Britain threatens to withdraw from the JSF again !

#1
Ministers have been urged to scrap the multi-billion-pound Joint Strike Fighter project unless the US agrees to share its sensitive technological specifications.

Sky Defence Correspondent Geoff Meade says the UK badly needs a replacement for the ageing Harrier - whatever it gets called.

Although the Falklands veteran jump jet has proved valuable beyond its years, flying mission after mission in support of ground troops in Afghanistan, the fierce tempo of operations is taking a toll on the lifespan of ageing airframes.

The problem is nobody knows yet if the new US-designed jet will be bought, or even what it will be called.

America designates it the F35, Lightening Two and Joint Strike Fighter. Britain prefers Joint Combat Aircraft. For simplicity why not name it the New Harrier?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1243372,00.html

We are starting to sound like a stuck record. I thought this was sorted in August.
 
#4
Thanks Stolly, a much better report.

The Beeb report was a little vague, are they advocating pulling out of the venture altogether or are they wanting to stall until we get the rights to the technical information.
 
#5
The sooner we pull out, the sooner we can marinise the Typhoon and save ourselves heaps of cash, as well as clawing back some from Typhoon's laughably managed developed costs.
 
#6
Chalky said:
The sooner we pull out, the sooner we can marinise the Typhoon and save ourselves heaps of cash, as well as clawing back some from Typhoon's laughably managed developed costs.
I'd say the Rafale would be a better value proposition, especially that is what will be operated from the other CVF anyway....

Given the track record of the Typhoon development plus the risk associated with any attempt to change the design it seems the common sense solution.

In addition, the French are about to close the Rafale production line and quite possibly would give us a knockdown price, just to keep the lines open and secure the jobs.

Hell, we could even joint fund a next generation of Super-Rafale with some production done here, for less risk and cost of funding a SeaTyphoon.
 
#7
Sven said:
Thanks Stolly, a much better report.

The Beeb report was a little vague, are they advocating pulling out of the venture altogether or are they wanting to stall until we get the rights to the technical information.
I'm not clear how we could just pause our development. We'd have to leave, and then rejoin it late on. That would be incredibly expensive, hard to justify and perhaps not a little humiliating. The press would love it.
 
#8
As I understand it the aircraft is developed and the JDC are prostponing/pulling out of the procurement of the aircraft, not the further development of it.

As to the choice of aircraft, I would much rather have the JSF than either of the others mentioned as its hovering capabilities are invaluble
 
#9
Invaluable for what?
 
#11
we should be using our own home grown industry so that we won't become prey to external spares supplies that could be easily turned off like a tap s when it suits them in order to bring us into line.
 
#12
stolly said:
I'd say the Rafale would be a better value proposition, especially that is what will be operated from the other CVF anyway....

Given the track record of the Typhoon development plus the risk associated with any attempt to change the design it seems the common sense solution.
The Rafale is, in comparison, an aged aircraft now and, yes, it does already offer a marinised version, I'm not convinced of the benefits of adding another airframe to the inventory. More spares, more training and more complications. Having a common platform such as the Typhoon would reap its own rewards.

Sven said:
As to the choice of aircraft, I would much rather have the JSF than either of the others mentioned as its hovering capabilities are invaluble.
I have to agree with in_the_cheapseats on this one. The hover capabilities of the Harrier when fully loaded are notoriously short-lived and, to my knowledge, have never been used in actual conflict. The advantage of the STOVL configuration on the current batch of carriers is proven, but they are smaller and require such aircraft. The CVF design has been intentionally configured for the option of assisted take off/arrested landing so no huge design changes would be required.

The JSF is already too heavy and won't be going anywhere without a ski ramp, not if it wants to operate in any CAS role. If they can solve the weight/range issues that have been plaguing its development, on top of every other issue that's been coming tis way then great. If not then we should cut and run on a development that is inevitably going to be late, costly and leave is very firmly screwed by our spam brethren.
 
#13
the hover capability was used to some effect in the Falkland war, the pilot used it to perform unusual manouveres in dog fights with the argies fighters out foxing them
 
#14
semper said:
the hover capability was used to some effect in the Falkland war, the pilot used it to perform unusual manouveres in dog fights with the argies fighters out foxing them
I read both Sharkey Wards book and Dave Morgans as well. They were both leading figures in the SHAR world in that conflict. I don't recall either of them mentiong that the hover capability was used or even useful in combat.

Dave Morgan did mention what a pain in the arse landing vertically in the dark during bad weather was, who knows if its harder or more dangerous than conventional landing.
 
#15
Chalky said:
stolly said:
I'd say the Rafale would be a better value proposition, especially that is what will be operated from the other CVF anyway....

Given the track record of the Typhoon development plus the risk associated with any attempt to change the design it seems the common sense solution.
The Rafale is, in comparison, an aged aircraft now and, yes, it does already offer a marinised version, I'm not convinced of the benefits of adding another airframe to the inventory. More spares, more training and more complications. Having a common platform such as the Typhoon would reap its own rewards.
How common would it be ? 70% ? 50% ? 30% ? Making it navalised is more than just fitting a hook and making its wings fold...

The Rafale is not the latest and greatest, but it is proven and does work. It will be operated from the third CVF anyway, making a common carrier a possibilty rather than the slightly different versions under consideration now.
 
#16
And when are you going to take a platform like a JSF into a dogfight when the primary weapon system for any air platform (and has been for years) is its air to air missles?? Technology in this area has moved on somewhat since 1982. :roll:

Dogfighting isn't joining to happen unless by way of a complete fcuk up on the behalf of the ops planners.

It is an another example of a unrequired capability forced through because the last platform had it and the designers thought it looked good.
 
#17
in_the_cheapseats said:
And when are you going to take a platform like a JSF into a dogfight when the primary weapon system for any air platform (and has been for years) is its air to air missles?? Technology in this area has moved on somewhat since 1982. :roll:

Dogfighting isn't joining to happen unless by way of a complete fcuk up on the behalf of the ops planners.

It is an another example of a unrequired capability forced through because the last platform had it and the designers thought it looked good.
I seem to remember that the same thing was said of dogfighting so the Yanks stopped teaching it and dogfighting still happened. To catch up the Yank navy had to invent the avaition combat schools.

And didn't Vtol give us a way to improvise airfields anywhere, at a moments notice??
 
#18
stolly said:
semper said:
the hover capability was used to some effect in the Falkland war, the pilot used it to perform unusual manouveres in dog fights with the argies fighters out foxing them
I read both Sharkey Wards book and Dave Morgans as well. They were both leading figures in the SHAR world in that conflict. I don't recall either of them mentiong that the hover capability was used or even useful in combat.

Dave Morgan did mention what a pain in the arse landing vertically in the dark during bad weather was, who knows if its harder or more dangerous than conventional landing.
one of my source is "Falklands taskforce portfolio" ISBN 0-907771-03-3

Page 92, QUOTE :"harriers GR3 and Harrier blue fox --both are highly manouverable thanks to their ability to vector their engine thrust and so can hold their own in dog fights"

There was one other book that mentioned a similar thing I can't quite remmeber its name but i can find out if needed , its about the house somewhere
 
#19
stolly said:
How common would it be ? 70% ? 50% ? 30% ? Making it navalised is more than just fitting a hook and making its wings fold...
Fair point. An example I could give is the commonality between the F/A 18 Hornet and the Super Hornet. Both, in reality, a very different aircraft, but their 'commonality' saved over a third of their life-cycle cost taking into account everyhting from development to operation, maintenance and all the bits in between. Current estimates for the cost of a marinised Typhoon is +25% per unit (abouts $62 million by third tranche costs), which is about the same of a STOVL variant of the JSF, but with commonality, we can reduce the overall costs by a third making not insubstantial savings.

DPA had previously ruled out a marinised Typhoon due to issues like corrosion and airframe strength, but there are conflicting opinions about it as the bae solution to this is to change the approach angle and use a computer control system to 'soften' the landongs. Sound hilarious, but apparently similar software has worked elsewhere. The corrosion issue is limited to some exposed elements of the internal airframe, but again, opinion varies on how correctible this is.

This, if nothing else, should show that a marinised Typhoon is a viable, if not necessarily a preferable option. The F35 has, in theory, a greater speed range and take-off weight, but if these seemingly intractable issues can't be resolved then they mean nothing.
 
#20
semper said:
stolly said:
semper said:
the hover capability was used to some effect in the Falkland war, the pilot used it to perform unusual manouveres in dog fights with the argies fighters out foxing them
I read both Sharkey Wards book and Dave Morgans as well. They were both leading figures in the SHAR world in that conflict. I don't recall either of them mentiong that the hover capability was used or even useful in combat.

Dave Morgan did mention what a pain in the arse landing vertically in the dark during bad weather was, who knows if its harder or more dangerous than conventional landing.
one of my source is "Falklands taskforce portfolio" ISBN 0-907771-03-3

Page 92, QUOTE :"harriers GR3 and Harrier blue fox --both are highly manouverable thanks to their ability to vector their engine thrust and so can hold their own in dog fights"

There was one other book that mentioned a similar thing I can't quite remmeber its name but i can find out if needed , its about the house somewhere
Wasn't it one of Hanrahans books
 

Latest Threads

Top