Quantcast
F-35 Lightning II Discussion - Page 27 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 27 of 43 FirstFirst ... 17 26 27 28 37 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 856

Thread: F-35 Lightning II Discussion

  1. #521
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by m10-power


    As a member nation of NATO the average Canadian will enjoy freedom from aggressors. This comes with some requirements to be able to train and enter combat along side other members, this means we need to have equipment that is up to date. It also means we need a military so that when they are asked to do their job they can do so knowing they have the best equipment.

    But the average Canadian is too ignorant to understand beyond what politically motivated media feeds them. Which is also why the average Canadian should not be concerned with how the military uses the funds and what they buy. You think they don't know what they need and more importantly the real information of these purchasers.
    So when Canada goes to war for the NATO cause (i.e. Albania gets attacked and we must intervene), can we expect our flanks to be covered by the same standard of equipment as our own? Will Albania and Bulgaria and Estonia have the same commitment to stealth air support to keep our soldiers on the ground protected?

    NATO is obsolete. A relic of a different time of global politics. There is a pretty giant line between being an isolationist country and being tied in to protect the same countries you created the alliance to defend against in the first place. Having 'a seat at the table' loses it's meaning when they'll let pretty much anybody sit there. Several of the countries recently added to NATO have no fighter aircraft whatsoever and maybe only one of them are looking to rectify that (with some Gripens, how will they ever fulfill their NATO commitments?).

  2. #522
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    You Crazy
    Posts
    2,008
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by m10-power


    Is this you talking to yourself in a mirror?

    Ask yourself if you would even exist today if the USA and Canada didn't get 'involved' 70 some odd years ago. Maybe if they had just minded their own business the world would have been a better place for all...
    vague and untestable 'what if' games and scenarios. Hey what if England Spain and France minded their own business and weren't imperialistic pigs? Wouldn't that have completely avoided ww1 AND ww2? Intervention....especially narrow sided causes more problems than it solves.

  3. #523
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    well...now that we're way off topic...I'm surprised Toma hasn't raced to post this, since he was so eager to post about the grounding...

    All 51 F-35's cleared to resume flight, engine crack deemed to be an "Isolated Incident"

    http://www.f-16.net/news_article4705.html

    Also worth noting that the crack occurred on AF-02, which is the second oldest of the F-35's in flight.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  4. #524
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    Nissan x2
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Originally posted by Go4Long
    well...now that we're way off topic...I'm surprised Toma hasn't raced to post this, since he was so eager to post about the grounding...
    When you have your head so far up your own ass, it's hard to see the outside world.

  5. #525
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    Nissan x2
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Interesting....

    http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

    Cancel the Hornet, too many problems!

  6. #526
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’

    The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s expensive main warplane of the future, has a huge blind spot directly behind it. Pilots say that could get them shot down in close-quarters combat, where the flier with the better visibility has the killing advantage.

    “Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future,” the Pentagon acknowledged in a report (.pdf) obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C. watchdog group.

    That admission should not come as a surprise to observers of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Critics of the delayed, over-budget F-35 — which is built in three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — have been trying for years to draw attention to the plane’s blind spot, only to be dismissed by the government and Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter’s primary builder.


    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013...35-blind-spot/

  7. #527
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    As stated in the article, the future integrated helmet mounted displayill allow the pilot a 360 degree view. He will be able to see right through the floor.

  8. #528
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    Nissan x2
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Originally posted by kertejud2

    [i]The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s expensive main warplane of the future, has a huge blind spot directly behind it. Pilots say that could get them shot down in close-quarters combat, where the flier with the better visibility has the killing advantage
    If the guy is already on your six you deserve to get gunned.

  9. #529
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    411
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Just because there is a "blind spot" in any particular aircraft doesn't preclude the pilot's situational awareness from overcoming this. With all the wizzbang HMS and other sensor technologies in the F35 - wasn't this what those systems were supposed to help achieve....better SA and survivability?

    Take a look at the F105. The largest single engine fighter ever built. It was built as a high speed low level bomber, with the primary mission of dropping parachute retarded nuclear bombs. The pilots during Vietnam had a completely different mission put on them, including the occasional air to air engagement. Even with reward visibility infinitely worse than the F35, F105 pilots still scored a2a victories, even gun kills, after being bounced/ambushed by fighters with more altitude, energy, etc.

    The F35 isn't built primarily as a fighter/interceptor anyway, it's primary role isn't to shoot down enemy aircraft, although it does have a good self defense capability. As I posted earlier, a combat loaded F35 has the ability to make higher G turns, with a better initial and sustained turn rate than the F16 combat loaded. Every pilot who has flown the F35 also has stated categorically that it is the plane he would rather fly into battle. They don't seem too concerned about some concocted disadvantage from the visibility to the rear quarters.

  10. #530
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  11. #531
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Reviving the thread with good news. Cost estimates now falling at the conclusion of 7'000 flight hours.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...estimates.html

    F-35 Support Costs Fall 22%, Pentagon Manager Estimates

    A fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighters will cost $857 billion over 55 years to operate and support, 22 percent less than previously estimated, according to the head of the Pentagon office developing the plane.
    The new estimate reflects the aircraft’s performance in 5,000 test flights over 7,000 hours, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.
    “The previous cost estimate did not factor in this new knowledge,” Bogdan said.
    Operating costs include expenses from spare parts to repairs and fuel. Officially, the Pentagon’s estimate remains $1.1 trillion, a two-year-old projection developed by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office.
    The F-35 is the Pentagon’s costliest weapon system, with an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion for a fleet of 2,443 aircraft, up 68 percent from the projection in 2001, as measured in current dollars.
    The rising costs and troubles in building the plane even as it’s being developed have led to criticism in Congress. This year, lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon test office have said the aircraft is making progress in flight tests and in stabilizing production.
    The reduced estimate for operating the planes was among such indications cited by Bogdan in his letter to the lawmakers.
    ‘Significant Effort’
    “Significant effort remains to continue to find cost efficiencies and reduce this number even further” and “I expect these cost estimates to continue to go down over the next several years as the program matures,” Bogdan said.
    Jennifer Elzea, a spokeswoman for the cost-assessment office that compiled the earlier $1.1 trillion estimate, said in an e-mail that she couldn’t comment on Bogdan’s reduced projection.
    The Pentagon moved to shelter the F-35 from the initial impact this year of the budget cuts known as sequestration, locking in several contracts before the reductions took effect. Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s chief weapons buyer, has said he would do his best to protect the plane built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed from the effects of $52 billion of sequestration cuts set for fiscal 2014.
    Under further cuts, Bogdan said in his answers to lawmakers, “there is a significant risk of not being able to deliver” the fully capable version of software the aircraft needs to meet its warfighting potential.
    Budget Cuts
    Sequestration also would mean “a reduction in the number of aircraft” that can be purchased, he said. The Pentagon wants to buy 29 next year.
    Bogdan estimated that basic production costs, including engines, for the three variations of the aircraft will fall as much as $35 million per plane by fiscal 2018, when full-rate production is scheduled to begin.
    If current trends hold and production rates increase, Bogdan said, the Marine Corps version will fall to $110 million a plane from $153 million under the fifth production contract signed in December.
    The Navy’s version will drop to $100 million from $140 million and the Air Force’s to $85 million from $120 million, he said.
    Bogdan also acknowledged what the Pentagon rarely says publicly -- that the F-35 is being developed partly in response to China’s military modernization and its emphasis on weapons and tactics intended to keep U.S. vessels and aircraft away from its territorial waters should war with Taiwan break out. This is known in Pentagon jargon as an “anti-access/area denial” strategy.
    Asked by lawmakers what threat is driving procurement of the F-35, Bogdan cited “emerging threats” that “are presently being fielded in China and other nations.”
    To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at [email protected]
    To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at [email protected]
    Last edited by Go4Long; 09-04-2013 at 12:46 AM.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  12. #532
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Some humerous observations about the CAPE numbers (the numbers that were used to Generate the $40b estimate used by the liberals) including the estimation that the B model would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode approximately 80% of it's flight hours...

    http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/2...ower-than-osd/
    Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD

    PENTAGON: By combing through the assumptions — some of them deeply questionable — undergirding the Defense Department’s official cost estimates for the F-35B and refining them, the Marines say the plane should cost 16.6 percent less per flight hour than the current estimate. Since the F-35B is the most expensive plane to operate, lowering these cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter’s Marine version would have a substantial impact on the program’s overall costs.

    “We believe we are going to achieve much greater savings than we are currently being credited for,” Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy commandant for aviation, told me in an interview here.

    Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.

    Anyone who has watched the Harrier or the F-35B knows that Marines pilots rely sparingly on STOVL mode. It’s only used for a limited set of tactical moves and, usually, for taking off or landing the aircraft. The great majority of the plane’s flight time — could it be as much as 80 percent? — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL.

    The current CAPE estimate assumes $41,000 an hour for the F-35B. a senior defense official said they will eventually bring the costs down to $30,000 per hour, with an interim figure of about $37,000. Schmidle also notes that the F-35B’s cost figures were extrapolated from the costs of the much older AV-8B Harrier.

    Overall, once the F-35 replaces the three Marine aircraft — F-18, EA-6B, Harrier — it is designed to supplant the Marines will save an estimated $520 million a year in operations and maintenance costs in 2012 dollars, Schmidle says.

    We understand Frank Kendall, undersecretary for aquisition, technology and logistics, and Sean Stackley, head of Navy procurement, have both been briefed on the new Marines estimates.

    Why are the Marines so focused on these costs? “Probably the biggest threat to the airplane is the sustainment costs,” Schmidle told me.

    In addition to the Marines lower cost estimates, the F-35 program office has lowered the program’s $1.1 trillion estimated costs over a half century to $857 billion, about 22 percent lower than the previous estimates. My colleague Tony Capaccio got ahold of the new information in written answers sent last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the Joint Program Office building the F-35, told the SASC that the new information is derived from new data gathered from 7,000 hours of actual flight.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  13. #533
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    https://vimeo.com/73152376

    A video of F-35's hot refueling.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  14. #534
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    My Ride
    S54 M Coupe
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Why does anybody want these airplanes again?

    I see this whole program going the way of the Comanche. Spend the trillion dollars on something that might actually benefit Americans.

  15. #535
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
    Why does anybody want these airplanes again?

    I see this whole program going the way of the Comanche. Spend the trillion dollars on something that might actually benefit Americans.
    not sure if serious...but...

    Nations around the world are in the same boat as we are...hell, there's still countries flying F-4's and Mig 21's (both of which were introduced in the 50's). There's also still a half dozen airforces (including syria funny enough) flying mig 15's which entered service in 1948.

    These fighters are just not able to be flown any more due to numerous reasons, it's the law of diminishing returns, you keep sinking money in to them to avoid replacing them, but eventually the money you're spending to keep them flying is more than it would cost to just be flying newer hardware. Everyone that's still flying legacy hornets will tell you the same thing that the canadian military is currently telling their bosses upstairs, we're reaching the point with the F-18's where it's not cost effective to keep coming up with stop gaps to keep them flying...

    That being said...the F-35 is the best fighter available, and despite what some media outlets would have you believe, is actually going to be comparable from a cost perspective to all of the other options available for a far superior product that we will be able to fly for the next 30 years before it becomes obsolete.

    It's state of the art technology, and anyone that has ever followed a fighter program coming in to production will tell you that there have been issues. The problem with the F-35 program was that they thought that a computer simulation would be able to prevent them from having any issues, and used that as a rationale to go in to low rate production of the F-35 before the flight test phase was ever completed...so now, rather than having a test plane that you make modifications on over and over until you get it right and then enter production. They had 20 of them in various stages of production when they started to discover minor problems...they go out and fix the problem, but because there's 20 of them it takes longer to fix the problem because they're fixing it on more aircrafts, then the media gets a hold of it and it's the end of the world.

    Something to keep in mind, this is the most involved the public has EVER been in a fighter jet's production process. Before this if there was an issue with a test plane we would never know.
    Last edited by Go4Long; 09-04-2013 at 03:13 AM.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  16. #536
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    CLK 55 / 2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Whats really depressing is that the F-35 (classified) software code has been already acquired by the Chinese, and then sold to who knows else.

    Also, new radar capabilities will render stealth coatings and designs obsolete within 5-10 years. Which means all the $$$ and effort to minimize the radar signature will become moot.

  17. #537
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    My Ride
    S54 M Coupe
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Originally posted by Go4Long


    not sure if serious...but...

    Nations around the world are in the same boat as we are...hell, there's still countries flying F-4's and Mig 21's (both of which were introduced in the 50's). There's also still a half dozen airforces (including syria funny enough) flying mig 15's which entered service in 1948.

    These fighters are just not able to be flown any more due to numerous reasons, it's the law of diminishing returns, you keep sinking money in to them to avoid replacing them, but eventually the money you're spending to keep them flying is more than it would cost to just be flying newer hardware. Everyone that's still flying legacy hornets will tell you the same thing that the canadian military is currently telling their bosses upstairs, we're reaching the point with the F-18's where it's not cost effective to keep coming up with stop gaps to keep them flying...

    That being said...the F-35 is the best fighter available, and despite what some media outlets would have you believe, is actually going to be comparable from a cost perspective to all of the other options available for a far superior product that we will be able to fly for the next 30 years before it becomes obsolete.

    It's state of the art technology, and anyone that has ever followed a fighter program coming in to production will tell you that there have been issues. The problem with the F-35 program was that they thought that a computer simulation would be able to prevent them from having any issues, and used that as a rationale to go in to low rate production of the F-35 before the flight test phase was ever completed...so now, rather than having a test plane that you make modifications on over and over until you get it right and then enter production. They had 20 of them in various stages of production when they started to discover minor problems...they go out and fix the problem, but because there's 20 of them it takes longer to fix the problem because they're fixing it on more aircrafts, then the media gets a hold of it and it's the end of the world.

    Something to keep in mind, this is the most involved the public has EVER been in a fighter jet's production process. Before this if there was an issue with a test plane we would never know.
    All that very well might be true, but what I see here with the F-35 is a nice looking airplane that is going to be too expensive to FIGHT with. Or not capable enough. Or whatever.

    There's a reason why the USAF has upgraded all their A-10s to the A-10C variant, and why F-16s are getting Block 60 updates. These aircraft are cheap enough, reliable, don't need special hangars, etc.

    I'm glad Canada has stepped back from this program and is going to evaluate what it ACTUALLY needs out of a fighter aircraft. Can you imagine trying to stage F-35s out of Yellowknife for Arctic defense? The USAF had to build special hangars for their F-22s in Alaska; there's no way the RCAF can afford to do that.

    Age has nothing to do with capabilities. The USAF is still flying aircraft that first flew in 1952! And guess what, it's the most capable bomber they have! The B-1B and B-2 can't even drop laser guided bombs. They have ZERO precision strike capability (since JDAM isn't considered a precision weapon). They still fly U-2s (or whatever they're calling them now.. TR-1s?) because the aircraft is still capable.

    Do our CF-18s need replacement? You bet. Is the F-35 the jet to do it, especially in Canada? I doubt it. I'll be shocked to ever see one in RCAF colours.

  18. #538
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 Ram 1500
    Posts
    4,980
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    I wouldn't be to shocked to see them in RCAF colors...in fact I would still lay money on it.

    Yes, the C-130, the B-52, and the KC-135, all entered service in the 50's, and I've seen aircraft show up at some of the airshows that had frame dates from in the 50's that were still flying, including a B-52 with some very recent battle markings on it that had a 1956 frame date.

    The difference between all the aircraft that entered service in the 50's that are still flying in active combat roles and the F-18? if I have to spell it out I don't think you should post in this thread anymore. How do you think a B-52 would fare in a 5g sustained turn?

    It's like comparing an F-1 car to your family sedan and saying there's no reason they shouldn't keep driving the F-1 car for 10 years because that's how long you drove your saturn for.
    Last edited by Go4Long; 09-04-2013 at 01:21 PM.
    Originally posted by HeavyD
    you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.

  19. #539
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    411
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    I'm still on the fence about it. I respect Jutes or whoever it was that is a tech in the RCAF, and also friends of mine who are 2000 hr CF18 pilots, and feel we should trust their judgement.

    I also think a lot of the negative hype about the F35 is just that, as every pilot who has flown it has had nothing but good things to say about it and the capabilities so far. We need to remember that comparing it to a block 50/52 F16, the F35 carries over 3 times more internal fuel, and combat loaded easily outperforms the F16, with the ability to pull sustained 5 G turns with 2 2000lb bombs and 2 medium range missiles. F16's with a similar loadout are limited to 4 g's, and have MUCH less range, and of course, no stealth or new wizzbang electro optic targeting sensors and the like.

    My biggest gripe is the price, and the resulting small number Canada is buying. 65 planes when you consider at least a dozen will be needed for the training squadron 410 or whatever it'll be called - that's a major reduction in training airframes as well from now, and still will only leave enough for 27 at each of our bases. When you factor in maintenance down time and all that, I'm sure the tech guy could be more specific, that means probably only 40 total available at any given time. In time of a major conflict, that isn't too many. Hell, 144 CF 18's was a small buy compared to what the CF wanted, but were forced into a lower number due to politics at the time. That's 2.5 times the number of F35's we plan on replacing the entire CF188 fleet with. I realize capability wise the F35 is much better, but it's still going to come down to sortie rate in future wars, and with less planes, this number plummets.

    One thing I think Canada should be looking at is with our plans to build 20 new common combat ships, half frigs and half destroyers, we should look at building one assault ship, or even just leasing/buying one of the newer designs from the USA, and buying at least a dozen, or a short squadron, of F35B's. This would give us the ability to actually PATROL our North and have the ability to project a little bit of force here and there.

    The Commanche is a perfect example of what is wrong with the procurement process in the USA. Spend 7 billion in research and development, and then cancel everything when another 5 billion would have purchased the entire fleet of helo's with the programmed maint program for 5 years. The big problem was other technology, ie drones, overtaking the primary mission of the Comanche. Unmanned, cheaper, stealthier, and weaponized drones literally stole the mission that the RAH66 was built for - armed stealthy forward recon. It's a shame, it was such a great little helo, not without problems, but it was cool, and with the decent gun/ammo loadout, and 6 Hellfires and 2 Stingers, it had a decent ability to put a dent in enemy recon and forward deployed armor/afv units on its own. I think when the AH64's fared so poorly in earlier conflicts between Desert Storm 1 and the Iraq war really put the nail in the coffin. During the Balkans the Apache's didn't perform nearly up to expectations, and I think Army planners thought that the Comanche wouldn't have fared much better, being less armored and having less power. It's a good read, a lot of the online stuff about it however.
    Last edited by Gman.45; 09-04-2013 at 04:16 PM.

  20. #540
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    My Ride
    S54 M Coupe
    Posts
    1,815
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    I don't think a brand new B-52 would sustain a 5g turn, so that's not the argument here.

    I'm asking you why we're blowing our money (and time) on an unproven, Prima Donna, weapons system when there are aircraft out there (Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen) that are already in service, meet or exceed the F-35's capabilities, but are being dismissed as "non-survivable" because they're not stealthy. How many Rafales and Typhoons did the French and the RAF lose over Libya? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

    I'm just saying we should buy something that WORKS.

Page 27 of 43 FirstFirst ... 17 26 27 28 37 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. EGT discussion

    By Hollywood in forum Mechanical
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 04-01-2003, 11:44 PM
  2. MX-3 Discussion

    By shay in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 52
    Latest Threads: 02-15-2003, 12:24 AM
  3. VTEC discussion (from iVTEC sticker thread)

    By THREE40SEVEN in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 25
    Latest Threads: 02-04-2003, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •