Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK May Withdrawl From F35 Project  
User currently offlineVANGUARD737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 684 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2497741,00.html

Summary:

"Britain has threatened to pull out of a planned £10 billion purchase of the new fighters if the US refused to share secret computer technology needed to maintain operational sovereignty over the Armed Forces."

"Lord Drayson has considered a number of “Plan B” options for replacing Britain’s ageing Harrier ground-attack aircraft if the deal for buying about 150 Joint Strike Fighters falls apart. These are thought to include buying French Rafale jets, which can fly from aircraft carriers, or more Eurofighter Typhoons."

-----------------------------------------

What do you think is more likely, should the deal fail? I would think Eurofighter to be the most logical option, as Britain has significant investments in the program, not to mention current orders.

However, the Royal Navy is in need of a carrier-born aircraft. As of now, only the Rafale would be able to fulfill that need. Could the Typhoon be modified into a carrier-born version?

Will be very interesting to see what happens, any which way!


320 717 722 732 733 735 737 738 744 752 753 763 772 DC9 DC10 MD80 B1900 S340 E120 ERJ CRJ CR7
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yawn... Old news...

RAF has what.. A billion USD invested in this program so far? They're not going to pull out, it's a bargaining tactic. A compromise will be reached - no doubt.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineVANGUARD737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 684 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1):
A compromise will be reached - no doubt.

Then it had better be reached quick - Britain has to sign its next-stage continuation in 20 days.



320 717 722 732 733 735 737 738 744 752 753 763 772 DC9 DC10 MD80 B1900 S340 E120 ERJ CRJ CR7
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4588 times:

The UK are not the only ones worried, but for the time being Aus seems to be accepting the crumbs from the rich man's table.

Nice rewards for being all the way with LB... ooops it was not him was it!

Does the UK keep some of the intellectual property it must have invested in this soap opera? If it does, that might make the negotiations a little more balanced. How will the fans be if the UK withdraws and takes its ball and goes home in the same way the ISG suggests for the US in Iraq?


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4526 times:

This would likely be settled during the Washington meeting. Both sides stand to lose should the UK decide to back out - the UK its $1.1B investment, and the US the potential sale of 138 frames at an estimated $60M a copy. But more than this, the long, close cooperation on political and defence issues would suffer.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 4518 times:

OMG not again!!!1!!1one!!1shitf+1!!

They are just rattling the American's tree... again. There is too much money invested in this program for them to just walk away, then dump more cash on another inferior plane.

This isn't the first time, it wont be the last time they threaten to back out.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

As RP has posted in another thread, an agreement has been reached paving the way for the UK's continued participation in the program.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...llow+Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF.html

The report goes on to say that the MoU might embolden other non-Level One partners to press for the same privileges.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Thanks for posting, DEVILFISH. Expect this story to recur every six months or so, only instead of UK substitute Australia, Norway, Canada, etc.

So, the most recent "outrage" detailed in the UK press seems to have been timed to coincide with Drayson's visit? Unless that MOU was feverishly drafted in the last few hours (virtually impossible on a project of this magnitude IMO), I suspect this had been worked out well in advance.... Or, maybe I'm being too cynical here?  Wink

[Edited 2006-12-12 18:57:25]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4383 times:

As stated an ongoing issue, but one which Drayson was optimistic about.
This latest 'news' is from a committee of cross party MP's.
Not to be confused with the actual machinery of government itself, being recommendations rather than policy.

However, to answer the question, no Typhoon would not likely be modded for carrier ops, this idea is 15, or even 20 years, too late.
Requiring major software and some structual changes.
The history of modding land based types for carrier use is not a happy one, all the back to the Spitfire/Seafire.

So if the worst happened, it would be Rafale.
More likely however, would be the cancellation of the whole CVF project, since though it has the potential to be changed for CTOL ops, in reality, the design has no provision for steam catapults, though France is likely to build it's own CTOL CVF version, but to a later timescale to the already delayed RN plans.
This RN 'future proofing' of CVF, has electromagnetic catapults, decades ahead, in mind.
After the USN had proven this technology on their CVNs.

The extra costs/delays of this would likely doom it anyway, likely in this event the RN would get the 12 Type 45 Destroyers originally planned with it's PAAMS anti air system, some later batches using the space provision in the design for 16 VLS tubes for either Tomahawks-using the Mk.41 VLS, or the planned ship launched version of the Storm Shadow air launched cruise missile, from the existing design of VLS tubes.
And/or potentially longer 'cruiser' Type 45 versions, with many more VLS tubes.


User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4345 times:

Interestingly enough, I was on a course at HMS Collingwood a couple of weeks ago and I was involved in a discussion with a Lieutenant Commander who is part of the organisation that ensures the Royal Navy's equipment is actually suitable for the job.

He was very scathing about the "Smart Procurement" policy in general. He believes the Type 45 is nothing more than a white elephant and totally unsuited and unnecessary for the defence commitments the UK faces today. He pointed out that each Type 45 will cost eight times as much to procure as a Type 23 frigate. I should probably point out this guy was an ex-frigate WEO and is probably a bit biased in his views of destroyers. He also mentioned there are problems finding someone to actually manufacture the machinery for the Type 45s, as the suppliers are far more attracted to commercial shipping contracts where they can make more money.

He also mentioned the CVF - again he was a little scathing of this project, saying the huge amounts of money invested in these ships are hardly justified seeing as they are only likely to be "used in anger" very infrequently. He also said there are serious doubts as to whether anyone will actually want the contract to make the propellers for these ships, for similar reasons to the problems the Type 45 is having.

He also made a very valid point - if the CVF programme is cancelled then the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's MARS programme will become very unnecessary and will be cancelled as well. Which will probably mean I will end up sailing around on the same tired old ships....

Just a few things I thought you might find interesting!


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 9):
He also mentioned the CVF - again he was a little scathing of this project, saying the huge amounts of money invested in these ships are hardly justified seeing as they are only likely to be "used in anger" very infrequently.

With all due respect to the LCDR, it's kind of like having 4 wheel drive; when you really need it, nothing else will do. Wouldn't it have been handy to have had ARK ROYAL (pre-Invincible) around for the Falklands?

[Edited 2006-12-13 00:43:43]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

I agree totally, it's very difficult to predict what type of war we will be fighting 10-15 years from now. I do support the CVF in principle, as I think if and when the time comes they will be worth their weight in gold. I think the point he was trying to make is spending vast amounts of money on prestige projects such as Type 45 and CVF is a little pointless when the defence procurement system in the UK gets even the most basic and simple things wrong.

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 10):
Wouldn't it have been handy to have had ARK ROYAL (pre-Invincible) around for the Falklands?

If that Ark R had been around with its Phantoms, there would not have been a war in the first place.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
Thanks for posting, DEVILFISH. Expect this story to recur every six months or so, only instead of UK substitute Australia, Norway, Canada, etc.

That is rather a difference slant to the story compared with the news release from the Committee. It will be interesting to see where the actual happening are. In the face of the Committee view, the Aus Def minister's actions at about the same time seemed very odd, but not in the light of alternate view.

But then again, the Aus Defence dept has been a tad accident prone of late, so nothing would surprise!


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

Fact is, the Type 42's and their aging Sea Darts need urgent replacement.
At least T45 has room for more equipment, unlike most previous RN ships.
The PAAMS system could maybe have been installed on a longer, modified Type 23, but would be a tight squeeze with no margins for future growth.
And PAAMS looks to an extremely potent system.

Imagine a similar situation to the Lebanon evacution this year, but this time with a potentially hostile air threat, and no Cyprus nearby for RAF aircover.
If the Falklands taught us anything............
And that includes assuming a CVF is around too, even the mighty USN carrier groups have anti air escorts.


User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4153 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
Thanks for posting, DEVILFISH. Expect this story to recur every six months or so, only instead of UK substitute Australia

Unfortunately not. As usual we rolled over pretty easily and our grandstanding wanker Politicians got their high profile Washington Press Conference :

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=170445

Oh well just have to hope this lot get voted out next year and the other lot review the position and then buy Raptors instead.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineEniranjanrao From India, joined Dec 2006, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4078 times:

The biggest mistake the British did was to stop aircraft reasearch
they have made some the best Mil aircraft the world has seen from Spitfire,Lancaster,Hudson,Vampire,Hunter,Canberra,Harrier so they should not crib about transfer of technology.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4004 times:

Still do aircraft research, what we now call the Typhoon came out of the UK EAP programme.
The extensive-far more than ever before, UK presence on a US type in the shape of the F-35, did not come about just by doing some metal bashing, reference the 'Replica' project of the late 90's, to demonstrate that BAE had the competance to do major structures with advanced materials for a low observeable airframe.

It has been reported in the last few days that agreement has been reached between the US and UK on the F-35 issue.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 9):
saying the huge amounts of money invested in these ships are hardly justified seeing as they are only likely to be "used in anger" very infrequently.

Isn't the money invested in a weapon system considered well spent if it is NEVER used in anger?



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123034897

DOD, U.K. sign next stage Joint Strike Fighter agreement

12/12/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- United States and United Kingdom officials signed a memorandum of understanding Dec. 12 to begin future cooperation in the production, sustainment and follow-on development, called PSFD, phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England and United Kingdom Minister for Defense Procurement Lord Paul R. Drayson signed the MOU as England joins Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and the United States as nations that have signed the JSF PSFD agreement.

Denmark, Italy, Norway, and Turkey are scheduled to sign in the near future.

This new MOU will expand cooperation among the nine JSF partner nations beyond the ongoing JSF system development and demonstration phase, providing a framework for future JSF program efforts in production and beyond.

The United Kingdom was the first JSF partner, and is committing over $2 billion to the development phase of the overall JSF program. The U.K. plans to acquire up to 150 short take-off and vertical landing versions of the JSF, and...


Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Help me, Help you


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting TSV (Reply 14):
Unfortunately not. As usual we rolled over pretty easily and our grandstanding wanker Politicians got their high profile Washington Press Conference :

That was one of the most nauseating performances ever, at least as bad as the AWB efforts. The scene is reminiscent of 1995 and the truly awfulness of the Keating hubris. At least if the Augean stables are cleared out again, there MIGHT be a different decision on future fighters. With Raptors, they should not need an interim type??


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TSV (Reply 14):
Oh well just have to hope this lot get voted out next year and the other lot review the position and then buy Raptors instead

And have a boutique air force that is no good to anyone.
Not criticising the Raptor, it is an awesome aircraft but it costs too damn much. Australia could never afford to buy enough of them to be meaningful and would still require a strike capability that the Raptor does not possses at this time.
Having said that I am not convinced building an entire air force around a single type is wise either, my feeling is that the F-35 in trying to be all things for everybody will not excel at any of them.. the old "Jack of all trades, Master of none" thing!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3750 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 20):
Not criticising the Raptor, it is an awesome aircraft but it costs too damn much. Australia could never afford to buy enough of them to be meaningful and would still require a strike capability that the Raptor does not possses at this time.

Does it actually cost more than the F35s and their extra tankers and palaver? Not to mention how far an F35 can go compared with a Raptor? And how will an F35 fare if it comes across an SU29 or like type at the end of its journey?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

If the F-35, even allowing for the inevitable cost increases, even approached the price of a F-22, the programme would have been long axed.
F-22/F-35 is a bit like the F-15/F-16 mix arguments of the 70's, but now no Cold War budgets so the limitations on the F-22 buy, are so much greater, plus the very 'gold standard' (or should that be 'gold plated') nature of the aircraft.
But, that was the mission it was designed for.

'Jack Of All Trades, Master Of None', has been right in the past, but it's been as wrong as many times too.
Mosquito was a famous WW2 example, but in more recent times, F-16, F-18, Harrier to a degree, Mirage III, F-4 Phantom.
Most of these were designed for a a specific role, but were good enough to undertake other roles too, being effective in them too.

A F-111 would always be a much more effective strike aircraft than a F-4, but F-111 could not do anything else.
Making it unaffordable for most air forces-Australia had recently got the relatively cheap Mirage III, but had the RAAF for example brought F-4's instead of Mirages, they never would have been able to buy the F-111.

The F-22, would be very poor value for the RAAF, doubtful more than 30-40 could have been brought, without large, unbalancing, cuts elsewhere.
F-35C is probably the best bet, the longest range of the versions, basically the most potent of the F-35 range.

If still unhappy with terms and conditions of F-35 procurement, support and operation, and we in the UK can understand this perfectly, then some nice people at Eurofighter, likely the Warton UK branch, would be happy to talk.
BAE Australia have developed the planned fuselage confirmal fuel tanks, for Tranche 3 aircraft, along with the other improvements to the engines, and electrically scanned radar.
If F-35 could not be procured to Australia's satisfaction, then Tranche 3 Typhoon, great increases in Australian industrial involvement-no strings attached, could fit the bill.

Not a real F-111 replacement, though a good F-18 one, but what aircraft is? RAAF are not going to buy a previous generation type-no matter how improved, like F-15, not for the next 30 years, not when it will be the single RAAF combat type.
But a system like Storm Shadow, or similar, could partly undertake the role, along with Tomahawk for RAN subs and/or future surface ships.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GDB,
An interesting and insightful post,

Quoting GDB (Reply 22):
A F-111 would always be a much more effective strike aircraft than a F-4, but F-111 could not do anything else.
Making it unaffordable for most air forces-Australia had recently got the relatively cheap Mirage III, but had the RAAF for example brought F-4's instead of Mirages, they never would have been able to buy the F-111.

That was an interesting period in defence procurement, I was quite young at the time but do recall the newspaper stories regarding the decision to purchase TSR-2 or TFX(F-111), never really understood whether the RAAF decision to buy the F-111 was a nail in the coffin of the TSR-2 or the British cancellation of that project forced the RAAF to go with the F-111.

A side note, I recall the introduction of the Mirage III quite well as my father was a Radio Tech. at RAAF Williamtown at the time. He was with 30Sqn working on Bloodhound missiles but that is a whole different story about "interesting defence procurement"

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 22):
Not a real F-111 replacement, though a good F-18 one, but what aircraft is? RAAF are not going to buy a previous generation type-no matter how improved,

Well not a real replacement, but just a stopgap - although they could be satisfied enough they might just decide to keep it and order more.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ornet+squadron+as+JSF+stopgap.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
25 Daedaeg : Considering that BAE will probably become an American company over the next 5 years anyway, I don't think the US goverment should fear transfer of tec
26 GDB : StealthZ, my understanding is that the then Chief Of Defence Staff for the UK, one Lord Mountbatten, went to Australia in 1963 or 64, telling the RAAF
27 RichardPrice : How is BAE going to 'become an American company'?
28 Post contains links and images A342 : Do you even know what a Su-29 is ? View Large View MediumPhoto © Joseph Tonna Yes, I know what you meant...
29 Post contains links Daedaeg : http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...x?Feed=FT&Date=20061023&ID=6124495 BAE's CEO has been talking about it for some time as its US operations cont
30 TSV : Tell that to the "club" of Mirage jockeys that were called dead in exercises without even knowing a "C" was around! Different time scales. The F-4 wa
31 Post contains images Baroque : Yes I do, but my errant mind was debating between 27s and the various 3x numbers and settled for an rather stupid compromise! But come to think of it
32 Post contains links and images Boeing4ever : What does it matter? The tanker infrastructure will be in place well before you get your F-35s. Here's a video of your country's first KC-30 being bu
33 Max Q : As an as aside, several books I have read on the Falklands conflict by Sea Harrier pilots indicate that, in the severe weather conditions often encoun
34 GDB : Very true max, but not only in poor weather either. The planned airstrike by 500lb Snakeye retard bombs, from A-4's on the Argentine carrier, was stal
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UK May Withdrawl From F35 Project
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 May Stop JSF Project, Holland Thinks posted Sat Dec 3 2005 13:00:49 by MauriceB
E-6B Upgrade Project Complete posted Tue Dec 5 2006 16:38:58 by N328KF
Rumsfeld's Departure May Mean More F-22 - F-18E/F posted Wed Nov 15 2006 01:06:02 by MCIGuy
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by GBOAG
Indonesia - UAV's From Israel? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 20:45:21 by 7474ever
Bulgaria May Have Solution To Helo RPG Threat posted Fri Oct 20 2006 14:44:06 by Lumberton
Boeing Looks To Acquisitions To Boost UK Profile posted Tue Oct 3 2006 00:40:22 by Osiris30
Black Hawks From Poland? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 13:38:05 by Ariis
A-10 Yanked From Halifax Airshow posted Thu Sep 7 2006 16:40:46 by Bmacleod
US Army Exclude C130J From JCA posted Thu Aug 31 2006 14:02:00 by Bennett123

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format