F35 or Rafale? The UK and France talk.

[Navaleye]

The Mail on Sunday is reporting that the UK and French Defence Ministers have had talks about the purchase of 150 Rafale M should the UK government not proceed with the F-35 . This being the Plan B discussed earlier. Gets us back into the proper carrier business, but at a price.

Comments?here 2nd story. (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/dmstandard/frame.html?in_bottom=http://www.thisismoney.com/news)

[Brit55]

This is long overdue and has been a long time coming IMHO. The US government assumes that the UK will back down to all pressures and tow the American line, this has to stop.

Should the US look at this as an idle threat, then the UK really should press the issue with the French and look to get some of our SHAR guys over onto French Marine units, flying the Rafale. I'm sure the French would welcome the chance to encourage some badly needed export sales.

JSF is a dead duck and we should be willing to walk away from it.

[Styron]

Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy
Tom McGhie and Jack Gee, Mail on Sunday
26 February 2006

BRITAIN may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets for two new-generation aircraft carriers scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2013.

If the Government went ahead with the £5bn deal, it would mean cancelling existing US contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers and could cause a major crisis in Anglo-American relations.

The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, for crucial talks in London.

It followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and America on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, dogged by a row over sharing technology.

It is understood that Reid said he would consider the French offer. Even agreeing to give the proposal serious consideration could be seen as a major snub to the Americans, whose relations with the French on defence are strained.

The French offer follows America's continued refusal to agree to the transfer of advanced technology on the JSF - the jet being built in the US by Lockheed Martin with co-operation from Britain.

The Ministry of Defence has already paid the Americans £2bn for development. BAE Systems, Britain's leading defence contractor, which is a vital partner in the project, was hoping for about £14bn in development and production contracts.

The MoD declined to give details of the French offer, but defence sources in Paris confirmed that a lengthy conversation took place.

The American refusal to share technology means that if one of the JSFs needed repairs, the work would have to be carried out in America.

It would also mean British forces would not have the right codes to arm the planes if they wanted to use them for missions not approved by the Pentagon.

There is growing anger at the Americans' obduracy over technology transfer. Britain has now made it clear that without 'achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty' over the JSF, it will consider cancelling the contract.

Washington's reluctance to give up the technology to its closest military ally is fuelled by fears that Britain might allow foreign firms access to America's most precious commercial and defence secrets.

Faced by the the refusal to share technology, Lord Grayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, said: 'There has to be a Plan B. We need to make sure we have done the work needed to ensure we have an option.'

The MoD still hopes that the Americans will change their minds. Meanwhile, it is looking at its options. Giving consideration to the French offer could strengthen the MoD's negotiating hand with Washington.

The 60,000-tonne carriers planned for the Royal Navy are designed to have powerful catapults built into the deck. This means they are not restricted to the vertical take-off version of the JSF. They could fire conventional take-off JSFs as well as modified Typhoon Eurofighters.

The Rafale Marine is already in service and is designed for use on France's new carrier - identical to those being built for the Royal Navy.

The decision by Paris to buy the design of the UK carriers for their own second large carrier makes the French option more palatable.

The French jets cost about £35 million each and would be cheaper, if probably unpopular, with the forces.

Gerald Howarth, Conservative defence spokesman, said: 'This shows the danger of the American refusal to give us the technology. They could drive us into the arms of the French.'

[diginagain]

The subtext reads 'Dr Reid finally surrenders to demands from military aviation forum users support group to offer suitable means of closing SHAR discussion thread.'

[Styron]

Hardly our fault, who the hell is going to buy a plane that has to go back to America to be repaired and which relies on a foreign power to give us the codes in order to fire the thing????
Bush has already shown what contempt he has for his allies, and to be honest if I was the British Goverment, I would be having a long hard think about telling Bush where to get off in terms of using this country as a home to his Star Wars Technology. Perhaps it also may be appriopriate now that we are moving in to a more European orientated defence procurement that we also started to become more self suffiecient in terms of Intelligence and review such sites as Menwith Hill, Croughton, Molesworth, Feltwell etc.
Bush can't have it both ways, treat your allies with contempt, and very quickly you will find they are no longer such close allies.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Blair has not been good at grguing the UK's corner.

From the RN website: Future Aircraft (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server.php?show=nav.2396)

The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers. The other options included a marinised version of the Eurofighter (232 Eurofighters are ordered for the RAF) the American F18E, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. But the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant JSF emerged as the best option.


Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Rafale will be ready much sooner than F35B, or is partly to try to persuade the US to make more concessions on technology transfer.

[Tim McLelland]

I think most of this story is a load of rubbish to be honest. For starters, we're talking about the Mail here (enough said!).
The notion that the MoD would want to purchase Rafales has always been regarded as nonsense, and this is probably just a throw-away story based on a "what if" conversation which was intended for political consumption rather than military need. Clearly, we wouldn't want to buy an aircraft which will (by the time it entered service) be heading for obsolesence.
More importatly, we're financially almost obliged to purchase a final batch of Typhoons that we don't really need (based on the current governmental figures and thinking) so they would clearly be the most obvious source of replacements for the F35 if (or when) it is finally cancelled.
It also looks like the beloved Mail has been less-than honest about the real facts; According to other reports from previous weeks/months, the problem hasn't been anything to do with the UK being denied access to the complete F35 package, but more to do with the prospect of export orders, and America's understandable reluctance to export technology to just any potential buyer. Ultimately, it seems to be a relatively benign argument about sales to other countries which may or may not ever happen.
It would be foolish to hurl accusations at the US Government, not least because we've shared a very (and I do mean very!) close relationship
ever since WWII, and the US has never seriously attempted to supply us with "watered-down" versions of their own equipment, so there's no reason to suppose that the F35 would be any different. Conversely, France's track record is less-than commendable; When you look at the way in which the Jaguar was consistently shoved aside in favour of their Mirage sales, the Concorde saga, the way that they shamelessly tried to persuade the US Navy to buy the Alpha Jet, the completely absurd Airbus A400 saga... why would anyone want to get involved with France again?
The Mail is also a bit wide of the mark to say that the new carriers will have built-in catapult equipment, as according to proper sources of information, the carriers will merely have the ability to be converted to catapult operations if necessary - a minor point but indicative of the way in which the Mail is trying to make a story out of nothing.
It's no secret that the F35 programme has been on the proverbial rocks for a long time, and most people think it's only a matter of time before we finally rid ourselves on any involvement in it. It's a hideously expensive programme for an aircraft that we don't need, and when we will ultimately have more Typhoons that we actually require (and a "navalisation" programme has already been studied) it seems pretty obvious where our future carrier force will eventually be sourced.

[Lazer-Hound]

Tim, the US does NOT give the UK full-up versions of its kit, as this testimony from the head of Qinetic to the PSC makes clear:

Exchange in PSC on DIS last week, shamelessly plagiarised from RonO on Warships1.com:

"Mr Ferrero: I think there has been in the MoD in the last five years a concept that somehow or other ultimately we can buy technology from the world market, that in reality we are so close to the Americans politically that they will always sell us anything that we really need. I think that the MoD has now come to realise, through recent experience, that that is not actually true. Even to their closest ally, the Americans, are very restrictive on the way they transfer technology, and systems we have purchased from the Americans in the recent past have turned out to be the "export version" rather than the real version they are prepared to give to the Marines or the Army or the Air Force. That reality will have to guide everything that we do in terms of technology investment in the UK.

ferrero is the head of Qinetiq so he should know of what he speaks.

There's also a further exchange that made me laugh my asss off. There's been a study comparing spending by countries on defense against the resulting military capability. The UK claims to get great value for money by buying cheaper equipment from abroad rather than spending your tax money in the Uk with UK companies with a Uk workforce. Turns out that there's no measurable benfit in doing that. France which has exactly the opposite policy is just as efficient. Gordo gets it wrong again."

[Feneris]

The CVF is designed for but not with a catapult, there will be a 3 year delay to the CVF project if a catapult is required. So we could get an 'off the shelf Rafale' on time but then end up waiting for the ships.

Rolls Royce seem to have been pushed out of the JSF engine contracts, so reduced potential manufacturing revenue for this country, and you must wonder which other promised or expected manufacturing contracts will also fail to materialise.

I'm sceptical about the 'marinised' Typhoon comment. It sounds like a great solution, but that's underestimating the work required to marinise an aircraft. It's a lot more than a beefed up u/c and a tail hook.

[Tim McLelland]

Lazer, the head of QinetiQ would say that, wouldn't he?!:)
Funny how successive governments have opted for "off the shelf" as soon as cost-saving became an issue. If it didn't ultimately save money, there'd be no point in doing it, by definition.

Feneris, that's indeed how it is - everybody assumed the catapult capability had been built-in either by proxy (assuming that the carrier design is a generic one-size-fits-all), or that it was there as a possible requirement, should we eventually buy Hawkeyes. But the longer the J35 saga goes on, you have to wonder what the real motives of the "catapult fall-back" were.

As for the Typhoons, by all accounts navalisation wouldn't be as big a programme as imagined, and a feasibility study has already been successfully completed. Clearly, when you've bought yourself more Typhoons than you need, asking France to sell us a last-generation design would be just a little too absurd even for the MoD.

[SASless]

The CVF is designed for but not with a catapult, there will be a 3 year delay to the CVF project if a catapult is required.

Fighters with no gun.

Chinooks that cannot fly IMC.

No live fire for Attack Helicopter Pilots.

25 Ship fleet.

Will the last person out the door...turn off the lights!

[LowObservable]

If we don't get the right terms, we might not buy JSF.

Silence

No, we mean it. Look at that naval Typhoon study.

Muffled snigger. Silence.

We really mean it.

Oh, go have another cup of tea and come back when you feel better.

We REALLY REALLY mean it....

[Lazer-Hound]

If we don't get the right terms, we might not buy JSF.

Silence

No, we mean it. Look at that naval Typhoon study.

Muffled snigger. Silence.

We really mean it.

Oh, go have another cup of tea and come back when you feel better.

We REALLY REALLY mean it....

In fact, we mean it so much, WE MIGHT EVEN BUY RAFALE!

Bursts into uncontrollable laughter and rolls around on floor...

[Brit55]

This story is a shot across the bow of the US Administration and hopefully, they'll take it seriously.


Tim M,
I think it's slightly ridiculous to suggest that Rafale would be obsolete by the time the RN would take delivery, it's an aircraft that can be updated at a much lower cost than the hunk of cr@p JSF is promising to be.

The study for Navalising Typhoon did not suggest that we should run out and do it, far from it actually. A lack of visibility from the cockpit whilst on approach was certainly an issue and I don't buy into using a camera on approach in any weather!

Having one airframe for most of your taskings (AD, CAS, GR) rings of putting all of your eggs in one basket and is something we should perhaps avoid.

Although I hate to admit it, buying the French jet might not be the end of the world and would certainly be better than being kippered like a good 'un by the Yanks!

Can't see how British industry is going to profit from the Harrier replacement programme either way with Rolls Royce being pushed out of the JSF picture.

[Lazer-Hound]

This story is a shot across the bow of the US Administration and hopefully, they'll take it seriously.

The US Administration will take it for the joke it is. If the UK opts out of JSF then CVF will die.

[ORAC]

So, what engine are we going to put in it to screw it up? :}

[Boogeyboard]

[QUOTE=Brit55]This story is a shot across the bow of the US Administration and hopefully, they'll take it seriously.

Tim M,
The study for Navalising Typhoon did not suggest that we should run out and do it, far from it actually. A lack of visibility from the cockpit whilst on approach was certainly an issue and I don't buy into using a camera on approach in any weather!....

There seems to be little cockpit visibility difference between a Typhoon and a Rafale on first inspection. Also I thought the new 'smart cockpits meant that you never ever had to look out of them other than to admire the view.

[scottishbeefer]

Navalised Typhoon was on the cards from the original design spec.

3 year delay for CVF if cat's req'd?! Yikes.

Cancel CVF if no JSF? You can never tell but I could forsee us having one not two carriers instead. Lots of limitations with that idea of course.

Alternatively we could accept that our days of needing our own organic maritime strike are numbered. Very expensive way to scare some Sierra Leonians into thinking we mean business. More choppers is the way ahead. Instead of being jack of all trades, let's be master of one. Leave the US to cough up the wedge for F/W off ships.

Can anyone conceive of a scenario where the UK would need that amount of strike power without the Yanks running the show? Maybe I'm getting old & cynical but I'm starting to get a bit tired of political d**k waving without a good focus on what it will actually be used for. Good luck to the French with CDG. Doubt the US will invite them to the party - therefore what's it good for? Bullying the Tahitians/Greenpeace/Brits/US?! It still takes more than airpower to win a battle.

[Widger]

Scottish Beefer,Oh dear, here we go again.Here is a quote from a man who is more qualified than you or I to comment..............................................As we move to the future we need to build onthis flexibility to create an ever more Versatile MaritimeForce. That force will be shaped toward projecting powerwherever the Nation requires it. We will deliver this effectas part of the Joint Rapid Reaction Force through an abilityto strike from the sea and to exploit the littoral as anextension to the land battlespace, working seamlessly withthe Army and RAF, as well as our coalition partners inNATO and beyond. Here the Future Carrier, with its JointAir Group will be crucial, as will the assault capabilityoffered by the Commando Brigade with the newamphibious shipping.

[Lazer-Hound]

Widger, would that be a quote from an Admiral? Funny, I suspect you'd get a rather different quote about the need for CVF if you asked CAS/CGS.

[Widger]

The CVF is not just about JCA. The carriers will also be able to support Chinook (they will fit on the lifts and go into the hangers). They will also be able to support (operations, logistics and repair) aircraft such as the Osprey and UAVs. JCA is just part of that element. Remember, GR9 will still be able to operate of these ships but, with a greater payload and in much greater numbers than presently available.Yes, the quote was from an Admiral, who has a very good perspective on what is required to operate in a joint environment, supporting both the RAF and the Army. I am sure the CAS/CGS are aware of it, because the quote is from a VERY high level MOD document.Some of this "willy waving" just re-inforces my attitude that some contributers to these threads have either never been to Shrivenham/Bracknell/Greenwich or if they have, they spent too much time in the bar, because they obviously did not learn very much!

[scottishbeefer]

Widger - concur all VMF's promise. But! EBAO aside, I repeat the question, when can we conceive of doing it, without the US running the show? IE, what a frickin' expensive business to get into, when perhaps the money could be spent elsewhere to enhance other capabilities. Still very joint and with much effect from the sea.

Admiral's opinion or no. I suspect the answer is a bit difficult to fathom. And if it's difficult then why kiss billions goodbye on a pair of (albeit impressive) capital ships that will deliver little in true utility.

I'm not any Service-centric, just interested in the best for us all.

[Lazer-Hound]

Operating Harriers, Chinooks, etc., can be done much more cheaply by a 20-30k tonne vessel, rather than the 65,000t CVF

[Roland Pulfrew]

when can we conceive of doing it, without the US running the show?
Falkland Islands II??? http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213006:}

[Tim McLelland]

Brit, the Rafale is already in service and unquestionably inferior to Typhoon. Clearly, by 2012-15, it will, by any standards, be obsolete! Why would anyone want Rafales by then,, especially when we have more than enough Typhoons to spare? Patently, the whole story is nonsense.

Widger, the whole point of this saga is what we do to replace the GR9 fleet when they finally expire.

It is quite comical, and you have to wonder if anyone (apart from the Mail) took the story seriously. Buy Rafales indeed - the only country that ever wanted Rafales was, er, France!

[Widger]

Lazer Hound,We already have a 21000 ton ship and it is not big enough to operate Chinook in the manner that we would like to keep our valuable SH brethren. You are obviously talking from a position of "lack of knowledge" unless you have actually embarked In Illustrious or Invincible lately.

[Lazer-Hound]

Tim, if Rafale is 'unquestionably inferior' to Typhoon, how come Rafal came second and Typhoon a poor third in both the South Korea and Singapore cometitions. Clearly, neither of them are as good as a warmed over 1970's designed F15, though:}

Widger, could not CH47's be operated quite safely and effectively froma 30kt ship?

[Tim McLelland]

Well you only need to take a look at history to work out why Rafale does relatively well - France could sell coals to Newcastle! The actual product might be inferior but France's aerospace teams always know how to sell a product, hence the success of the Mirage at the Jaguar's expense, the premature killing off of Concorde, the supremacy of Airbus whereby we merely build wings for essentially French designs (the A320 was basically a Dassault design), and so on.
France would sell anything to anybody! The Typhoon, F35 and Raptor are all in a different (later) class, but (unsurprisingly) rather more expensive, so it's hardly a surprise that they're not exactly the most attractive options for most countries.

[SitUp]

Brit, the Rafale is already in service and unquestionably inferior to Typhoon. Clearly, by 2012-15, it will, by any standards, be obsolete! Why would anyone want Rafales by then,, especially when we have more than enough Typhoons to spare? Patently, the whole story is nonsense.
Widger, the whole point of this saga is what we do to replace the GR9 fleet when they finally expire.
It is quite comical, and you have to wonder if anyone (apart from the Mail) took the story seriously. Buy Rafales indeed - the only country that ever wanted Rafales was, er, France!
No the Rafale is superior to the Typhoon in every role except as interceptor. Rafales won't be obsolete before a very long time as they are scheduled to receive some important upgrades in the years to come.
The Typhoon clearly is a waste of billions as the F-35 is (should be) coming. The money could have been spent on body armor, ammunitions ...

[Lazer-Hound]

Tim, has it occured to you that the French might actually build good aircrafty at reasonable prices that people might actually want to buy? Consider, for example, the huge export success of the Mirage III/V seriers compared to its UK equivalent, the Lightening.

[Tim McLelland]

No the Rafale is superior to the Typhoon in every role except as interceptor. Rafales won't be obsolete before a very long time

Really? I don't know what books you're reading, are they French?!

The export Rafale is and was nothing more than a cynical attempt by France to muscle-in on the Typhoon's potential market, after having pulled-out of any possible involvement in the Eurofighter programme. In typical French style, they persisted with Rafale rather than staying with Eurofighter, and in return for their efforts they got an aircraft which barely competes with the initial in-service version of Typhoon. The Rafale was obsolete before it was delivered in many respects, being a victim of its own hurried timescale. France was so hell-bent on getting ahead of Eurofighter (presumably because they thought that they could steal a whole range of potential exports) that they've now got themselves an aircraft which is years behind the Typhoon and Raptor, so the notion that we'd abandon the next generation design (F35) and leap back two generations is quite comical to everyone apart from the Mail.

As for France's track record Lazer, the Mirage family (which was the only French product of any significance) was a design based unashamedly on the British Fairey Delta (as even Dassault grudingly accepted), and sold tremendously well because the British (as usual) were incapable of developing and selling a superior design. While France happily hauled-in Mirage exports, we suffered from the whims of stupid politicians who wouldn't spend money on developing the Lightning (and other designs) into what would have been far superior machines.

The Jaguar was another classic case of a good design which failed to reach its ultimate potential (until perhaps a year or so ago!) thanks to Britain's lack of foresight, and one which could have been a huge export success if France hadn't been busy running around to all of the potential Jaguar customers, quietly informing them that they could supply them with Mirages for less money!

[Lazer-Hound]

Anyone who mentions Typhoon and Raptor in the same sentence (unless that sentence is "Typhoon is clearly light-years behind Raptor") is talking out of their arrse.

[Tim McLelland]

Anyone who mentions Typhoon and Raptor in the same sentence (unless that sentence is "Typhoon is clearly light-years behind Raptor") is talking out of their arrse.

I think, based on that remark, there's not much point pursuing this conversation as you're not only ill-informed, but also abusive, so I'll save my comments for adults thanks.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Anyone who mentions Typhoon and Raptor in the same sentence (unless that sentence is "Typhoon is clearly light-years behind Raptor") is talking out of their arrse.

Without wishing to condone the abuse in the post, perhaps you could explain, with proof, why the Typhoon is "clearly light years behind Raptor"? The crews (of Typhoon) that I have spoken to are extremely pleased with the capability of the first jets and these aren't yet at full capability.

Typhoon 90% of a Raptor at 50% of the price!!

[Lazer-Hound]

As for France's track record Lazer, the Mirage family (which was the only French product of any significance) was a design based unashamedly on the British Fairey Delta (as even Dassault grudingly accepted), and sold tremendously well because the British (as usual) were incapable of developing and selling a superior design. While France happily hauled-in Mirage exports, we suffered from the whims of stupid politicians who wouldn't spend money on developing the Lightning (and other designs) into what would have been far superior machines.

Erm, what was the UK contribution to the Mirage F1, BTW? You may have noticed that that was quite a considerable export success too, as was the Mirage 2000. As were many French helicopter designs.

[Out Of Trim]

The Rafale indeed may be slightly behind Typhoon as as Interceptor but, It probably isn't too far behind and is a more mature option in other roles; seems like a good all rounder and I wouldn't call it obsolete. With the right weapons and avionics fit; I could see it being very good indeed!

It is already marinised and would easily be ready for CVF. It's also a twin engine design so, a much better bet as a naval aircraft than a single engined F35 that we can't service or be trusted with by our "So called Allies."

I'm warming to the idea!

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/images/rafale_1.jpg

[Lazer-Hound]

Without wishing to condone the abuse in the post, perhaps you could explain, with proof, why the Typhoon is "clearly light years behind Raptor"? The crews (of Typhoon) that I have spoken to are extremely pleased with the capability of the first jets and these aren't yet at full capability.

Typhoon 90% of a Raptor at 50% of the price!!

Well let's see, Raptor has AESA, TVC, all-aspect stealth, supercruise at Mach 1.7, Typhoon has none of these.

Typhoon - 90% of F16 Block 60 at 150% of the price!

I don't really mean to knock Typhoon, it's a damned sight better than anything else in the RAF inventory, but when jingoistic idiots knock Rafale (which, as I stated, came out better than Typhoon in at least 2 strenuous evaluations) I tend to kick back.

[Styron]

http://www.blackpoolonline.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=63&ArticleID=1367604

This Article seems to suggest that we are in talks with regard to a Eurofighter Mark 2.

[Lazer-Hound]

Styron, that article appears to confuse Rafale with Eurofighter. And refers to 'stovial' jets.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well let's see, Raptor has AESA, TVC, all-aspect stealth, supercruise at Mach 1.7, Typhoon has none of these.

Typhoon - 90% of F16 Block 60 at 150% of the price!

I don't really mean to knock Typhoon, it's a damned sight better than anything else in the RAF inventory, but when jingoistic idiots knock Rafale (which, as I stated, came out better than Typhoon in at least 2 strenuous evaluations) I tend to kick back.

LH

Try to stop throwing insults around. "Jingoistic idiots", that reallywill help the debate.

So Raptor isn't actually light years ahead then. Su 37(?) and Mig 29 have thrust vectoring, in fact had it first I believe. Typhoon can supercruise (not sure of the speed), Rafale though cannot. F16 - not marinised and not carrier capable (although I accept neither is Typhoon at this time) and single engined. When Typhoon Tranche 3 come, with FULL air to ground capability, they will have more capability than F16 Block 60 and a longer service life. And Typhoon has more stealth than either Rafale or F16.

Let's not forget that the USAF are having big problems with Raptor, which at the moment is just an interceptor, but have the luxury of throwing huge amounts of money at it to get it to work.

Typoon 90% of Raptor at 50% of the price.

[Styron]

The press really are crap :LOL:

Perhaps the best thing to do is to say to the Americans, if you can't trust us with your sensitive and secretive information then we can't trust you to have sensitive and secretive installations in our country, and if they don't back down, tell them to shut Menwith Hill and there other secret and sensitive installations.

Bush has shown nothing but contempt for this country, and it's time he learnt that being allies works two ways.

[Lazer-Hound]

The press really are crap :LOL:

Perhaps the best thing to do is to say to the Americans, if you can't trust us with your sensitive and secretive information then we can't trust you to have sensitive and secretive installations in our country, and if they don't back down, tell them to shut Menwith Hill and there other secret and sensitive installations.

Bush has shown nothing but contempt for this country, and it's time he learnt that being allies works two ways.

Well then the US might say well if you don't trust us to have secret and sensetive installations in your country then we won't trust you with secret and sensetive nuclear missiles and satellite intelligence.

Anyway, don't think we'll see it myself but you never know:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=115155

[Jackonicko]

"Rafale came out better than Typhoon in at least 2 strenuous evaluations."
Not if you mean South Korea and Singapore, it didn't.
The Koreans, the Singaporeans, some of the BAE TPs (most of those buggers are tight lipped) and at least one senior Rafale TP involved in the evaluations have all indicated that Typhoon was the preferred technical solution in both cases, but that its timescales and risks were unacceptable.
In Singapore, F-15 was always going to win, and after BAE's shambolic bid performance early on, being punished by being kicked out before Rafale was a well-deserved kick in the pants.
I'd remind you that Typhoon now has 90 export orders outside the consortium, while Rafale has........... exactly none.
Though why I'm responding to anyone imbecilic enough to compare EFT with an F-16 (and who can't spell sensitive), I don't know.

[Lazer-Hound]

That's right, Jacko, F16 Block 60 already has AESA and Typhoon is years from getting it, if ever!:}

And not as idiotic as comparing Typhoon to Raptor:p

[Styron]

If America doesn't want to share nuclear info fine, we could easily come up with a European Option, based on a joint French/ British detterent and it would be cheaper.

The Americans can please themselves, we don't have to pander to there every whim, and we are the only country in Europe who even makes an effort with the Americans, and still they throw it in our face.

It's time in my opinion that the UK became less dependent on the Americans.

[LowObservable]

A320 is basically a Dassault design?

Oh Mer.....










...cure

And why, pray, did the French conspire to kill off Concorde?

And while we're at it, can someone explain exactly how and why the Rafale is a generation older than Typhoon? Now, granted it's not finished (neither is Typhoon) and it isn't as fast, but that goes to original requirements - which include the ability to operate off carriers. And if there is one design rule that has never had an exception, it is that it is extremely difficult to turn a CTOL aircraft into a cat-arrest CV aircraft.

[Lazer-Hound]

To be honest, I think the US is downgrading the UK and Europe generally as it reorientates its forces towards the Middle and Far East.

As the Qinetic guy said, we no longer get the 'full spec' US kit.

[Jackonicko]

Typoon 90% of Raptor at 50% of the price.

50%?

I bet the USAF wish that Raptor was coming in at only $124 m apiece......


Lazer (or is it Gegene/Fonk/Thunder?),

AESA doesn't make F-16 into a fifth generation fighter.

[LowObservable]

the preferred technical solution

Rule 1004: This always means "but we're buying the competitor anyway."

[Lazer-Hound]

Lazer (or is it Gegene/Fonk/Thunder?),

AESA doesn't make F-16 into a fifth generation fighter.

Never said it did. But Typhoon isn't either.

[Lazer-Hound]

Just on the tech transfer issue, why is this an issue with JSF, but not with Trident, C130J, AH64, etc?

[Tim McLelland]

Well exactly Roland, it's nothing to do with jingoism, it's just that I'm an aerospace journalist, so I'm more than familiar with France's track record...

But as I said, I'm not wanting a pointless argument, I was just pointing-out that some of the comments and "facts" being thrown around in this thread are rather wide of the proverbial mark:)

[LowObservable]

<<it's just that I'm an aerospace journalist, so I'm more than familiar with France's track record...>>

Like how Dassault designed the A320? Or why it is villainous for the French to try to sell the Alpha Jet to the USN or India? Or that the A400M is some kind of French plot (in which case, why is it going to be assembled in Spain?)...

Seriously, I believe that you underestimate Rafale and overstate the ease of adapting Typhoon to a carrier deck.

[Brit55]

Spot on LowObs,

Navalising Typhoon would surely prove very difficult (Tarnish, where are you on this?) and I simply do not see it happening. Tranche 3 will probably come into service, partly replacing older Tranche a/c which may go into storage for attrition and partly replacing the GR4 (wishful thinking from a Tonka mate perhaps!!)

Rafale is already at sea and will no doubt work well once the jigsaw is complete. I'm all for buying it, even if it is just to p*ss on Bush's fire.

I think that many of us are becoming sick and tired of how the US is treating the UK. Blair shows absolutely no back bone when it comes to standing up to the US and I commend Dr Reids shot across the bow, well done that man. Now just stand by your guns and reload!

As for comparing Typhoon to the F16 Block 60, get real. The potential for expansion with Typhoon's airframe and onboard technology far out weighs anything the F16 will produce in the future. Raptor is eating up too much of the DoDs budget, hence the cuts in orders. Dollar for Dollar, I'd take Typhoon with Storm Shadow, Meteor, AMRAAM, ASRAAM etc etc any day of the week.:ok:

[morning mungrel]

Sometimes. I just don't get you guys. Typhoon is so much better than F-16, F-15, Rafale, every other goddam thing flying. Better than Raptor, worse than Raptor. It does this, it can't do that. If it were my money, I'd be DAMN FECKIN SURE that my NEW aircraft was a whole lot better than something designed 30 YEARS AGO! Any comparisons to F-16's and such like are really pointless. Yes, Typhoon has more POTENTIAL for expansion etc, than an F-16 Block whatever. It bloody well should have. It's 30 years newer, and how much more expensive? The real question we need to be asking, is why the yanks won't do the tecnology transfer. We have exactly the same dilemma here as you do there. But arguing that your new jet has more bells and whistles than 25 or 30 year older designs is pissing in the wind guys. The real problem is what actually gets DELIVERED to YOU, the customer in terms of capability. The older designs already have all the other stuff, asraam, amraam, G/A capability, AESA, etc. No or not much stealth, or supercruise, but hey, they can deliver. How about we compare apples with apples, when Typhoon can actually DELIVER in all it's intended roles?

[Lazer-Hound]

So, can anyone tell me why tech transfer is such a bog deal with JSF when it's not for, say, Trident or TLAM?

Also, why is it an issue for the UK but not, apparently, the other JSF partners?

[ORAC]

The UK trident missiles are leased from the USA and are manufactured, tested and serviced in the USA (though we do build our own warheads*). TLAM would, if an upgrade was required, similarily have to be shipped back to the factory to have the work done.

*One of the breakdowns in the special relationship was over nuclear weapons. After the war, even though many of the scientists involved had been British, the USA refused access to the technical information. That was the reason the Uk had to set up its own programme and develop its own weapons - a technology it still retains. Exchange of information only, grudgingly, started again after the UK exploded its own H-bomb.

[Lazer-Hound]

Fine, ORAC. If sending our 'independent' deterrant back to the US for upgrades/repairs is OK, what's the big deal with doing the same for JSF? It's not as if it's our only fighter, even.

[jindabyne]

early dog

But that's the point old chap - it's all (mostly) chattin' about the future. Get it? But then most of you lot didn't in my four years or so spent amongst you -so why should you be different? Oh, and do try and persuade Angus and wee Johnny not to throw away your hard earned dollars on that thing with pissy little wings.

G'Day


TM

Agree - given the plethora of WAG-ing and factual divergence being posted, much (not all) of the above is a pointless, anorakial, debate. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way -------.

Brit55

Far be it for me to comment on his behalf, but why would Tarnished want to tarnish his reputation by entering this particular bear pit?

[ORAC]

The review of the defence industry concluded that the UK was unlikely to ever build another aircraft by itself, but that the role of the UK aviation industry was to retain core skills by maintaining, modifying and upgrading the aircraft we operate. The shrinking size of the RAF means that has to include whatever is purchased to replace the Harrier. It also is a fact that through life costs are about 4 times purchase cost and that money needs to be spent here, not in the USA

We have a history of being let down in these matters by the USA. Skybolt, F-111 etc, and it´s no coincidence that, whilst others were buying F16s, F18s etc, we were spending more to build Jaguars and Tornadoes.

Trident was not seen as needing upgrades and, regardless, we never saw a need to go into the ICBM business. Our needed numbers are too small and there was nobody we could sell them too. There is also the probability the replacement will be a UK/Anglo-French ALCM. Same with TLAM, an off the shelf buy in small numbers with the same constraints. I have my suspicions that a longer term replacement might also be European.

The thing to realise is that jobs and industry tend to come out as higher priorities to politicians than future threats. If the choice is between the JSF, with all upgrades and repairs being done in the USA, and the Rafale with the French guaranteeing the work to BAe, the Rafale might well be chosen even if being seen as technologically inferior.

[airborne_artist]

Discussed in the House of Commons yesterday - Hansard report (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060227/debtext/60227-03.htm)

[Tim McLelland]

needs to be spent here, not in the USA
We have a history of being let down in these matters by the USA. Skybolt, F-111 etc, and it´s no coincidence that, whilst others were buying F16s, F18s etc, we were spending more to build Jaguars and Tornadoes.


Actually we don't have any such history. We chose to abandon the F-111 because the government lost its nerve when the costs began to spiral. Ultimately, the F-111 would have been a good deal, and the airframes were eventually sold to Australia where many of them are still active.

Likewise, Skybolt eventually started showing some signs of success just as we pulled out of the programme. Even though the US decided to abandon it, we were offered the whole programme but chose not to take-up the option.

It was indeed no coincidence that we were busy building Jaguars MRCA's and the like, while the US was starting to churn-out F-15's and more, but that was because our government embarked upon a rose-coloured relationship with France and Europe, only to find that France ultimately screwed us on the Jaguar, and the Tornado programme could only cater for the needs of just three countries. By any standards, the lesson to be drawn from these programmes was that we could have simply purchased "off the shelf" from the US, and saved a fortune.

[GeeRam]

Of the cuff thoughts time.....

It's a shame BAe/Saab didn't instead look at a possible navalised version of the Gripen some years ago instead, or did they?
Rafale-ish size (admittidly single donk, but so was the F8 Crusader and of course SHAR) but maybe not with the forward vision problems as a marine Typhoon...?????

Be interested in the experts thoughts about pros and cons of that idea..?

[ORAC]

Skybolt? Cancelled because the USA no longer needed it, and to hell with the contract. The offer to let the UK take over the programme? Unaffordable.

F111? Offered at a ridiculously low price and against firm guarantees to ensure the cancellation of the TSR2 as competition. Immediately the TSR2 was cancelled the firm guarantees evaporated. Contract cancelled within a year.

[Pureteenlard]

Of the cuff thoughts time.....
It's a shame BAe/Saab didn't instead look at a possible navalised version of the Gripen some years ago instead, or did they?


If I recall correctly, the old Viggen was designed to land on sort stretches of road using a 'no flare' technique like a carrier deck landng. If the Gripen was designed for similar punishment wouldn't a navalised version be easier to create since the airframe would aleady be strong enough for the deck landings?

A quick web search found ( http://www.vectorsite.net/avgrpn.html )
and to quote;
"Unlike the Viggen, the Gripen does not have a thrust reverser. The canard foreplanes can be tilted almost 90 degrees to act as airbrakes on landing. There are carbon brakes on all the wheels of the tricycle landing gear to reduce landing roll. Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, however. The landing gear has an antiskid system. The two-wheel nose gear retracts backward, while the single-wheel main gear retract at a forward angle."

Me, I'd want a hook!

[Tim McLelland]

Skybolt? Cancelled because the USA no longer needed it, and to hell with the contract. The offer to let the UK take over the programme? Unaffordable.
F111? Offered at a ridiculously low price and against firm guarantees to ensure the cancellation of the TSR2 as competition. Immediately the TSR2 was cancelled the firm guarantees evaporated. Contract cancelled within a year.

If you say so orac :rolleyes:

[Brit55]

jindabyne,

good point, well presented.

This thread seems to have bottomed out some what with tit for tat comments however, I've not seen much support for JSF...

What if the RAF offered to defend the RN fleet with complete ubiquioty using Tranche 3 of Typhoon??? I'm sure the F3 got the vote last time with that argument. :rolleyes:

[Tourist]

Brit, how is a non carrier aircraft going to defend the fleet?

[WhiteOvies]

From the link posted by A_A:

Mr. Ingram: Indeed, I think that the Sea Harriers are being decommissioned today, and we should mark that event because they have provided great service. We have explored the reasons for this decision time and again in the House and I do not want to repeat them.

Political dodging on answering a straight question for (possibly) good reason but he's a month early. Nice to know he's got his finger on the pulse!

More importantly - marinisation of aircraft is a bit more costly and complicated than people think e.g. AH and HMS Ocean. Something designed for, or proved, in a maritime environment would be the most logical choice. Resistant to Rafale from personal prejudice of France and worries over future capability. BAe have a sizeable stake in Gripen but real life and sim are different. (Tonkas have a hook too, I wouldn't want to see them at sea:sad: ).
Super Hornet would be handy but would/could they be built under license at Warton?
Lets not jump the gun here, both CVF and JSF are a way off yet, anyone want to predict UK Defence in 10ish years time?:hmm: Rolls still have a substantial influence as the ONLY supplier of the lift fan for the STOVL version so its not game over for UK industry just yet.

[Brit55]

Tourist,

I was referring to the argument, many moons ago, made by our Air Officers when pursuing funds for the F3. It is said that they put forward a case that the funds required for replacing the ageing carriers and RN F4s would infact be better spent on several Sqns of shiny new F3s (radars to follow). :p

The story goes that when asked how the RAF could possibly defend the RN worldwide, the Air Officers replied by producing a rather large map of the world complete with range circles which demonstrated that the F3 could infact patrol the over the seven seas with ubiquioty. They did however fail to mention that the had moved Australia 2000miles North. Poetic License...

[davedek]

It would also mean British forces would not have the right codes to arm the planes if they wanted to use them for missions not approved by the Pentagon.

That is just... I'm lost for words. Now I'm usually pro anglo-american relations, but (IF it is true, a big if) this true then it would theoretically give the Pentagon command over our aircraft!! Which is totally absurd!!

[brickhistory]

I usually do not respond in UK-only issue threads, and and generally ignore the anti-US comments and insults (although some are very witty and I appreciate the wit!) prevelant in pprune (but then it is a UK-centric org so I enter at my own risk).

I like being an American, enjoy my country and don't mind most of what the government does, but as I posted earlier, this is a dirty thing my govt is trying to pull on our primary JSF partner.

You paid your money in good faith, got in on the ground floor, and carried your weight in the JSF program, thus you are/should be treated as a partner. I am sorry that this is even being considered. If it comes to pass, I hope HMG takes it requirements elsewhere and buys other jets.

I have contacted my congressmen and senators, of course that will be like p#ssing in the wind...

[Safety_Helmut]

Help ?

What is all this about codes to arm the aircraft ? Surely, this has grown out of a story about not having access to software source code than requiring a PIN to launch a weapon.

Can anyone shed some more light on it ? :8

Safety_Helmut

[antipodean alligator]

Lead on Mother Country.....Stick it to 'em and ditch the JSL (Lemon).
I just pray that when you do, our lot actually take notice because right now they are feeding our pollies mountains of pro-JSF bolleaux which is going to result in us having 5 PLTOFF's per airframe entering PINs 24/7 to try and break in to the MC to enable BDU-33 releases.
At least if you buy Rafale we will have an answer in the Rafale vs EFT debate!
Anyway, it's about time the RN remembered that it is primarily there for driving BOWATS......They should never have been allowed to have a fighter that was superior to those of the RAF.

[pr00ne]

Brit55,

You are getting your time periods well and truly muddled up. You are confusing the argument put forward in the mid sixties when it was decided that the UK no longer needed fixed wing carrier air power as air defence of the fleet could be provided by shore based air power. The famous example of the time was a map of the Far East theatre where air cover was provided from Singapore, Australia and various islands to prove that organic fixed wing air cover was unnecessary. The F3 had not even being dreamt of then.

The F3 (or more accurately F2 at the time) on the other hand was a decade later when a significant cost saving was made by proposing an Air Defence variant of the Tornado IDS as the next generation RAF AD aircraft. Its lack of agility being justified by it never having to meet hostile fighters as it would concentrate on taking out massed Regiment sized backfire raids 400 miles out over the North Sea at night, at low level in the middle of a snow storm and under heavy ECM.

davedek and Safety_Helmut

No need to get your knickers in a twist. It is indeed a woefully inaccurate statement. The argument is NOTHING to do with arming the F-35s, nor has it anything to do with the Pentagon “approving” missions.
It is all about IPR and software codes, therefore it is a purely economical argument concerning upgrade and major overhaul of the F-35 by BAE Systems. Basically they want to be able to do it but Lockheed-Martin retain the IPR and insist that only they can do it. It’s just the same for the C-130J, AMRAAM and Trident.

[switch_on_lofty]

Because the CVF has been designed for catapult, why not bin the stovl B version, and get the better (range, payload and cheaper) carrier-based "C" version? ignoring the debate about tech transfer for a second.
As for A Aligators thought about driving SHIPS, what enhances the use of said assets? Aircraft, and cool maritime ones at that. Ones that don't need host nation support/overflight rights etc. Look at many recent ops, carriers can get closer than land based aircraft.
I've gone off (carried on?) a tangent slightly there I know.
Switch_on_lofty
*First post*

[Flatus Veteranus]

For Gawd's Sake - here we go again!. IMHO the current row with the Yanks gives us an ideal pretext to bin the whole damned project, carriers included. Indeed carriers in partcular!

If anyone really thinks that any government is going to involve us again (after Iraq) in some war outside Europe, they have to be mad. And Perlease do not quote the Malvinas again. We have spent billions buidling a bloody great runway down there with all the knobs and bells, and if we can't hold off the Argies next time round without spending billions more on carriers, we deserve to be out of business. Anyway, would we have the political will to mount a CORPORATE II ? No way!

We seem to have gained access to Afghanistan bases easily enough (though God knows what we think we can achieve there). And what could Rafale do over Afghanistan launching from a carrier in the Arabian Sea? SFA! Indeed what could Rafale do against a hard target only 100 nm from its mother in a temperate climate? Enough to justify all these billions spent on the carriers and on eating humble (French) pie? And would the taxpayer stand for buying pretty little Frog aircraft when they are already having to fork out billions for Typhoons which, they are told, are surplus to requirements? Let us all get back to planet Earth. Either Typhoon can be navalised or we bin the whole carrier fiasco.

Once more, what we need is a large aircraft, with a decent range/payload performance able to deliver PGW from altitude's above the the reach of AAA and tactical SAMs. It would not be expected to penetrate contested airspace, which would have been sanitised before it was committed.

[GeeRam]

Once more, what we need is a large aircraft, with a decent range/payload performance able to deliver PGW from altitude's above the the reach of AAA and tactical SAMs. It would not be expected to penetrate contested airspace, which would have been sanitised before it was committed.

Better get hold of a good cache of 'Buff's' from out of AMARC before they all get guillotined........:E

Got to be cheaper than JSF.......

We can have Bomber Command back again.......:O

Or,

New build 'Tin-Triangles' anyone.........:ok:

[Tarnished]

Reportedly from Janes today:

BAE Systems chief calls for study into JSF alternative
Guy Anderson Editor

BAE Systems Chief Executive Mike Turner has called for the UK to launch a study into the feasibility of using naval variants of the Eurofighter Typhoon as an alternative to the JSF, adding that he believes it is "quite possible".
Issues concerning the UK's access to technology relating to JSF remain unresolved, although Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson said he is "optimistic" that there will be a "satisfactory" conclusion by the end of 2006.


THE UK should fund a study into the feasibility of a naval variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft as a potential alternative to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), BAE Systems Chief Executive Mike Turner said.

Speaking before the UK parliamentary Defence Committee, Turner said that it was "quite possible" to "navalise" the Typhoon, but stressed that "it is not what we would recommend".

The "Joint Strike Fighter is the right aircraft", he added.

Turner said that the possibility of a naval variant of the Typhoon had been "considered" by BAE Systems, but he also said: "We need a study into the feasibility of navalising Typhoon. While we know that it is possible, we believe the MoD [Ministry of Defence] needs to fund a study into costs and what it would involve."

Turner's comments during the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) inquiry - held in London on 28 February - came as the technology transfer demands and issues of sovereignty relating to the programme remain unresolved, and questions remain as to whether the UK will commit to the next phase.

In January this year it was revealed that the UK MoD will not sign the Production, Sustainment and Follow On Development (PSFD) memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the JSF with the US "without achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty" over its technology.

Furthermore, General Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman, vice-chief of the defence staff, told the UK in the Business of Defence conference in London on 7 February that it was "inconceivable that the IAB [the MoD Investment Approvals Board] will approve an aircraft where we cannot be utterly clear that we know enough about its technological make-up to be assured of all matters about safety, or that we should be able to operationalise it to run intensive and varied operation from the carrier, or that we can be able to modify or update our needs throughout its life."

Speaking after Turner at the DIS inquiry, UK Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson moved to reassure the committee, saying: "I expected this to be resolved satisfactorily for us by the end of the year. I am optimistic and that is not naïve optimism. It is based on experience."

The UK will make a decision before the end of the year as to whether it will sign the PSFD MoU with the US, a move which will commit the country to procuring a certain number of aircraft (currently estimated to be 150 units at a cost of GBP10 million [USD17.4 million]). To date, the UK's contribution to the programme has remained fixed at USD2 billion for the current system development and demonstration phase.

France - which announced in January that it had formally agreed to invest GBP100 million into the UK's CVF project with a view to adapting the design for its own new-generation carrier (PA2) - is looking to equip its version of the vessel with an aviation force of Rafale-Ms.

The UK, armed forces minister Adam Ingram said in October, has "no plans" to consider the aircraft, despite speculation to the contrary.


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

© 2006 Jane's Information Group



I wonder what they think they will get for their 10 million GBP a copy??

[Brit55]

An excellent post Tarnished, thankyou.

[Widger]

Same ship with same engineering and support facilities. Got to be much cheaper, which means we could afford more! Rafale gets my vote, just put Blue Vixen in the nose and we might get something this century!

[Wycombe]

Reading all this makes me wish we hadn't let "our closest ally" get their hands on the Harrier!

Have just been in the US for a bit and would be the first to concede that on the whole, you still love us "Brits".

It is therefore a great pity that the US displays such protectionism towards it's "closest friend in the World".

The C17 was another example of a procurement "on US terms" - it seems we were taken to the cleaners on that aswell.

[Tim McLelland]

That statement posted by Tarnish might help to end all the ill-informed nonsense that has been thrown-up on this thread!

As Lord Drayson said, based on experience, it's clear that all the talk about having sovereignty over the F35's technology is just pre-signature hot air which happens in any programme, and it probably only ever came-up because of the potential export of the aircraft to other countries.

So let's calm-down and stop getting excited about being "ripped-off" by the evil Americans who (astonishingly) have supplied so much of our equipment, provided intelligence and technology when necessary, and have been a fundamental part of our strategic strike posture since the 1950's. It's fascinating how people will jump onto some newspaper-led "Lets hate the Yanks" bandwagon despite looking at history. Poor us, we've been "fobbed-off" with some really poor aircraft like the Phantom, AV-8B, E-3, Hercules and the C-17, the latter aircraft being so awful that we're trying to get hold of some more! Come on, get real!

The F35 saga is about cost, pure and simple. One suspects that the government regretted getting into the programme almost as soon as it began, and as I keep saying, you just have to sit back and marvel at how the government gradually digs itself out of its self-imposed farce, and the latest statement from BAe fits-in perfectly. How long then, before a new Typhoon study concludes that (guess what?!) the Typhoon could be cheaply reconfigured for naval operations, and so we don't need to even buy the F35 when we already have another batch of Typhoons to buy. Quelle surprise!

In the final analysis, the F35 isn't going to offer us anything much over the Typhoon, other than a Vtol capability which might or might not even survive to the production stage. Even if it does, its an ability that we haven't really needed since the 1990's. Ultimately, the only vaguely logical reason for purchasing the F35 is one of risk-spreading, so that we're not equipping virtually all of our front line with the same design. But this is 2006, and I think we've grown far beyond a stage where we have to do that any longer. I think it safe to assume that the Typhoon would fulfil all of our requirements, and you have to also assume that the government is thinking much the same thing - finally!

[Lazer-Hound]

I pretty much agree with Tim, it's funny how this tech transfer issue only cropped up in the last couple of years, and isn't applicable to TLAM, Trident, C17, C130J, etc., etc. One would almost think HMG is prepared to ditch JSF (and CVF) and blame the US.

[Tarnished]

Point of clarification:

F-35B is a STOVL jet.

There is no requirement/specification for it to be VTOL.

Sure it will be capable of VTO but not with a representative load

Tarnished

[Tourist]

Tim,
other than the fact, of course, that it can operate off a carrier. One might consider that important for a carrier borne a/c

[LowObservable]

GBP 10 million a copy? I'd guess that 10 billion for the program cost is what it should have been, which is about GBP70 million per unit (not a flyaway cost before anyone gets too excited).
The question "why not look at F-35C?" has been raised before and has made sense ever since it became clear that CVF had grown to Forrestal-class size. And aside from far greater range, better bring-back load, lower maintenance and better signatures I don't see any major disadvantages to the C, plus then a person could buy E-2Ds and solve the MASC problem.
BAE likes the F-35 because it has 20 per cent of the program. Half of that, though, is US based, which is perfectly ducky for Nashua, NH, but does little for the struggling black pudding refineries of Lancashire. And of course they'd like to do a Seaphoon (and that is hereby copyrighted BTW) study. Defence contractors like money and BAE's nightmare would be Rafale.

[Brit55]

Why put Typhoon onto the Carriers? It's not designed for it and making a land based a/c into a carrier based a/c is no easy task. The idea of having on type, which covers all of your offensive and defensive requirements is a bad one IMHO. A major problem could, in theory, ground the entire fleet whilst under investigation. Not a option, we must procure another type in order to retain some redundancy.

Tim,

This thread has not been about people jumping on the 'anti yank' band wagon, the JSF deal sucks, plain an simple. Bush is treating his only real ally with contempt in regards to this issue and others (C17 to name just one).

Your a journo, not a servicemen and as a result, you do not have access to the in's & out's of what is really going on inside the wire. Stop suggesting that people on this forum are ill-informed and talking nonsense when infact, they probably know a great deal more than you do.

[Roxane]

Hi everybody,

I'll have a quick try for a first post.
My understanding is that only US build catapult, as France had to buy theirs for their/our CDG. So if you bin the F35, the hopes are very thin that they will give you anything to launch any sort of Rafale, Eurofighter etc.. So you're back years ago with short-legged VSTOL technology.
To me it looks like a good pressure action to big Daddy, looking like "if you're not nice to me, I'll sleep with our hated ugly neighbour!!" (Would be great fun by the way)

Up to you guys but I think you're in it for years.
God Save the Queen, don't let her be stars & striped

TVM

PS: Be careful with Rafale, it only speaks French :confused:

[scran]

Brit 55:

I think your statement about the UK being the only "real" ally shows a remarkable lack of knowledge.

The larger proportion of Aussies in the Middle East are supporting US efforts, and we are in other areas supporting them more than the UK.

And the UK's treatment of us wrt Southern Iraq has not been to best........

Get off your high horse :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Out Of Trim]

Originally posted by Roxane.
My understanding is that only US build catapult

What! Are you sure we can't build our own?
I'm sure we used to build our own in the old days of HMS Eagle, Ark Royal etc.

just had a quick google.. I guess as we invented the steam catapult we sould be able to still build one. I found this:-

Catapults had been around since the 1930’s (when they were fitted to the carriers Glorious and Courageous) however these early devices were powered either by compressed air or cordite. It was Commander C C Mitchell RNVR who first suggested taking steam from the ship’s main boiler to power the catapult. Trails on HMS Perseus during 1950-1952 showed an aircraft weighing 30,000lbs could be launched with a speed of over 90 knots, which was a considerable increase over the air hydraulic catapults then in service. The steam catapult also proved to be considerably more reliable. By the time the RN's last fixed wing carrier was retired in 1978 (HMS Ark Royal), the steam catapult was regularly launching aircraft weighing over 60,000lbs at 110+ knots.

It is only now that the Americans are looking to replace Steam Catapults, on their next generation carriers, with electromagnetic catapults.

[Roxane]

Sadly my friend, inventing things and being good and up to date at it is not exactly the same thing.
I know Brits have invented almost everything in this world, and surely you could be easily able to build a modern fighter, or catapults etc... by yourselves.
It is maybe just a fact that you simply cannot do it. Can/could, it's maybe more than a language subtility.

Keep thinking you could be great and independant, it will make the situation more bearable!

Sorry if a bit rough ;) but I re-read your post 4 times, it's just in the past with all the empires.

[Brit55]

Scran,

My comment of the UK being the US's only real ally is based history, not just since 9/11 or the Bali bombing. Countries have signed up to support the 'war on terror' however, their motives are, quite naturally, based on self defence, not an alliance with the US.

The point I'm making is that no other nation, other than the UK, stands up and openly supports the US at every avenue. I'm not suggesting that everyone should however, Britain played a large part in getting several countries to see the US way of thinking during Veritas and allow US overflights, India being a prime example (they would no speak directly to the US administration on this matter).

Now, with such unrelenting support being shown to the US by the UK, is it really too much to expect some positive feedback, in the form of some trust on the transfer of technology, from them? If the answer is no, then the UK should look elsewhere for a Harrier replacement.

[LowObservable]

Steam cats on a turbine-electric ship?
Good luck.

[Widger]

If they go that route (CV) then they will use electromagnetic CATs. The technology is already is use at places like Disneyland, so stop all the scaremongering. Do you not think the IPT have thought of this already?

[Lazer-Hound]

The UK is in its relationship with the US like the speccy, weedy kid who follows the big school bully around the playground, telling him who to beat up and making sure all the first-years have handed over their lunch money. Or, if you prefer, like Jabba's little mate. The US may or may not appreciate this, but at the end of the day, nations don't have permanent alliances, they have permanent interests. As the US reorientates its strategic posture towards East and South Asia, the UK will become increasingly irrelevant to them.

[Brit55]

Seems to be happening already...:*

[Lazer-Hound]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1722410,00.html

[Tim McLelland]

Brit, I should point-out that I'm not a "journo", to coin your phrase, I'm an aviation journalist, and have been for twenty years, so I think it a bit unfair to suggest that I don't have a view?! It would also be unfair to suggest that those on the "other side of the wire" are any more informed, as of course most servicemen will happily tell you that the very last people to hear about anything, is usually them!
We're going round in circles on this thread, repeating information which we've already discussed, so I don't see any point in doing likewise, but spare a thought for the recent missive from BAe, suggesting that a full design study be conducted to determine exactly how much it would cost to navalise the Typhoon. Quelle surprise - you could see that one coming for weeks!:)

[Tombstone]

Journo, Aviation Journo... What's the difference? :rolleyes:

Tim, I really do not think that most Servicemen would be overly happy to tell anyone that they are the last to find things out!!! ;)

[Out Of Trim]

Actually I'm not your friend; I don't know you from Adam.

However, It can't be that hard to build a catapult to do the job. End Of!

[Roxane]

Ok, ok, touched a sensitive issue then :{

Ok we may not know each other and as I said you could buy your own.
Then add the cost to develop, test, validate it to the rest of the program, and you'll be back with the usual cost issue.

Nothing is difficult, if you've got money to do it.
Ask BAe to build an F-35 equivalent and they will. But it may be a bit more difficult to afford, compare to having a small percentage of the USAF Air Power and getting the numbers effect.

Happy if you want to end this discussion, but still think it's worth a talk.

Bye bye

[LowObservable]

Widger - it's not scaremongering, it's money and risk, and I have yet to see Disneyland launch a Vigilante. It's not insoluble, but who pays?

[Tim McLelland]

Talk about going round in circles... as we've discussed at length many times before, the new carriers have a built-in capability for catapult installation so there's no question that the capability can simply be added for the appropriate fee. The point is that the capability was mentioned supposedly a mere "luxury add-on" although many of us suspected it probably had something to do with the possible purchase of Hawkeyes somewhere down the line. But as time has progressed, it's become clear that it probably has more to do with a latent desite to utilise Typhoons rather that F35's.
I don't know what the notion of Britain building an F35 is all about - if we want an F35 fleet then we'll get one, and all the nonsense about sharing technology will be forgotten as it always has been since the 1950's. The problem is cost, especially when weighed against the almost inevitable purchase of more Typhoons which (unless there's a change in the order of battle) will be redundant. Even a monkey can work-out what the obvious solution is...

[Tombstone]

Not too sure if Typhoon will ever make it to sea Tim, I'm sure the Sea Harrier ladies would love to fly it however, It's lack of forward vis on approach to a carrier would be a slight snag.

[Jackonicko]

"I don't know what the notion of Britain building an F35 is all about - if we want an F35 fleet then we'll get one, and all the nonsense about sharing technology will be forgotten as it always has been since the 1950's."

What the technology issue is all about is cock all to do with building the damned things, it's much more to do with supporting them in service.

This isn't a Buccaneer or a Jag, nor even a Tornado. The technology we're seeking would probably be required to conduct Majors, and would certainly be required if you wanted to do a quick and dirty installation of some new piece of kit (ECM, a recce pod, new weapons) to meet a UOR.

And, indeed, to do a normal, slow-time, full-up weapons integration.

And the JSF team's track record in being helpful about integrating UK weapons onto JSF has, thus far, hardly been confidence inspiring. External ASRAAM? Meteor? Internal EPW IV? etc.

We're already looking at an aircraft whose unique selling point is its ability to do 'first day of war' type missions in an LO configuration (all internal weapons carriage) but which cannot carry any of the UK's 'first day of war' weapons internally. We are looking at an aircraft which cannot carry a meaningful loadout of the AD weapons we were aiming to standardise on. At an aircraft which cannot carry ASRAAM except by sacrificing one of its precious internal weapons bays. Because if it were cleared for external ASRAAM and Meteor we might sell such weapons to some JSF customers, taking business away from AIM-9X and AMRAAM.

The US attitude, articulated and repeated ad nauseam by senior LM folk at Singapore was that "This is very advanced technology. The US Government has invested very large amounts of money and will remain the decider of what does and doesn't happen." There seems no appetite to compromise, and no recognition whatsoever that Britain might be 'cut some slack' and treated as being a particularly close ally. The underlying message was clearly that we need to shut up or f*ck off.

JSF is good for BAE, industrially. Building it is no problem with or without technology transfer. They will build the rear end of every JSF built, as long as they can provide best value. But that is entirely unrelated to the UK uptake of aircraft. It's what our £1 Bn Tier One status bought us.

[griffinblack]

Brit55 says:

My comment of the UK being the US's only real ally is based history, not just since 9/11 or the Bali bombing. Countries have signed up to support the 'war on terror' however, their motives are, quite naturally, based on self defence, not an alliance with the US.

You may not be aware that Australia allied itself with the US in Korea and Vietnam. Australia'a historical relationship, at least in the modern context, is at least as strong as that of the UK.

[Tombstone]

Never underestimate the power of the Aussie BBQ!!!

I agree with griffinblack, Todays Australia certainly backs most US policy however, they don't come close to what the UK has done alongside the US, which is why I would like to suggest that Bush can take JSF and ram it up his unarticulate, narrow minded, uneducated, pretentious arse!!:mad:

Any blame for spelling mistakes lies entirely with the Chardonnay...

[Tim McLelland]

Jacko, your comments seem to confirm my belief that the F35 would ultimately be a waste of money. It will offer us absolutely nothing over and above the Typhoon's cabablities, other than a vtol capability that we haven't needed for over a decade. As I keep saying, one can only assume that the MoD accountants will inevitably conclude that when we're already virtually obliged to buy more Typhoons, we may as well "navalise" them and dump the F35.
If we don't do something with the final batch of Typhoons, what will we do with them? We can't really afford to cancel them, and based on the current orders of battle, we'd have surplus aircraft. Unless they were placed in storage, it seems only logical that they would be better used for naval operations, and allow the cost of the F35 programme to be abandoned.

Griffin, I think you're rather underestimating just how close British and American air arms actually are, and have been for half a century. It's not just about supporting each other or taking part in campaigns, the relationship is much deeper and complicated than that.

[Jackonicko]

Tim,

There may well be some surplus Typhoons because the 232 aircraft figure was predicated on supporting an active fleet of 137 aircraft through to the planned OSD. That 137 aircraft fleet was in turn based on a seven squadron force, plus and OCU and an OEU.

It now seems unlikely that there will be seven squadrons, with the elimination of Leeming, though there may still be six.

There won't be that many spare jets. Perhaps backing out of JSF would allow us to buy a few more - or a few Gripens.

[ORAC]

Norway to back out of JSF? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/norway-to-back-out-of-f35-jsf-over-industrial-share/index.php)

[herbie30003]

Tim

You state the lack of need for VSTOL over the past decade,may I suggest that you look a little harder. CVS ops plus other recents dets have firmly established why STVOL is necessary for the UK. Ask the USMC why they feel STOVL is important and you ll get muchthe same reason.

One gets tired of all the speculation over will we/ wont we ref JSF. One thing is quite clear...if the UK government wishes us there on day one then stealth is the way to go, something that other options wont give us. If it doesnt then other options could be considered.

Lets just wait until the decision is made later this year and cut out the speculation and much of the ill informed information that appears on here.

[Tim McLelland]

Herbie, one thing which is pretty clear to everyone, is that vtol (or stovl, which is merely a euphamism for the vast majority of situations when vtol aircraft are too damned heavy to operate vertically!) capability is not something which is necessary for the UK any longer. The Harrier was an important part in Cold War scenarios but post-Falklands, vtol is now a "luxury" rather than a necessity. No point in asking the USMC what they think as, guess what, Britain is not the USMC!

Could you possibly identify even one occasion when vtol has been necessary in an operational environment? Certainly, the Harrier's unique abilities have been put to good use, but never as a necessity. It's been more of a case of deploying to theatres and situations where the Harrier could be used to best effect, but that's a long way from concluding that vtol is in any way vital to our needs. Patently, the F35's vtol ability has everything to do with ship-borne operations and nothing else, as far as the Uk is concerned. But when we'll have carriers which can be reconfigured to operate "conventional" aircraft...

Incidentally, I don't quite understand your suggestion that we "cut out speculation" - I thought that was what this thread was about?!:D

[herbie30003]

Tim
Yes I can but will not do so on here as it is not appropriate forum to do so. What you also fail to grasp is the unique link that the USMC and UK have when it comes to STVOL operations and future requirements. The STOVL requirement IS NOT purely about ship borne operations. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the STOL concept. Sure, the way the Harrier has been operated changed over the post cold war period, but I think you will find STOL operations important for the future, especially when access to overseas bases is becomming less and less.

The speculative statement was not aimed at you Tim, just some of the idiotic statements made earlier which clearly shows a lack of understanding of where the UK is going. If people cant offer opinion on fact, they certaintly shouldnt offer opinion on speculation.

[Pureteenlard]

. . ., guess what, Britain is not the USMC! . . .


Perhaps it would be better if britain's armed forces were more like the USMC? Jointery taken to it's logical conclusion?

[Tim McLelland]

Actually Tombstone it's not a "fact" at all.
Afghanistan is a classic case in point; If you ask the people who have been deployed out there, they'll tell you that the Harrier's abilities are very useful, but vtol operations? Er... where? when?

I hestitate to repeat (because you'll probably misunderstand me again!) that operations such as this are ultimately undertaken based on the abilities we have, and if we didn't have the equipment to do the job, our blessed government woud undoubtedly commit us to something else that we could handle. All well and good, but that doesn't make vtol either essential or necessary, does it?

Contrary to your comments, a lot of people agree with me that the Harrier's capabilities really aren't necessary in any way, and to start using sweeping statements about "experts" or "lack of understanding" doesn't actually contribute anything, does it?

[Tombstone]

Tim,

perhaps your patronising approach to conversation would be better suited to an audience of chimps. :rolleyes:

I'm sure that your 'a lot of people' are fellow spotters (nothing wrong with spotters) who are experts at recognising a/c however, not experts at air power projection. :p

The RAF has gone out of it's way to keep the Harrier, it would have been much cheaper to keep the Jag however, the GR7s capabilities are still valid today. Incidentally, the Harrier was not built to VTOL with a realistic warload, STOVL was and still is the game plan and it's still holding it's own today.

Pureteenlard,

spot on mate, the USMC really does move as one when fighting, demonstrating superb fire power integration, something we Brits are yet to catch up on IMHO.

[Safeware]

Perhaps it would be better if britain's armed forces were more like the USMC?
Maybe we could just sub-contract? :rolleyes: Seems to be flavour of the month in enough areas.
sw

[RileyDove]

Tombstone - The RAF has kept the Harrier because it has nothing to replace it and there isn't anything readily available . The Jaguar hasn't ever offered the load carrying capability of the Harrier in 'hot and high' environments.
It's also worth pointing out that the Jaguar is a late 1960's design which reached the end of it's development potential. The Harrier II is at least a late 1970's design and has had more scope for upgrades. As for the validity of the
STOVL concept - it's a nice thing but in reality it opens up problems with complexity and a greater chance of engine damage which can be critical.
Whilst the opportunities for overseas 'airfields' might be deminishing - reality is that effective denial of airfields is something of the past and I cannot foresee a possibility where a conventional aircraft couldn't operate
from some form of runway or indeed road successfully.

[Letsby Avenue]

Not sure where this thread is going... But back to the point - The ST in Bookers column again raises the issue of ditching the JSF in favour of the Rafale (something my initial thread raised in mid January!). You're gonna get it like it or not:} Stand by for some crap Eurofor missions off the coast of Africa for the next twenty odd years...(run by the French of course!)

[Archimedes]

Booker appears to have read the Daily/Sunday Mail piece as being that the UK will definitely ditch the JSF for Rafale, and that this taking place is merely a matter of time. His observation that the only reason for the UK buying CV(F) is to send it on EU Reaction Force tasks is laughable.

Written with all the usual accuracy of that column on defence issues...

[Tim McLelland]

Tombstone, I had to marvel at the way in which you spectacularly managed to avoid answering my earlier question, however, just for your information, my "some people" aren't "spotters", but then you haven't even got a clue who I am, never mind anyone who I might care to discuss such matters with, so (here's an idea) unless you have something useful to say...;)

[maccer82]

So, if we have the technology/capability to operate CTOL aircraft off of carriers, why dont we? From what i have read, the F-35C has a better range and payload than the B model, and most important of all is cheaper, and seems less complex (hopefully break less!). This solution also solves the problems of AWACS to support the aircraft on operations. Problem solved. The only advantage of the B model that i can think of is that the RAF can operate off of the carriers as well, is there any reason why a VSTOL aircraft cannot operate off of a CTOL carrier? Has anyone any idea with the amount of money that will be saved if the RN get C models, will that cover the extra expence of the catapult?

[Tombstone]

Tombstone - The RAF has kept the Harrier because it has nothing to replace it and there isn't anything readily available . The Jaguar hasn't ever offered the load carrying capability of the Harrier in 'hot and high' environments.

It's also worth pointing out that the Jaguar is a late 1960's design which reached the end of it's development potential. The Harrier II is at least a late 1970's design and has had more scope for upgrades. As for the validity of the

I accept the point about the Jags payload however, The Jag's design potential was still being exploited up until last year, ASRAAM,ETAPs and EFRCs as examples.

Tim,

I did indeed answer you question. The Harrier utilises STOVL not VTOL and was always designed with STOVL in mind. These are two very different concepts when you take payload into account & it is therefore rather unfair to label the GR7 as a obsolete VTOL a/c when infact it is not in service as a VTOL a/c.

I remember you being just as passionate/argumentative on the Warplane forum when chatting to fellow spotters!! ;) It always did make me giggle whilst browsing the threads looking for some photos which, I should add, were bloody impressive. :ok: