Military AviationA forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
Same argument used by RAF/JFH to scrap sea Harrier. Can the RAF provide air Defence to the Fleet anywhere in the world? FAA should have goten 50% of the HarrierII fleet upgraded to II+ using systems recovered from Sea Harrier as part of the JFH deal.
Don't worry there's still a few SHARS down at Culdrose left , lovingly pampered with the SAH + a few T-birds also . They look in such good nick that all they need is filling with some Go-juice & they'll be back in the air . Also "00" if you are still in "tomorrow" mode , any chance of the Lottery numbers or some racing results ?
If I can predict the lottery numbers, you'll be able to spot my house by the swinging door and tyre tracks...But if you give me a few million £ I'll tell you your fortune !
The argument that the RAF could cover things was always spurious, to put it kindly.
I'm not too sure about transferring kit from FA2 to II+, but if the Blue Vixen could have been installed ( I think a larger radome would be required, a la FA2, along with a lot of other systems; the cooling setup was quite something ) that would have been a good move, but the work and cost of developing a whole new aircraft.
Throughout it's short history the RAF has always tried to snuff out the Fleet Air Arm; which in turn has come to the fore when most needed.
I'm not a member of either, I just read history...
I agree with some of the comments on the NHS. As someone who now works there even I can see were huge savings could be made. Compairing the service to Private healthcare is actually not comparing like with like. Private HC companies pick and choose their patients carefully creaming of the easy and simple stuff leaving the complicated stuff to the NHS. Most Private hospitals have No ICU capibility and when needed they dump the patient by blue light ambulance on the NHS to treat at the cost of the NHS. Also you find many patients who are operated on in Private hospitals are admitted to the NHS when they get complications and post op infections again the NHS picks up the tab. Private hospitals also don't have to sort out the very complicated social problems that patients present with in the NHS that delay some discharges for months. I work in a surgical area and we even now are filling with bed blockers from elderley and medical directorates because there isn't the social care available from local councils and families have at times very unrealistic expectations of what we can provide. Now as our surgical beds become blocked we can't admit waiting list patients into them so we have to pay for Private sector to carry out some of our work or be fined for failling to meet targets. The government said that it would look at reducing the ammount of paperwork NHS staff have to fill in infact we've had at least 1 new form to complete for each patient introduced every month since the Con/Dem colition was elected. Frontline services aren't safe either we've lost a care of the elderley ward (Hence the reason we're already getting bed blockers) staff redeployed to stop having to recruit nurses and budget redeployed to preserve "Jobs". IE to keep admin staff employed. The recruitment freeze has stopped Nurse,Physio,OT,Pharmacist recruitment but still plenty of jobs for secretaries, managers assistants to managers and directors. But being a Foundation trust the department of health has a limited say in how we're run (BTW all trusts are going to be foundation trusts in future) The new reforms will make existing problems worse. What needs to happen is a complete review or royal comission on the NHS but as has correctly been said no government has the political guts to do this and add social care into it as well. OK not fully related to the thread but until all across government service certain realities are faced we won't have any money to invest on defence and sorting out the imbalance in our forces.
The Joint Strike Fighter program has more than $6.5 billion in unspent money — “more than the budgets of many entire federal agencies” — and the first two production planes are a year late and the costs keep climbing, problems that the Senate Appropriations Committee says are symptomatic of Pentagon management problems. The committee cited “the lack of proper control in the defense budget process” and urged the Gates’ Pentagon “to regain control over its budget.”
How frustrated is the Senate panel with the management of the F-35? They say they considered scrapping all JSF funding for the year. All. Only the country’s “urgent need” for new fighters stayed the committee’s hand, the report says. Exercising restraint, the panel thinks 10 of the 42 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft requested by the Pentagon should be cut. That works out to $1.5 billion.
Finally, the SAC sent a clear signal to General Electric and Rolls Royce — and to the Obama administration — that the battle over the F136 engine for the F-35 is not over: “The incongruence of the insistence on canceling the second engine program which is a near model program and which most analysts expect would curtail long-term costs of the entire JSF program with equal insistence on the need to fully fund the JSF program is hard to rationalize,” the defense subcommittee report says.
does anyone know if the RR F-136 engine is part of the much heraled 'offsets' that apparently make any UK buy F-35's cheaper (in the whole, given tax revenues to HM Treasury) than the price that say, Canada or Norway might buy the same airframe at?
so if that nice Mr Obama - who's been such a success - gets to cull the 'spare engine', will the (somewhat theoretical) sums the MOD has done so far over JSF have to be re-done?
I was thinking of a truly cash-strapped UK military; by the time you introduce a new type such as F-18 or F-15 ( so with the 15 that's 2 new types if we're to have a FAA) and catapults etc, the F-35 might look like a bargain !
The F-15 was mentioned on the 'Future Carrier' thread, presumably as a vote for the 'cover the fleet from the land' theory; which would of course mean yet another new type for the Navy if we were keeping the FAA.
Personally I think the 'easy-fit' cat n' trap facility on the new carriers is solely to make them easier to sell, and the only time the Royal Navy will get to see them is when they go past on delivery...
If we should get to keep them, it's hard to imagine getting F-35 as well, hence my suggestion of Harrier 2+.
I am aware of AMRAAM launch velocity and acoustic vibration issues, but unless we spend really serious money, can't see a better option.
Reading up on the F136 debate, I found this recent letter from Liam Fox to Senator Carl Levin that is the strongest indication that the UK will not axe the F-35 from its future procurement plans in SSDR. Moreover, it gives UK position on the F136.
As a civilian, I don't really see why we need the F35. After all, in a recent Telegraph article an expert (journalist) said that
"But cutting back on the Typhoon would, I believe, be counter-productive. The aircraft has been modified to give it a highly effective ground attack capability, as well as its traditional interceptor role. It is so fast that it could comfortably escape from any enemy missile fired at it ..."
Well, a spell-checker in the SoSfD's office, or some proper proof reading would be nice! What kind of impression does mick2088's link convey in bullet (c) which says,
"This is not an industrial based issue. The UK has content in both engines. Whilst there are obviously industrial interests at stake for the UK, given the involvement of Rolls-Royce as a junior partner to GE, by far the greater proportion of work, even for Roll-Royce, will be carried out in the US."
Roll-Royce? What the fck is "Roll-Royce"? Do cuts in Main Building extend to a 10% cut in characters to be used in letters to one of the most powerful defence personalities in Washington DC?
Pretty pi$$ poor, people...... And yes, at this level, this kind of $hit does matter....
As a civilian, I don't really see why we need the F35.
Well, given that the Torygraph journalist writing drivel such as
"It is so fast that it could comfortably escape from any enemy missile fired at it "
seems to be either:
(a) volunteering to play chicken with an SA-20 / SA-21 in some live fire tests,
(b) uninformed to a reasonably terrifying level or
(c) Lewis Page in disguise*
I can understand why you'd be confused over purchasing a jet that will probably end up costing about £100m a copy and is likely to come in tiny numbers as a result.
The essential point is that if the UK wants to be able to have a survivable man/woman-in-the-loop conventional precision deep-strike / ISTAR capability in the 2020s against the proliferation of modern SAMs and advanced AAMs supported by an integrated air defence system, then stealth is probably essential.
In essence, this is the policy question: if we don't want to do first-night-of-the-war manned heavy lifting with the USAF/USN and other allies, then we needn't buy the JSF; we could procure a late 4th gen bomb truck to replace GR4s when we finally accept that they are beyond economic repair - which could be mid-2020s. The USAF has publicly accepted that it will be using a combination of stealth and non-stealth platforms for years to come (e.g. upgraded F-15Cs and F-15Es) and the USN has spent lots of cash on F-18E/F/G, so there will be a continuing role for 4th gen platforms, but not against the hardest targets with unattrited air defences on day one.
So in essence, the JSF question is actually all about national ambition - much like the rest of the difficult questions in SDSR.
Ignoring a stern warning from Joint Strike Fighter program leaders this summer, Norwegian defense minister Grete Faremo announced earlier today that Norway would delay its acquisition of the F-35A to take account of delays in the systems development and demonstration (SDD) program announced in March.
Norway now plans to acquire no more than four aircraft for delivery in 2016 (contract year 2014), for training purposes, but main-force deliveries will not start until 2018. Previous plans called for 20 deliveries in 2016-17.
Faremo says that the most important issue is to make sure that the F-35 is fully operational before it replaces the F-16 and implies that Norway wants to buy more aircraft at multi-year-production prices. Norway is changing its schedule, she says, to "ensure operational maturity and optimum cost of production on the Norwegian aircraft." (Under previous plans, Norway would be byuing most of its aircraft from low-rate initial production batches.)
The minister also notes that the re-scheduled SDD program "should [put] more emphasis on risk management, cost control, staffing of critical positions, test plans and monitoring by the vendor", and adds that all additional costs due to the delay will be absorbed by the US.
This is probably not what JSF program leaders have been looking for, given Lockheed Martin executive vice-president Tom Burbage's warnings at Farnborough that backsliding partners would incur higher prices: Norway appears to have concluded that the opposite is the case.
Of other early JSF customers, Denmark has deferred its decision and the Netherlands has officially confirmed that cost increases are likely to have a "considerable" effect on its program. In the FY2011-2015 order years - LRIP batches 4 through 8 - well over one-third of JSFs are destined for non-US customers, and program managers have repeatedly said that disruptions to the ramp-up will cause unit cost targets to move out of reach.