Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Britain In Battle With US Over Fighter Plane  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

The Europe - JSF is no longer a given IMO. Irritations all over the EC because of a perceived US "you just buy it" approach.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/jsf-lockmart-chart2.jpg

BRITAIN is threatening to pull out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a co-operative combat-aircraft project with America that is one of the largest military programmes in the world.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-1902806,00.html

Pentagon to Kill Alternate JSF Engine. The Pentagon is poised to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter's alternate engine program, which is being developed by a team led by General Electric and Rolls-Royce, according to a Pentagon official familiar with internal budget documents.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83297,00.html


Britain is threatening to withdraw after rows over the Pentagon’s reluctance to agree to the transfer of technology, and because of likely increases in the price of each plane.

The “Plan B” being worked on is a version of the Eurofighter Typhoon adapted for the navy.


Maybe better talk to Dassault, they are said to have an alternative "from the shelve".

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5899 times:

Plan B is actually plan C, the real plan B is to purchase Rafale M.

Old news, this has been going on for some months now.

The Brits are complaining mainly about the massive bureaucracy caused by US export control laws which means that basically every scrap of paper has to be reviewed by several comissions in Washington which sometimes takes months.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5873 times:

Yes, I´ve never understood why the UK Air Force needs the JSF, they´re getting the Eurofighter.

The Navy is another story, this will be interesting.To my knowledge, the EF is too heavy for carrier operations. Yet, I can´t see them buying the Rafale. Another decade of service for the Harrier ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5871 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Yes, I´ve never understood why the UK Air Force needs the JSF, they´re getting the Eurofighter.

The Eurofighter is an air to air fighter. The JSF is has more of an attack role.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3946 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Maybe better talk to Dassault, they are said to have an alternative "from the shelve".

I would love to see that. One can only dream...  crossfingers 



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5842 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Yes, I´ve never understood why the UK Air Force needs the JSF, they´re getting the Eurofighter.

HiLo mix, pretty much like F-16 and F-15 in the current US inventory, or F-22/JSF in the once-planned future US inventory (which now seems more likely to still be F-15/F-16 as both F-22 and JSF are cut back to numbers that won't even be enough to make good attrition losses of the F-15 and F-16 fleets.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3946 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

I always thought the UK wanted the JSF simply as a Harrier replacement. You basically needed a V/STOL to take-odd from the current generation of aircraft carriers.

As it turned out the Royal Navy went with proper carriers for the next generation, sort of negating the need for the JSF.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The Eurofighter is an air to air fighter. The JSF is has more of an attack role.

A "proper" Eurofighter (something they will have to invest) will be a multirole fighter.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 6):
As it turned out the Royal Navy went with proper carriers for the next generation, sort of negating the need for the JSF.

Que? No, they wanted the ability to operate CTOL aircraft, such as E-2s. This also allows them to operate the F-35C, which was specifically mentioned as a consideration.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Typhoon will be multi role, saying it's only air to air is an old misconception.
I even remember an article in Flight from 1987(!), with service chiefs discussing the then Eurofighter's RAF role.
They made it clear that after replacing F-4s in Germany (the Cold War was still on at the time), Eurofighter would next replace the Jaguar's used for the Allied Mobile Force rapid reaction squadrons, in the air to ground role.

Tranche 2 aircraft will have air to ground, but it looks like even the Tranche 1's will have at least a targeting/designator pod intergrated.

CVF's were officially designed to be easily convertible to CTOL, (and sized as such), for 'future proofing' over a 50 year lifespan.
Really it was more about having a fallback if F-35B gets axed.

Myself, I think a UK spec Rafale M would suffice for the RN (60 or so airframes?), if we are forced out of JSF, (with a few billion £, BAE production line technology, as well as RR lift fan/VSTOL know how pissed away, there would be a political storm).
Rafale will carry some common weapons, (Meteor BVRAAM, Scalp/Storm Shadow stealthy cruise missile), as well as being carrier proven.

Adopting Typhoon would be an expensive farce, the history of adapting land based types for carriers is not a happy one.

In a previous post on this subject, I mentioned the Skybolt crisis in 1962, this JSF issue also has resonance with the Manhattan Project.
(A large number a UK scientists, many eminent in their field, worked on Manhattan with the understanding the UK would have full access to the technology, once the war was over, guess what? The UK was shut out.
This is why the UK bomb programme was started.
Leslie Groves reckoned UK scientists had contributed little, then he tried to keep them in the US, working on post Manhattan developments, so useless were they!)


User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5694 times:

Lockheed got British Ar$ehòle on board because of the decades of experience with the Harrier (i.e., VSTOL). BAES joined up to get the stealth technology (and a huge amount of cash from the MoD). Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that the US refuses to let any 'interesting' information get into the hands of anyone who is not a US citizen.

The Royal Navy (especially) and the RAF need the JSF to replace the Harrier. Unfortunately, due to weight gains, the JSF is right on the limit for taking off from the CVF (the future Royal Navy carriers). So, unless the US opens up with the technology transfer and reduces the overall aircraft weight, the only thing keeping the British in the programme is politics (which has never, ever influenced a military equipment procurement programme... right?).

The Typhoon was designed as a fighter. It then had the air-to-surface capability added. The amount of work required to turn it into a carrier-based aircraft is immense and would render it completely ineffective in its primary roles.

As both a taxpayer and an aircraft designer/enthusiast, I honestly hope that the US lightens up on its security/export rules and turns the JSF programme into a truly international effort. The UK (not to mention the Netherlands, Italy, Australia and all the other partners) needs the JSF and to jeopardise the programme also jeopardises the US's interests.

Lastly, I regret to say that the French also seem to apply the same logic as the Americans when it comes to technology transfer. Some of the stuff that is being developed by the French is truly incredible and deserves an international market. However, the only programme that seems to be achieving the international flavour (in terms of workshare and technology transfer) is the Neuron UCAV programme, which promises to be both a seriously potent force in the coming years and a viable competitor to the UK's FOAS programme.

In summary, I want to see the Typhoon and JSF in service very shortly, to be augmented and then replaced by FOAS and Neuron (and their successors) in the medium/long term.



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5676 times:

The BBC have an article on it here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4546742.stm


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5628 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
Que? No, they wanted the ability to operate CTOL aircraft, such as E-2s. This also allows them to operate the F-35C, which was specifically mentioned as a consideration.

yes, they WANTED that. It was however budgeted away.
Now it looks like they're retargeting again to make those never-yet-built carriers CTOL capable again.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5567 times:

The New Carriers may be a Year late But with Magg Lev catapults who needs Steam!

If they Do go for a Non Hovering Fighter and it turns out to be the Rafael it will put the US Defence Contractors Noses way out of Joint as our Carriers will be Brand new and will be real Carriers.

I can SE our old Carriers going to several Interested Parties Such as Australia and India who need to replace the Hermes/Vikrant fairly soon!


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

Norway Goes Wobbly on JSF

Lockheed Wants Partners’ Production Commitments in 2006

By GERARD O’DWYER, HELSINKI

Norway, which once expected to buy Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to replace its Air Force’s aging F-16s, is now looking at other options, particularly the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The country, which is contributing $15 million a year to the U.S.-led effort to develop the JSF, provisionally earmarked $8 billion to buy several dozen aircraft. But the new Labor-led government elected in October is reopening the debate.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1372822&C=airwar

I have the feeling the JSF program is not running smoothly. There are delays and cost rises. Many countries have to decide in 2006. Dissatisfaction is made public by European countries. Dassault, Eurofighter & Saab smell new opportunities.


User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5310 times:

Meanwhile, the first production aircraft is progressing:

(Large version here.)



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5280 times:

It would be absurd if the project was adversely affected not due to technical issues, or ultimately budget issues, but by Washington bureaucracy

It's galling really.
When you consider that the UK was doing stealth research (in the form of materials to absorb radar), back in the 50's and 60's, for highly classified use on V-Bombers, less classified years later as a rush fit on all RAF combat aircraft going to the Gulf in 1990/91.
Back when it was new, the work was shared with the US.

Several RAF exchange pilots flew the F-117, before it was revealed in 1988.
Also before then, they were thought to have been deployed and night operated at times from RAF Binbrook, (then a BAC Lightning base, not a US base in the UK, a full blown RAF base).

In the 1970's, the UK only 'Chevaline' warhead/RV/decoy upgrade for the RN's Polaris A3's, was not only kept totally secret from all but the teams working on it and some, but not all, Cabinet Ministers, until it was about to enter service after 8 years work, but it was shared with the US in case they wanted to upgrade their Polaris instead by buying more Tridents.
They chose not to, but the option was there.

Not quite a two way street is it?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Britain In Battle With US Over Fighter Plane
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Military Cargo Plane Crashes In Korea, Kills 2 posted Tue Aug 12 2003 12:29:16 by Hoons90
Reuters: New US F-35 Fighter Dubbed "Lightning II" posted Fri Jul 7 2006 21:02:21 by N328KF
Usaf Merge With US Army? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 21:37:08 by SCEagle
Help With A US Military Reg. posted Thu Sep 29 2005 16:47:21 by SmAlbany
German F-4-Fs With US Markings posted Sun May 22 2005 17:18:27 by PADSpot
Boeing Says In Talks With UAE On 767 Tankers Sale posted Tue Feb 15 2005 10:01:00 by Keesje
Rumsfeld In Munich With Heavy Gear posted Sun Feb 13 2005 22:33:17 by PADSpot
Lockheed Wins With US 101 Presidential Chopper posted Fri Jan 28 2005 23:11:34 by Columba
Fighter With Shortest Time In Service posted Wed Jul 26 2006 21:57:35 by MissedApproach
US Military Plane Down In Japan posted Tue Jan 17 2006 04:10:53 by AR1300

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format