Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 4814 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.
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.
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".
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 4805 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.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 4779 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 ?
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 4748 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.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3536 posts, RR: 28 Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 4734 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!
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 4706 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
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 4706 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!)
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months ago) and read 4600 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...
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4534 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.
Lurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4473 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!
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4255 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.
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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4186 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3536 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
