company announced Dec. 15 that the Joint Strike Fighter reached its goal of 394 test flights for 2010. Since the first flight of the aircraft in late 2006, the program has logged a total of 531 test flights.

J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed vice president of F-35 testing, said in a written statement that the Marine Corps variant is behind in testing. "While we are still behind on our overall STOVL variant testing, we are working through a plan to get us back on track."

quote:

Lockheed F-35 Faces $1 Billion Cut in Senate Measure

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program faces a $1 billion budget cut under a bill to finance government operations that's advancing toward a Senate vote.

The move would strip out the JSF money, eliminating seven aircraft, from a U.S. Defense Department request for $7.86 billion and 42 planes, according to the spending measure, which didn't give a rationale for the new totals.

Savings from the JSF program, the Pentagon's biggest arms project, would be the most among $8.4 billion in weapons- spending reductions in the 1,924-page Senate bill released Dec. 14. Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed is the largest U.S. defense contractor by sales.

The measure's $667.7 billion defense section also provides $450 million to keep developing General Electric Co.'s F-35 backup engine. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the engine from primary supplier United Technologies Corp. is sufficient, and has vowed to advise President Barack Obama to veto any bill that funds the GE model.

Senators are proposing to drop five of the Air Force F-35s from the Pentagon's request and two of the short-takeoff and vertical-landing models being built for the Marine Corps. The military expects the first F-35s to be ready for combat in 2016.

Lot 4 Prices

Separately, the Pentagon F-35 program office released today the per-aircraft costs of the 42 jets to be bought in the fourth low-rate production contract awarded Nov. 19. The Air Force version will cost $111.6 million, the Marine Corps short-takeoff and vertical landing model is projected at $109.4 million and the Navy carrier model will be $109.4 million.

The price includes one-time expenses for production equipment, flight-test instruments and manufacturing support equipment, the Pentagon said. It doesn't include the propulsion system.

Jennifer Whitlow, a spokeswoman for Lockheed, said in an e- mailed statement the F-35's price has "dropped dramatically" from the previous three production contracts. The Air Force version's price has dropped as much as 50 percent compared with the first contract of two aircraft, she said.

Omnibus Measure

Under the bill, the Pentagon would get $495 million to buy nine Boeing Co. F/A-18E/F fighters it didn't request. The bill provides $2.1 billion to fully fund the Navy's request for 35 Boeing and Textron Inc. V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey and $1.8 billion for additional Boeing P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft.

The so-called omnibus measure would cap a year that included a breakdown in the congressional budgeting process, as Democrats were unable to pass a tax-and-spending blueprint or any of the 12 annual appropriations bills to fund federal agencies for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Once senators approve their legislation, it must be reconciled with a House version that keeps the federal government funded at the levels for fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30. It is called a "Continuing Resolution." The House bill doesn't reduce F-35 purchases.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, said he is confident the spending plan will be passed before Congress adjourns for the year on Dec. 30.

Defense Secretary Gates told reporters today at the White House the Senate version is preferable to the House measure.

"We have very little flexibility to move money around in the Pentagon budget" under the House proposal, he said. A continuing resolution for the Defense Department "is the worst of all possible worlds."

Lockheed rose 65 cents to $70.37 as of 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The stock has dropped 9.2 percent in the past 12 months.

--With assistance from Brian Faler in Washington. Editors: Elizabeth Wollman, Cécile Daurat

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi(...)G1.DTL#ixzz19WSfULCU

quote:

GE Alternative F-35 Engine Included in Stopgap Government Funding Measure
By Tony Capaccio - Dec 22, 2010 2:38 PM GMT+0100

General Electric Co.’s alternative engine for the F-35 jet is included in the legislation that funds the federal government through March 4, two senators said.

Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew informed lawmakers of the decision to include the second engine, Senators Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said yesterday in separate statements. Congress passed the measure yesterday and sent it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposes the GE engine as unnecessary and a waste of money. United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt & Whitney unit makes the primary engine for the F-35, and Gates has said repeatedly that he will urge Obama to veto any bill funding the GE version.

Lew in his two-paragraph letter yesterday to Brown said the legislation “as currently drafted” required the Pentagon to “continue funding” the engine “on a pro-rata basis through” March 4 “so as not to impinge on Congress’s funding prerogatives” until the fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations bill is finally passed.

The headquarters of United Technologies and Pratt & Whitney are in Hartford, Connecticut, in Lieberman’s home state. Though GE is based in Fairfield, Connecticut, its version of the F-35 engine -- for which it has partnered with London-based Rolls- Royce Group Plc -- would be manufactured by GE Aviation at facilities in Cincinnati and Evendale, Ohio.

Brown said in his statement that the notice from Lew was “good news” to the Ohio workers on the project.

Stopgap Bill

Lieberman, who has been a consistent opponent of the second engine, said it was “unconscionable” that the administration “would be forced to waste one more dollar on this unnecessary second engine” as the Air Force and the Navy struggle with tight budgets. He said he would continue to “fight to terminate” the engine between now and March 4.

The funding is authorized in the 36-page bill that replaces a $1.2 trillion, 1,924-page “omnibus” spending measure loaded with earmarks that Republicans, under pressure from Tea Party activists who seek significantly limited government, blocked last week.

The result is that federal agencies will go roughly halfway through their 2011 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, without updated budgets. Agencies, including the Pentagon, will be limited to fiscal 2010 spending levels. In the engine’s case, that would be the $430 million appropriated in fiscal 2010.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers fought to include General Electric’s engine in the measure. “Congress has funded the engine program for 14 consecutive years, including the $430 million provided for continued development,” they wrote to Gates and Lew in a letter sent Nov. 29.

Continued Funding Urged

“Until Congress finalizes action on the budget request, the committee would expect the Department to respect the constitutional authority vested in Congress and take the action required to provide the necessary funding,” they wrote.

The signers included Representative Howard McKeon, a California Republican who will lead the House Armed Services Committee when the 112th Congress convenes in January and Republicans have a majority in the House.

Also signing were senior committee Republicans Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Todd Akin of Missouri and outgoing Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat who was defeated on Nov. 2.

The F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is being purchased by the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. Lockheed Martin Corp. is tailoring the plane to meet each service’s needs.

quote:

U.S. punts on F-35 fighter engine controversy

$725-billion compromise seeks bill's passage during lame-duck session

ASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives approved a $725-billion defence authorization bill that ducks a decision on a General Electric Co.-Rolls-Royce Group alternate engine for the F-35 fighter jet, an engine that President Barack Obama has said he would use his veto to kill if necessary.

The bill, which the House passed 341 to 48, would provide $1 billion less than Obama's request to fund the Defence Department, Iraq and Afghanistan operations, and related spending for the fiscal 2011 year that began Oct. 1.

The legislation reflects compromises designed to speed it through the House and Senate during the lame-duck session of Congress now under way. It was not immediately clear when the Senate might vote on its version.

The legislation leaves a decision on whether to fund the interchangeable engine to the appropriations committees.

It also takes no position on a revamped U.S. Navy request to buy 20 coastal combat ships, half from Lockheed Martin Corp. and half from Australia's Austal Ltd., instead of buying 10 ships from just one bidder.

It neither authorizes nor restricts funding for the GE-Rolls-Royce engine. Likewise, it does not specifically spell out the number of Lockheed F-35 aircraft to be bought.

United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit builds the engine being used in early F-35 production. Without the alternate engine, it would have a decades-long monopoly on the projected $100-billion market for the more than 3,000 F-35s due to be bought by the United States and partner countries.

The radar-evading, single-engine F-35 is the Pentagon's priciest arms purchase, at up to $382 billion over the next two decades. Eight co-development partners have helped fund the program - Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Israel in October ordered a squadron, and South Korea, Japan and Singapore have shown interest.

The House in May adopted another version of the fiscal 2011 defence spending bill that included $485 million to keep the alternate engine alive, defying Obama's veto threat. The Defence Department has sought to end the second engine program each year for the past five years as a belt-tightening measure.

Obama, in a statement after the House voted May 28, said of the alternate engine and of any funding for more Boeing Co C-17 cargo planes: "Our military does not want or need these programs being pushed by the Congress, and should Congress ignore this fact, I will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions."

The outgoing chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees questioned whether Obama would use his veto over the matter.

Representative Howard McKeon, a California Republican due to take over as House Armed Services Committee chairman after the new Congress is sworn in Jan. 5, said Wednesday he backs the competitive engine on the assumption it would bring down prices over the long term and make any F-35 fleet-wide grounding less likely.

Amid concerns over delays and cost overruns in the F-35 program, the House bill requires the Defence Department to establish a plan tying specified F-35 production to milestones, including in design, manufacturing, testing and fielding.

The Pentagon released a per-aircraft breakdown Thursday of its fourth low-rate production deal showing progress toward driving down the costs of the three F-35 models being built for the air force, navy and Marine Corps.

Jennifer Whitlow, a Lockheed spokesperson, said it was critical to maintain the jet's projected buy rates to keep it affordable.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazett(...)y.html#ixzz19WUshVM7

quote:

Washington used aggressive sales pitch to sell F-35 jets: Memos

OTTAWA—Canada may have been the target of a high-pressure sales job to buy the controversial F-35 fighter by a U.S. administration known to use “forceful” diplomacy to cement a deal, leaked diplomatic cables suggest.

Memos from the U.S. State Department reveal that Washington engaged in a carefully orchestrated campaign to persuade Norway to buy the American-made fighter jet in 2008. And praising the success of that “extensive, coordinated” effort, U.S. diplomats suggested using a similar game plan to make other foreign sales.

Two years later, Canada announced it would buy 65 F-35s at a cost of $9 billion, not including the cost of maintenance, a deal that raises questions whether Ottawa faced a similar full-court press by the U.S.

The memos, distributed by WikiLeaks, date from 2008 when Norway was deciding between the F-35 or the Swedish-made Saab Gripen jet as its fighter jet of the future.

While the notes don’t mention Canada by name, they do offer an intriguing window into the world of arms sales as government worked hand-in-hand with the private sector to secure a lucrative deal.

In this case, U.S. diplomats worked closely with officials from Lockheed Martin, the jet’s manufacturer, to combat negative media coverage, woo decision makers and publicly promote the fighter.

They even weren’t above putting Norway’s relationship with Washington on the line.

“We needed to avoid any appearance of undue pressuring . . . but we couldn’t let stand the view that the choice didn’t matter for the relationship,” one diplomatic note says.

In public, the U.S. took the line that buying the F-35 would “maximize” Norway’s relationship with the U.S. “In private, we were much more forceful,” the note says.

At one point, as debate raged and public opinion appeared to turn against the F-35, U.S. diplomats in Norway warned that intervention was needed to seal the deal.

“High-level Washington advocacy on this issue is needed to help reverse this trend,” the memo said.

After winning the Norwegian deal, one memo commends Washington’s “strong and consistent engagement,” saying U.S diplomats and defence officials “played a key role in persistently lobbying without overplaying our hand.”

According to one memo, Norway’s deputy defence minister “praised” U.S. government efforts for “being nuanced, calm and non-controversial (although persistent) in promoting the F-35.”

Asked about the U.S. strategy in Norway, a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Canada chose the F-35 for its capabilities, not because of American arm-twisting.

“Minister MacKay and his colleagues made the decision to procure the F-35 joint strike fighter to meet the operational requirements of the Air Force,” Jay Paxton said Thursday.

“At no point did Minister MacKay feel pressure from our friends to the south to procure the F-35.”

After the victory in Norway, U.S. officials compiled a “lessons learned” memo offering suggestions for tactics that could be applied in future sales, including:

• The “active involvement” of the local U.S. embassy, including the ambassador.

• Coordinating the sales strategy with Lockheed Martin to best promote the fighter, including ideas to work with the media.

• Creating “opportunities” to talk up the aircraft. These included luncheons hosted by the ambassador for people of influence, such as retired military staff and think-tank experts. “This enabled our host nation advocates to actively contribute to the public dialogue,” the note says.

The notes reveal the delicate line taken by American officials as they sought to push the sale “without appearing to bully or attempt to force a decision.”

quote:

Op woensdag 29 december 2010 18:31 schreef Dagonet het volgende:
En ook de VS zelf zit te denken om hun toelegging op het programma te trekken vanwege de kosten (bijna verdubbeld sinds 2002):

[..]

http://online.wsj.com/art(...)023621887891598.html

quote:

Op woensdag 29 december 2010 21:34 schreef Dagonet het volgende:
Het zijn artikelen van 16 december of recenter. Laatste post in dit topic is 14 december. En nee, ik ga niet tussen rukkende militairtjes met hun vliegtuigporno op zoek naar iets inhoudelijks.

quote:

Op woensdag 29 december 2010 21:47 schreef Dagonet het volgende:
Ik wilde helemaal niet in dit topic posten, ik heb een apart topic aangemaakt. Maar ja, de mensen hier hebben niet door dat centralisatie al jaren geleden is afgeschaft en dat het niet nodig is te zoeken naar reeds lopende topics om je daarin te vervoegen. Nieuwe topics openen is altijd toegestaan. Ook een topic in een ander forum is geen reden om een topic niet te openen.

Maar nee, het moest en zou in dit topic. Prima, dan dump ik het ook hier in dit topic.

Het is alleen wellicht handiger als de users van dit forum zich ook zouden verdiepen in hoe het er op FOK! aan toe gaat.

quote:

Op woensdag 29 december 2010 22:06 schreef Dagonet het volgende:
Omdat ik merkte dat er in DEF nog niets over stond. Daarom.
En als het je irriteert dan lees je er maar omheen. Sim-pel.