Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Issues Ultimatum Over JSF  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

The Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Drayson has publically stated that if the US does not change its stance toward the UK with regard to technology in the JSF, specifically in this case the computer management software that runs the fighters, then the UK will not be able to purchase the fighters.

Drayson is currently in Washington to discuss the JSF program, and has also revealed the much rumoured fact that the UK does have a Plan B if the JSF purchase was to be scrapped.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152035/joint-strike-fighter

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6074 times:

Update -

Australia has issued pretty much the same ultimatum, in that if the US doesnt share the technology, they may pull out of the project.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...rets/2006/03/15/1142098529632.html

I guess the Aussies are a bit peeved that the JSF has just had its low observability status downgraded.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...ters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html

[Edited 2006-03-16 10:25:38]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

I guess that means the JSF deal with two of our most important allies is ours to loose?

User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6023 times:

"Plan B" does mean french Rafale for the RN ? Holy cow !  Smile

User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6003 times:

Well its Rafale or nothing really.

We wont be buying the Rhino anytime soon, and the Navalisation of the Typhoon will be extremely expensive and require adaptation, as the cockpit does not have the required forward view for Carrier ops.

Rafale is cheaper, and as capable as either as a Naval Strike Fighter IMHO. Fantastic piece of kit. Sexy too.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5967 times:

What did everyone ever expect, that the US would just give away the tech they spent BILLIONS on during ther F-22 program? To me, this entire multinational approach to R&D was a failure waiting to bust - you always get what you pay for and if your not willing to pay for it than don't expect it to happen.

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12595 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5912 times:

Didn't the RAF have a similar problem with the last Chinooks they bought? They bought the aircraft and because the US won't hand over the computer software to operate them, they're grounded. I don't know if it's that they won't operate or they can't, but they're not being used and that's quite a lot of kit to have lying around; you can also understand why they wouldn't want a repeat of that.

As for your comment, AirRyan, fair enough, but at the end of the day, the money for these acquisitions is coming out of UK (and Australian) taxpayers' money and Her Britannic Majesty's govt has a duty to ensure that what it buys is usable; 150 aircraft is a huge outlay and you really don't want to spend that amount without making sure the aircraft can be used.

I understand it comes down to independence of operation. What if, in 20 years time, the UK feels that it needs to engage in a military conflict with which the US disagrees; the US can then shut the aircraft down and deny use to the UK, which bought them.

It should also be said that if the UK and Australia pull out, it increases the unit costs for the US aircraft as well.

Finally, it occurs to me that since France is building the three aircraft carriers (two for the UK and one for France) and its own one will obviously be kitted out for the Rafale, it would make sense for the two UK ones to be similarly configured?

Finally, finally, what's a Rhino?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5905 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
I understand it comes down to independence of operation. What if, in 20 years time, the UK feels that it needs to engage in a military conflict with which the US disagrees; the US can then shut the aircraft down and deny use to the UK, which bought them.

How so? The UK would still be able to use their JSFs, they just wouldn't have the ability to modify them for other weapons or avionics. At least, not cheaply.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):

Finally, finally, what's a Rhino?

F-18E/F, a name used to distinguish the plane from earlier Hornets (dubbed "Bugs".)


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

AirRyan, as mentioned before, JSF was NOT a one way street.
Lift engines, production line technology just to name two.
LM are not the problem, those who doubtless also made idiots of themselves on Capitol Hill with that whole ports saga, are.

The UK has sunk several billion £ into JSF, think the US would allow advanced production line technology to go on to a foreign programme?
But, the UK is partly to blame.

Not learning lessons.
The US broke promises over Manhatten Project, despite the large UK scientific contribution, only in the late 50's after the UK demonstated that the US had failed to prevent the UK developing comparable technology, did they suddenly remember their wartime pledges.

They attempted the same with the jet engine technology-where in WW2 the US was way behind.

The US was happy to take on board radar absorbing material technology from the UK in the late 50's/early 60's.
Think the reverse would have happened?

In the early 1980's, a deal was singned on AAM's, Europe would take AIM-120's, while the US would adopt the AIM-132 IR AAM, a Sidewinder replacement at last, guess who reneged there?
Small wonder many European nations are on the more advanced Meteor BVRAAM, who would trust supply or tech transfer on more advanced future AIM-120's.

The loss of the VSTOL technology/capability, once Harrier retired, would be regrettable, however if a suitable tech transfer/work package with Rafale can be worked out, maybe it's time to stop fooling ourseleves.

The US really only has one ally-Israel.
They might well want to buy F-35s in time, like the UK, they would want a lot of home grown equipment fitted.

I doubt Capitol Hill would object, despite Israel having been caught conducting spying against the US more than once, despite having aided Chinese weapon programmes (deafening silence on that from the US when very, very modest Chinese links were mooted by EADS), having supplied rogue states like Apartied South Africa-possibly to the level of nuclear weaponary even.

Unfortunate for the good folks at LM and others, those from the UK too who have worked for over 5 years on this, but you seemingly cannot do honest business with a nation who seem to have so many politicians who are only semi rational at the best of times, then totally paranoid and idiotic every two year election cycle, which enough of the populace laps up to make it worthwhile.

It would also be a severe blow to F-35, I doubt there are many other 150 (UK) and 75-100 (Australia) customers out there.
F-35C might have been a partial Tornado GR.4 replacement too, beyond the 150 F-35B models.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
What did everyone ever expect, that the US would just give away the tech they spent BILLIONS on during ther F-22 program? To me, this entire multinational approach to R&D was a failure waiting to bust - you always get what you pay for and if your not willing to pay for it than don't expect it to happen.

Both the UK and Australia have, or will, pay significant amounts of the R&D cost. I wouldn't be too supportive of F-35 tech transfer to some countries, but that's not the case with these two. They are our closest allies and it's completely inappropriate and foolish for the US Congress to impose these conditions.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5823 times:

Agree 11Bravo, I don't doubt many Americans in this industry, find all this as objectionable as the UK does.

To correct an earlier point, the UK will build 2 60,000 ton CVF carriers, though VSTOL, apparently easily to mod for cat launch.
It is a Thales/BAE project, BAE having pissed off government with screw ups elsewhere when this was decided in 2003.
Though the UK did not want a steam plant, so wait for electromagnetic catapults?
A bit risky.

Enter France, who seem not to want to build a sister to CDG, rather they are looking to adapt the CVF design, to be built in France, in a roughly similar timeframe to the UK ships, for Rafale/E-2C.
Could this be a path to getting a steam plant aboard?
Could Rafale 'RN', be a part of this?

However, I think everyone would like to see the F-35 issue sorted.
A RAF/FAA Harrier replacement, a modern 'first day of the war' aircraft, unless the US downgrades non US frames.

The UK, even from the start, wants different, non US, weapons fitted, to give just one example.

That 'Special Forces' HC.3 Chinook story, incredibly, is true.
The US wants allies to fight with them, they bitch if the equipment is not up to what they think is needed, yet denies the SAS, who these choppers would largely carry, a key capability to aid this.
They would be really handy on this new, large, UK Afghan deployment happening now. Madness.
How long does the UK want to be in this abusive relationship?

Reckon an Israeli buy of similar machines, if they wanted them, would have these problems?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5819 times:

We do expect this technology transfer to take place. But if it does not take place we will not be able to purchase these aircraft," said Lord Drayson.
They expect to work this out. The problem lies with US law and they are working on changing that law as regards allies. There was a similar problem prior to the F-16 deal with the UAE and Oman. They had problems with us releasing the source codes, and it got worked out. I really don't see us killing this deal over cutting out two of our prime allies.

They'll get this handled, or I wouldn't blame the British and Australians for buying something else.

Congress needs simply to be made to understand that a law must be written to exclude these two nations from the restrictions as long as they agree to keep it close hold and not export the technology in a way that violates US law.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5798 times:

How is the know-how shared between the Eurofighter countries, btw? Does every EF producing country have full access to the complete EF technology? I know that different parts were developed in different countries, but does every country have access to all secrets? What if a conflict occurred, could the UK use the EF without support from Germany and Italy (such a situation would not occur, but what if it did)?

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5777 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
How is the know-how shared between the Eurofighter countries, btw? Does every EF producing country have full access to the complete EF technology? I know that different parts were developed in different countries, but does every country have access to all secrets? What if a conflict occurred, could the UK use the EF without support from Germany and Italy (such a situation would not occur, but what if it did)?

I would be surprised if there wasn't plenty of tech sharing. It seems easier to me to mandate that kind of sharing when everyone is roughly the same size, and invests rather similar amounts of money and takes similar financial risks. In the case of the JSF, the US invests somewhere around 75-80% of the R&D funds, and will take a similar fraction of the planes for all planes sold to development partners. IHMO, this makes the relationship with the smaller partners difficult to handle.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
How is the know-how shared between the Eurofighter countries, btw? Does every EF producing country have full access to the complete EF technology? I know that different parts were developed in different countries, but does every country have access to all secrets? What if a conflict occurred, could the UK use the EF without support from Germany and Italy (such a situation would not occur, but what if it did)?

As far as I know, all countries have full access to technology and all countries have their own complete support system in place for the aircraft, exactly the same as the Tornado. Only in the most severe cases will an aircraft require return to a factory.

No permission is needed for each countries individual usage of the aircraft.


User currently offlineStrudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5715 times:

As I see it.....

You let us buy your nuclear deterents including delivery systems, You let our airman fly your most secret planes (B2 and F117) , we gave you our jet engines, and a whole load of other stuff, so up to now its been a two way thing.

I love the US, however this is poor friendship. Yes your tax dollas I am sure paid for the orginal stelth technology and a ROI must be expected, however we are not about to sell you down the river. This will only isolate the US, force more technology to be developed in European colaborations, and I know that scares you, not in a materialistic way but a lack of control way.

Why the US has become paranoid is beyond me, and its a real pitty as we are willing to stand and die next to you at any cost to our small nation.

Flame away, I dont care.

My 2 cents.

Struds


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5680 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
HMO, this makes the relationship with the smaller partners difficult to handle.

Very true. This is actually one reason why projects like the Tornado, Airbus or Eurofighter have been launched. In projects like the JSF, the European allies are "junior partners", which hampers the development of own technology... On the other hand, getting a share in one of the best plane in existance can have its own benefits...


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
As for your comment, AirRyan, fair enough, but at the end of the day, the money for these acquisitions is coming out of UK (and Australian) taxpayers' money and Her Britannic Majesty's govt has a duty to ensure that what it buys is usable; 150 aircraft is a huge outlay and you really don't want to spend that amount without making sure the aircraft can be used.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
I understand it comes down to independence of operation. What if, in 20 years time, the UK feels that it needs to engage in a military conflict with which the US disagrees; the US can then shut the aircraft down and deny use to the UK, which bought them.

Which is why I am steadfast against the US going into cooperation with any foreign nation, even the UK or Australia, to develop the fighter jet to replace the F-16.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
It should also be said that if the UK and Australia pull out, it increases the unit costs for the US aircraft as well.

Perhaps I'm biased here but the US just does not need the JSF right now. Late model F-16E/F's are just fine to counter the majority of the threats of out there today and for those where something more is needed, that is why the USAF just bought the F-22. For just a fraction of what it's going to cost the US alone in just R&D of the JSF, they could replace every single current F-16 with the latest and greatest tech (a la Super Hornet) and have a much better return on investment than what the JSF is going to provide.

And let's be brutally honest here - the Harrier always was and always will be nothing more than a gimmick of impracticality.

The Marines simply were never able to validate the existance of their Harrier fleet in the first place (because the planes are relatively worthless fast moving attack helos - I'm a former Marine and used to work every day with the Harriers in the field - if I needed CAS I'd rather call in a Longbow Apache than a Harrier anyday) and so the entire premise that the USMC thinks they need something to replace their Harriers with is invalid on it's premise. All the Marines need are Super Hornets operating off large deck CVN's and with the extra space provided for in the aft by the departure of the Harriers the USMC would be better off with AH-1Z's parked there.

If the Super Hornet is good enough for the USN, than why is it not good enough for the Royal Navy? Too expensive you say? It certainly cannot be any less expensive to contribute to the development of the JSF and than purchase them compared to that of what it would be just to buy the relatively low number of Super Hornets for the new carriers.

If anything, the USN is the only ones who need a replacement for their legacy Hornets and even that is debatable since they are so in love with the Super Hornet and how vastly better off they are than if they had modernized Grumman Tomcats and Intruders. What the USN really needs is an A-12 type bomb truck to replace the long-range strike capability that the USN previously enjoyed going back all the way to even before Vietnam.

So you see, the JSF is really a money pit for the defense contractors and we would all be better off waiting one more generation until we begin to plan that alledged "last manned fighter jet."


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5629 times:

If the choice ended up being between the F-22 and F-35 then I'd say go with the F-22. But the F-35 is not going to be that much more than an F-16 and they need replacement. The idea is to stay ahead of the potential enemies, not keep even with them.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5611 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
If the choice ended up being between the F-22 and F-35 then I'd say go with the F-22. But the F-35 is not going to be that much more than an F-16 and they need replacement. The idea is to stay ahead of the potential enemies, not keep even with them.

But the F-16's rolling out of Ft. Worth today (and heading to places like Israel and the UAE) are so far superior in performance to what originally was sold to the USAF that the increase in performance versus the price is just not worth it. What we need is F-22's in numbers to replace the F-15's and the last thing the USAF needs is a new place to replace the F-16 when they cannot even afford to replace all of their F-15's.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5556 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16):
Very true. This is actually one reason why projects like the Tornado, Airbus or Eurofighter have been launched. In projects like the JSF, the European allies are "junior partners", which hampers the development of own technology... On the other hand, getting a share in one of the best plane in existance can have its own benefits...

I don't see what Airbus has to do with this topic. There isn't anything incredibly sensitive about commercial aircraft, except manufacturing prowess, and Boeing certainly strong relationships with European aerospace firms like Alenia involving plenty of tech transfer.

And it isn't just technology, but workshare and jobs that led to some of the projects you mentioned. And fights over the economic benefits have caused all sorts of conflicts in the Eurofighter project, especially when some countries talk about cutting down their purchases. And don't forget France pulling out of the project to pursue the Rafale for the lack of naval capability.

Quoting Strudders (Reply 15):
Yes your tax dollas I am sure paid for the orginal stelth technology and a ROI must be expected, however we are not about to sell you down the river.

I don't think the concern is that there is high level intent to do any such thing, but rather the uncertainty of what European defense integration is going to mean for technology transfered to the UK. The hazier the boundaries become between UK forces and other European forces as well as UK defense companies and European defense companies, the more chances for technology to seap out.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5397 times:

AirRyan, that 'gimmick' we found rather important, and more impressive than expected, in a certain war in 1982.
Your own former service seems to have put the Harrier to very good use in the 1991 Gulf War, seen the sortie rate stats for CAS?
Your own former service had to fight some really bone headed NIH to get them in the first place.

Maybe it's me, but my understanding of the USMC mission, could mean in some circumstances having to fight without nice, long, paved runways, maybe at great distance from CVNs.
A rapid deployed, highly mobile, versatile force after all, is the reason for the USMC's allowed independence.

I don't see how in the absence of a VSTOL capability, the USMC can possibly now justify ANY fast jets.
What's wrong the the CVN based USN fleets?
If they feel the need, stick a FAC specialist in the rear seat of a F-18D or F, as part of a USN squadron.

Then the USAF, who seem to want around 200 F-35B's.
Surprising I know, but just maybe, the emergence of F-35B, with far fewer performance restrictions than the basically 40 year old Harrier, might fill a requirement maybe in the works for years.

That is, what if a future adversary, does a much better job of putting a SCUD descendant or similar, in numbers, more accurately, on to huge airbases lined with all those aircraft, which Iraq tried but failed to do in 1991.

If your attitude towards international co-operation prevailed, why should those shut out buy any US defence products, or as absolutely few as possible?
I imagine the insults and sulks would fly from Capitol Hill then, better yet, this attitude is just what the US accuses the French of.
I'd imagine the US Aerospace sector would not be pleased either, the US home market is not what is was up to 15-20 years ago, and never will be again.

I note no answer to the seeming US tolerance of real, not imagined, Israeli spying against you, in the recent past, of their tech transfer to China.
Mind you, it's a bit embarrasing, best not mentioned!


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 5391 times:

Perhaps the best solution is for the US and Europe to develop their own weapons.

User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5365 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22):
Perhaps the best solution is for the US and Europe to develop their own weapons.

That would be sad, because it would widen the gap between the USA and Europe even more... I think the key lies in fair trans-national cooperation. To me it sounds understandable that the US is concerned about technology transfer in some sectors, but shouldn't these issues have been discussed BEFORE the development process was started?


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5351 times:

Prediction: it'll be worked out. The JSF is too important a project. I suspect that the GE/RR engine will go ahead for those that want it and a compromise of sorts will be reached on the technology issues.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
25 DL021 : For the record, the short take off ability of the Harriers gives us a fast jet asset that can strike with precision weapons deeper and farther than a
26 11Bravo : Not to mention the probability that these aircraft would very likely end up fighting along USAF/USN/USMC aircraft in future conflicts thereby complem
27 GDB : Totally agree with the last two posts, the UK really wants F-35, it solves the issue of both RN and RAF Harrier replacement, with a new generation, ve
28 AirRyan : You won't need "precision weapons" from a fast-moving VTOL (the F-35B is only classified as STOVL, btw) when you have UCAVs and cruise missiles at yo
29 GDB : Yes, but there is an alternative, not the favoured one, but for the RN, in the shape of the Rafale N. The RAF would just buy more Typhoons. The point
30 Atmx2000 : Though it should be noted at that time the UK's defense industry was intact and home controlled. But since then intra-European cooperation has increa
31 StealthZ : I fear the JSF story is far from over and is heading towards one without a happy ending. Whilst airframes and systems become more complex and the need
32 Post contains images Scbriml : The most surprising thing about a lot of the comments in this thread, is that people that are surprised that the US is shafting its allies. Again.
33 GDB : Despite the offer/alternative offer of Rafale N, a UK F-35B pullout would likely end the whole CVF programme. It's already two years behind, very expe
34 Atmx2000 : France is no doubt a key issue. And they have increased cooperation with Russia on military aviation technology. Who sells to everyone else in the wo
35 Post contains links STT757 : . http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=476282006
36 GDB : Indeed STT757, it's in no ones serious interest for this (and the Chinook HC.3's), to not be resolved properly. I don't count posturing on Capitol Hil
37 Atmx2000 : Also the GE-RR F-136 engine has received funding from Congress for another year. But going forward with the 2nd engine will depend on whether there is
38 Post contains images Phantomphixer : Can we please have the Phantoms back? In their early colour scheme? Please? Oh well... it was worth a try
39 DL021 : OK...first there are no West African air forces flying the SU-27 that I know of, the air threat during the evacuation (minimal that it was) was from a
40 GDB : That's all true DL021, but I think the record of US/UK cooperation on a range of often highly sensitive projects, speaks for itself. IMHO, it's the Is
41 Post contains links Atmx2000 : Israel is involved though, and was in fact booted from F-35 development for their past indiscretions for a time last year. http://www.defenseindustry
42 DL021 : Yeah, well they were slapped pretty hard on the AEW/C Phalcon tech they wanted to sell to the PRC. Israel has a tendency to want to improve on stuff
43 GDB : I think the French have 'cleaned up' in who gets arms in more recent times. It must have been fustrating for French AF Mirage F.1CR recce/strike pilot
44 FVTu134 : Algeria (which is pretty western - Northwest actually) recently ordered a bunch of Su-30's and Yak130 trainers. The order also included some (uninter
45 DL021 : Yeah, but it's not a west African nation. It's in North Africa. That was one hellacious deal for the French. Do you know how pissed the ROC was when
46 Post contains links Lumberton : U.S. House panel poised to restore 2nd F-35 engine When all the indignation and outrage over the second sourced engine and technology sharing issues i
47 GDB : I agree Lumbertown, it is in no ones interest to let this fester. I may have bored some of you with a list of previous US-UK defence project issues, b
48 Checksixx : **Okay, gotta chime in on this comment. While the Superhornet is slower than a legacy Hornet by 0.2 Mach, it can out accelerate a legacy Hornet any d
49 MigFan : Would you really call Israel an ally? I have worked with the Israelis and that is not the impression I got. Plus, their close ties with China. /M
50 GDB : That's my whole point MigFan, Israel always seemingly getting a pass, even after actions that would raise hell in the US, (understandably), if done by
51 Post contains links Lumberton : Well, this is progress at least.... Norway commits to stay in Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme in principle
52 Post contains links Lumberton : Progress here is measured in meters, not kilometers, but it's progress nonetheless. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee agrees with their counter
53 MigFan : I think that is how it should be. Europe would be better off with developing their own gear.
54 GDB : Europe does, From Typhoon, Rafale, to A400M, to UAV/UCAV designs emerging, to the PAAMS Naval Anti-Air Missile, to a range of choppers, to Nuclear sub
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UK Issues Ultimatum Over JSF
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...
JSF Documentary On UK TV Tonight posted Mon May 12 2003 18:49:26 by GDB
UK JSF-it's The V/STOL Version. posted Tue Oct 1 2002 19:15:45 by GDB
JSF's Role With The AF, Navy, Marines And UK posted Fri Apr 12 2002 00:18:32 by STT757
Netherlands Chooses The JSF Over Typhoon & Rafale! posted Wed Feb 20 2002 02:02:10 by CX747
CAP Over UK? posted Thu Sep 13 2001 16:09:24 by Collossie
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by GBOAG
Boeing Looks To Acquisitions To Boost UK Profile posted Tue Oct 3 2006 00:40:22 by Osiris30
Budget Cut To Slow JSF Lrip posted Wed Sep 6 2006 01:49:18 by DEVILFISH
German Tornados Over Lebanon? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 14:30:37 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format