Sharkey Ward vents his opinion on the JSF and more specifically the Bae role
in all this according to this blogger.
http://snafu-solomon.********.com/20...-anti-jsf.html
Reference the F 35 programme as a whole, you say, " If we pull out, British industry (mainly but far from exclusively BAE's) will cease to be a tier one partner. At present we get 15% of the entire JSF business. Its value is around £40 billion.” If we don't place an order for the F 35 this year, we shall no longer be a Tier 1 partner. I think you will agree that ANY ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT DECISION on procurement of this aircraft should not be made until risks, timescales and procurement costs are clearly known. Or do you wished to be tarred by the same brush with which you attack Gordon Brown's administration?
I think you should take the blinkers off and have the Chairman of British Aerospace Systems and his associates removed from all teams that privately advise the Prime Minister and other Ministers. BAE is a major corporation with much of its business and employees overseas (particularly in the USA). To say that, " We could in theory still bid for small ad hoc bits of the project, but it would in practice be THE DEATH KNELL of the (large scale) aerospace industry in the UK." is a complete exaggeration - and a misguided one at that! Are not the 175,000 personnel actively serving in our armed forces more important to the defence and security of this nation than an aerospace company that over charges on every project and underperforms on every project? (What say you to the insider information that the Eurofighter radomes are now cracking up and falling off in the air during manoeuvre? Another real design problem that you can blame on BAE - not to mention many others including the Tornado F3 weapons system, Nimrod’s total lack of airworthiness and maintainability, the huge cost of maintaining Tornado GR4 in service, the inability of the Storm Shadow missile to guide properly to its target or for its warhead to work correctly, etc.)
“But the F35 problems – though real – are being exaggerated, and no one anywhere in their political or military set up has shown us the slightest doubt that it will come about.” Where on earth have you been for the last few months? The latest GAO report and earlier DOD report as well as many articles from Pentagon-based journalists all demonstrate that the F 35 programme is in critical shape and will never meet expectations on cost or performance. 80% of development testing remains to be completed and the USA is unable to predict any firm Initial Operating Capability for any of the three variants. For you to say, “And we took delivery of our first one this month – without fanfare.” is bogus spin! The aircraft in question is part of the development programme. It does not in any sense represent an operational aircraft. On paper, it belongs to the UK because the UK has had to put money into the project. You should not read any more into the delivery of the aircraft than that. If you do you are deluding yourself.
The US Marine Corps is NOT in exactly the same position as we are reference to the STOVL. They will continue to operate their multirole Harrier aircraft until at least 2025, they plan to procure 60 F-35C aircraft for air defence and a deep strike and THEY ARE NOW LOOKING AT HOW THEY CAN ADAPT THEIR AMPHIBIOUS CARRIERS WHICH OPERATE THE HARRIER AND WOULD OPERATE THE STOVL AIRCRAFT FOR THE OPERATION OF NON-STOVL AIRCRAFT.
“The EMALS technology is completely new and unproven, and has been designed for a 100,000 ton ship. When they have perfected it for that, they then have to decide how to redesign it for a 65,000 ton ship. Using as my reference point the absurd sums paid for other defence equipment (monopoly supplier and monopsony purchaser!) I am not altogether surprised that it is costing almost £1 billion, nor that the carrier alliance will chalk up £750 million completely redesigning and rebuilding the ship to accommodate it.”
You are wrong to say that the EMALS system will have to be redesigned for the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. That is not the case at all. It is working well and has been designed for easy unit by unit installation into a carrier deck - whether that is the deck of a 65,000 ton ship or 100,000 ton ship. If your government is to be accountable it should take serious note of “the absurd sums paid for other defence equipment (monopoly supplier and monopsony purchaser!)” [BRITISH AEROSPACE SYSTEMS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE!] and prevent BAe from taking our government and our armed forces to the cleaners on all aspects of defence related costs! Again, I say to you, BAE were contracted to design the ships to take into account the fitting of catapults and arresting gear. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, START HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE OR THIS GOVERNMENT WILL BECOME A COMPLETE LAUGHINGSTOCK!
Yes, Gordon Brown may have made mistakes and may be culpable as a lackey of the unions but does your government now wish to be seen in the same light as a lackey of British Aerospace Systems?
disclaimer; I know not everybody likes him, but it's an informed opinon nonetheless, take it for what it's worth.