JSF - industrial implications

[Jackonicko]

First we had the Dutch expressing grave misgivings over the value of the JSF programme, and more recently the Norwegians.

Just to add to the mix, we now have the following (taken as extracts from the UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE to the Defence Committee by Sir Richard Evans, on Wednesday 5 May 2004).

Sir Richard Evans: ........ It is and I do not think we should have any illusions. The great threat to the technological base here in foreign terms is coming from the Americans because they are investing such huge amounts of money into R&T and it is why a lot of our companies are actually investing shareholders' funds today, not here in the UK but actually in America buying American assets. If this process continues without the actions that we have described or outlined or provided for in this industrial policy paper, if we actually do not do that, the UK is simply going to become the American metal basher. There will be no intellectual capability here in the UK in terms of the very high value-added content of programmes that this country has built up over so many years and that is why the big JSF was such a massive disappointment for us. That decision - and we should have no illusions - took us out in the UK from the common aircraft business and we will live to regret it, I can assure you.

..........There are always going to be areas where - and I suspect increasingly so - the right thing for the UK to do is to buy off the shelf. I just want to make sure that in other areas we would - and certainly in my company I would think that is the wrong thing to do - have a proper debate about it and, if we ultimately do decide to do it, we do it for the right reasons and then, if we do do that, we actually get the maximum amount of gain out of the decision for the UK. I am sorry to keep coming back to it, but I think JSF is a classic example. It is no good when you have signed up and paid your cheque over then trying to go back to negotiate the release of technology. It is absolutely not the way to do it and I absolutely subscribe to the fact that there are cases where it is absolutely proper to buy off the shelf, but I would also like other governments to share that view...........

......... Again if I can keep harping back to JSF, the fact of the matter is that it will be on JSF and there will probably be two or three major updates throughout the large programme and we know that one of those updates will be undertaken by Lockheed back in America and not here in the UK...........

One simple question. Is it worth it?

and just to show that it\'s not a raging technical success, either:

11 May 2004 : Column 221W

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current weight of the standard take-off vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter is; what the required weight at in-service date is; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ingram: Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements are defined in terms of aircraft performance, which is the product of many factors, including weight, drag, and engine thrust. At current engine thrust and drag values, the Short Take Off/Vertical Landing variant of the JSF is some 3300 lbs overweight to meet its stipulated overall performance levels. Work is in hand in the United States to examine options to ensure that the overall performance requirements are met, addressing all possible options including a significant reduction in aircraft weight. This work will not mature in detail until early 2005, although an interim assessment of likely outcome in summer 2004 will enable performance against the United Kingdom\'s Key User Requirements to be preliminarily evaluated at that time.

[f4aviation]

Surely there's a better way? New-build glass cockpit Harriers and a navalised Trache 3 of Typhoon? Is it just me??

[Jackonicko]

A better way? Bin the £6 Bn + white elephant carriers, bin JSF and spend the money on tankers, SEAD, recce, C-17s and loadsagripens.....?

[West Coast]

As long as the UK remains as part of some joint effort with the US or other reasonably equipped force your idea will float(yeah, its intended) God help you if you have to strike out alone saving the sheepherders again, or even the ex pat farmers.

That's essentially the self fulfilling prophecy you would create with the load out you propose.

[soddim]

Cannot believe that Dick Evans concern is viewed with credibility in this argument - after all, he must be a little biased??

Fact is, his company has had many opportunities to come up with the "high value added" goods but has failed dismally and cost taxpayers and the military dearly. What is the point of trying to maintain an aircraft company that cannot produce a specified product on time and on cost or even nearly?

The growing pains of JSF are a major worry but where is the baron's last bungle or the one before?

Would you buy a used car or even a new one from the chap who sold you a pup last time?

[Jackonicko]

Without carriers we couldn't do the Falklands without US or coalition support.

Without recce, SEAD, tankers and airlift we couldn't do anything without allies support. Period.

[L J R]

Why is vertical t/o &-or landing such a big thing for the Brits??

Yes, Harrier was a cool ideal - in that an empty one can hover (briefly).

But why does the Jo average tax payer think that this is what it can do all the time (& in summer too!) - and that wars may be won because of it.

Agree that some of the internal avionics and weapons that happen to be fitted to same are cool, but the hoverrrinnn thing is, well mystifying me. And therefore, (apart from the fact that the RN carriers are too small) why get a JSF that can hover??

JSF looks like a nice toy, but surely putting one on a small piece of tin in an ocean will not utilise its full potential....



tin hat on now.......


.

[West Coast]

Jacko
You know far better about the state of the UK's defense needs than I. My comments are general observations that speak of losing the capability of projecting force in an autonamous operation. If you believe that losing an all around generalist capability and specializing as part of some greater operation is worth it, then I will leave it you and yours to debate.

[FTI]

If I may be allowed to insert my 2c worth into this spiralling-out-of-control machine...

There is always 2 sides to any argument.

I will concede that the JSF was a fantastic idea in its inception - produce a more affordable version of the F/A-22 for dissemination to allies, while allowing the U.S. to maintain its techology gap to facilitate its standing as the only power in the Western world with the ability to pose a threat to any spot on the globe.

While this idea - and I admit, the syntax of the aforementioned was harsh - is good in theory, we then face the real question of who is to benefit the most.

As an Aussie, our defence force has a vested interest in seeing projects born through Boeing thrive. The benefits of this partnership are debatable, but that is for another time...

The strategic gain that this aircraft will give to the U.S. is questionable.
Let's have a little bit of a squiz as to why...

The F/A-22 Raptor will be a high-impact weapon in any scenario that we can imagine - its attributes are not on trial here, but the question for mine is thus...
As the Raptor is proving to be a strong performer, and morphing through upgrades/insight into an aircraft that can perform throughout the gamut from ACM to Ground Attack to - and I admit I am not sure on this last point - recce, then what place does the JSF hold on the operational ladder than a runner-up that realistically was always optioned to be cancelled if it proved to be too much of a burden fiscally and under the scrutiny of Congress??

This leads to the obvious question...

If the support isn't going to forthcoming for this aircraft from its home-production country, and the U.S. is being so frugal in allowing other nations to have impact on its production variables, then do we really believe that we have a concrete contract-filler coming to our respective countries to fill the capability gaps that are starting to gape for all of us??

My concern would be quelled much more if more countries saw fit to invest at least some cosmetic interest in proposals to the U.S. Government/Defence Department that a watered-down version of the F/A-22 be researched for export to its allies.

We were never going to get the same version of the JSF anyway -what is the harm in lowering production/flyaway costs on one aircraft, thereby doing the U.S. a favour, rather than be passengers in a program that none of us have real power to influence and watch the Raptor flourish??

I have no doubt that most of us would be willing to accept a lower-stealth version of the Raptor, with subsequent software differences to make interoperability more able...

What do others think??

Happy to hear any informed arguments of support or blatant disagreement...:ok:

[althenick]

All this talk about JSF and STOVL being the cheap option is beginning to look like fudge to me. Surely if the UK get into bed with the French Ala’ CVF then wouldn’t it be cheaper to design 1 CVF type? (ie CATOBAR) and buy either the naval Variant of JSF, (Most expensive) Rafale, (Perish the thought!) or Mr B Liar could stick his nose firmly ‘twixt the crack Gee Dubya’s @rse, and request that we be allowed to build Super Hornet under licence. (IIRC we did the same with Sea King and the results with a British Avionics suite was regarded as far better than the original US Design). It may not be as stealthy as JSF but it would have an excellent Weapons fit (Eurofighter Radar etc) You can argue how Cr@p Super Hornet is until the cows come home but I reckon the Avionics pretty much maketh the Aircraft theses days not the Airframe. (Sea Harrier is a classic example) Plus it has 2 engines (The more engines the better when at sea I believe) and a much longer range all for 57Million USD.

Jackonicko wrote

“A better way? Bin the £6 Bn + white elephant carriers, bin JSF and spend the money on tankers, SEAD, recce, C-17s and loadsagripens.....?”

Here’s an even better idea – Bin the RAF, divide the squadrons up between the other two services According to requirement. Sack all the Air Marshals and their Lackeys. Get rid of all the MU’s, and rationalise the squadron structures so that common working (and therefore support and training) practices can be implemented with the other 2 services. Offer the rest of the RAF People the option to either transfer to one of the other 2 services with no loss of pay or Rank. Or offer them the same post in a Light – Blue suit for the rest of their career. No doubt some of you will say that it would have a bad effect on morale in the Armed services – NOT TRUE – I reckon it would improve by about 331/3%

…Sorry Jacko, But if you can shoot from the hip then so can I.


:D

[Ironclad]

Responding to what LJR wrote:

"Why is vertical t/o &-or landing such a big thing for the Brits??

Yes, Harrier was a cool ideal - in that an empty one can hover (briefly)."

- Without sounding at all patronising, I think one can hazard a guess as where you live.... LJR, one of the remarkable things about the Harrier for the Brits (quite apart from the fact that it is British - contrary to the story perpetuated in the Smithsonian Institute!) is that it remains a unique and unparallelled aircraft.

- It can be deployed our relatively small RN carriers, ships taken up from trade (STUFT) and recover to the same, as well as the odd passing freighter, as did happen in 1983.

- It therefore represents the perfect aircraft to be used for support of local conflict, being versatile enough to be able to be deployed at sea, or ashore in conditions which would be denied to most other types of aircraft.

- Not only is it used by the UK, but you will find that it is employed in Spain (AV-8 Matador), India (Sea Harrier variant) as well as by the US Marines. I believe that even Guv'nor Arnie would love to have one, to park in his garage next to his HumVee (!)

- Bearing in mind that this is based upon a late 1950's early 1960's airframe, the concept is totally sound and in fact far more in tune with the requirements of modern-day littoral operations ie sitting offshore and dealing with small to medium size wars, rather than the great big ones envisaged in the 50's,60's,70's,80's etc.

- As was aptly demonstrated in the Falklands; it can stop in mid-air (betchya Raptor would love to do that); it could be shipped on board Ro-Ro's redesigned as temporary carriers/transporters and could operate off the grassy runways on the islands themselves.


LJR asked: But why does the Jo average tax payer think that this is what it can do all the time (& in summer too!) - and that wars may be won because of it.

- Firstly, the RAF/Fleet Air Arm are justly proud to show off something which is to date pretty well unique the Russians attempted to copy one themselves, but as it didn't have the vectored thrust technology "Hose Nose" it was a pretty poor relation (it relied on a trap door behind the pilot to suck the air in and blow down hard!)

- As for the US, they themselves bought the export production version which was built under license from us (so the Brits did manage to sell coals to Newcastle).

- Regarding the weather: where we live, we can do the "hoverrrin thing" all year round, because the weather never much gets above 25C (77F), unlike some hotter countries, which I can think of.....


Agree that some of the internal avionics and weapons that happen to be fitted to same are cool, but the hoverrrinnn thing is, well mystifying me. And therefore, (apart from the fact that the RN carriers are too small) why get a JSF that can hover??

- The internal avionics are pretty good, and do take a very heavy workload off the pilot, Blue Fox/Vixen is adequate and with the AIM9-M (which was sold to us by the US in 1982) it held it's own against Mirage/A-4's head-on.

- As to the carriers, given my choice, I'd opt for a dozen medium sized escort carriers of similar size to the Invincibles rather than one or two Super Carriers the size of Manhattan

- why, because it is much more consistent with our philosophy of scalability and proportionality; you don't need such in depth defence to screen them; you can deal with more than one trouble spot in the world at any one time; if you lose one, the asset loss is not so great;

JSF looks like a nice toy, but surely putting one on a small piece of tin in an ocean will not utilise its full potential....

- I agree wholly with your last comment; why do it indeed!

tin hat on now.......
;) ;)

Best regards

Ironclad

[fuel2noise]

althenick.... spot on! My ironclad hat on; can the airforce and spend the overheads on providing the other 2 services with the aircraft they need.

[BATS]

There is of course another solution - get rid of the RN and give the carriers to the RAF who actually know how to run an airfield.... The saving in Stars alone would pay for running JSF. I reckon about 8 FF/DD in total, 2 x SSN per carrier and Bob's your uncle. Put the Mineswipers out to contract, civilianise the hydrographic fleet who are virtually civvies anyway, and make the Royal Marines part of the RAF Regiment. Simple really - after all the RAF does have a history of running boats.......

:ok: :ok: :ok:

Tin Hat and Flak Jacket at Immediate Readiness !

[Flarkey]

Apparently even the Americans are cutting back the size of their carriers...



http://gatorsix.********.com/kerryer.jpg

;)

[Jackonicko]

Top idea Bats,

Air power is the key nowadays, so you only need one service. Boats are just transport anyway, so you wouldn't even need to resurrect the Marine branch, just put a couple of SACs from Brize Norton's MT section in charge of each carrier and SSN and one for the FFs and DDs.

And what is the point of Pongoes? Shift them all over to the Rocks (an Army Captain is equivalent to a Chief Tech, I guess........). It would dilute the educational average and the average IQ a bit, and you'd need to teach the officers some basic table manners, but it shouldn't be too hard.

[storl tern]

But isn't this debate engendered simply because we are either:

a. over committed
b. under resourced

and certainly a combination of both compounded by rising costs of technology. And everyone is scrabbling for the scraps that fall from B Liar's table.

A statistic I heard the other day......if you spent US$26,000,000 per day for every day since Jesus Christ died it wouldn't match what the USA has spent on defence (defense(!)) since WW2.

Wouldn't it be nice if a few of their Airships, Admirals and Generals said "Bollocks to this. If you are not going to fund us we're off!" Still, there's the pension and directorships in defence industries to think of, not to mention 'expert' roles on late night current affairs programmes.

PS Ex pat Brit - but the same arguments hold good for Oz:ok:

[althenick]

Now were just getting silly arent we? (But i suppose I asked for it!) Look at it this way. The RN and Army do very different jobs with (mainly) different requirements in the way of aircraft. The RAF's Bread and butter is in support of the other 2 services. Take away the F3's (or eurofighter) AWACS and maybe the Tankers. And what have you got left? Strike squadrons which are usually coordinted By Khaki or dark blue. Nimrod (RN) AC Squadrons (Army Cooperation - says it all doesn't it?)

I'm quite sure a battle commander would like to have ALL his battlefield air assets under his direct control rather than having to go up a chain of command and ask for them. I mean where the hell is the efficiency in that???? Same with the fish heads. Why should they have to go up the stairs just to ask for MPA/Strike support? They learned that lesson in WW2 when the put coastal command under the direct control of the Admiralty (I thought they had re-learned the lesson with the Creation of FOMA but the RAF brass managed to maneover that post out - Clever Blighters!)

Ideally (If Mr Brown wasn't hell bent on mispending My hard earned "donation") I would like to see the RAF get out of the above mentioned, Retain its fighters/ Tankers/ Awacs / and transport capability but also get a long range bombing platform Ala' The B2 Spirit. It could be paid for/ cost offset by getting rid of Trident and giving the RAF control of the Nuclear deterrent. Then Cancel the Astute program and convert the Trident SSBN's to SSGN's the loss in terms of personell would be no great loss as they are in the main civil servants.
Hey I can dream can't I? - But for the future you have to admitt, with current and future manning levels, is there justification in retaining 3 seperate services? get rid of one and bang goes a lot "Support" (Suits)

[althenick]

Deliverance,

I'm not a crab basher OK? - All's i'm saying is that given the current Manpower levels in the 3 services one has to wonder weather there is any gain to be had in keeping them apart. Now from what I Know (i'm an ex Civil Servant - But i'm cured now!) from experience is that the RAF...

a/ Are the most civilian-like of all the services. (No bad thing if you're looking in from the civil service - good people to do business with)

b/ Are the most likely to say Can't do - (Found that out in Pitreavie and Kinloss)

and

c/ (For the life of me I don't know why) Are/were the the most technologicaly backward of the services (I was in the RN Equivilent of RAFSEE at the time.)

Point c/ has no doubt been resolved since all three support systems (For comms at least) have now been amalgamated. Point b/ however does seem to be a sticking point. I don't know if this is a good example but I happen to spend a lot of time in Lossiemouth - and when i'm there I drink in the Various pubs around town. I try to avoid the "Off Camp Mess's" because I like to drink with folk to don't talk about they're work all day. However I'm pleased to say that a few of the lads from the camp do end up in the "Golden Triangle" (The Steamboat/Harbour Bar/Brander) and as the beer flows one gets some real insight into the mindset of your average Crab wrt going to sea. Almost all of them asked do not want to go near either JSF or JHC because of the Sea going factor. My own Brother (Corpral at Waddington) feels pretty much the same. And who can blame them? They didn't sign up for Rum, Bum, and Baccy did they? So I don't think i'd be far of the mark when I guess that JFH is quite probably having worse retention snags as compared to the rest of the RAF. Probably JHC too. The only way I can see round this is to bring the RAF out of both of these area's. Which by the time you've done that - you have to ask is it really worth retaining a 3rd service. For that matter why not just have 1?

[althenick]

Not wanting to go to sea does not make the force a can't do outfit.

- it does if you have to execute a conflict autonomously 1000's of miles away from home or the nearest friendly air base. And you don't have the people to man the Squadrons because they've all voted with their feet. And there's a distinct reluctance by others to replace them. What do you do? Order people to join these squadrons? By the time you've trained them to decent standard (Particularly the Techies and Pilots also making them an attractive proposition to civvy companies) their PVR Time is up and there off too. Like I said, i'm only guessing (and reading AFM - don't know if thats very accurate) but I would have to disagree with you about squadron retention within JFH. I still think it's probably higher but i'll go onto the NAO and MoD Website and try to find out.

As for combining into a single service, just ask the Canadians how much they like it.

Agree with you there - but needs must when the devil (Hoon) drives...

We should not lose sight of the fact that the forces are unique in that we do not deal with the ordinary and that things like regimental/squadron/service history are important factors in maintaining motivation and morale in difficult circumstances. Fortunately that does not have a monetary value, else that would probably be sold off as well

Agree with you 100% - but again look at numbers. and Senior civil servants/Politicians dont give a fig for morale Just their own Empires.

[emitex]

I reckon the Avionics pretty much maketh the Aircraft these days not the Airframe.

Ha-ha! I think 'team JSF' may disagree at the moment... :ouch:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

An interesting link? You decide.....

Here (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jsf/index.html)

[allan907]

Looks really good, but nowhere do I see mentioned a retractable thingy for putting your can of drink in:{

[John Farley]

JFZ90

Rolls has already acquired a 1Bn USD contract to supply the LiftSystem (as they have registered the name) for the STOVL variant. This is the fan, clutch, gearbox, shaft, roll posts and rear 3 bearing swivel duct. QuinetiQ have cornered the market on the flight control system thanks to VAAC. You are rightly concerned about the UK doing worthwhile hi-tech stuff - but the above is truly world class kit.

[SirToppamHat]

As for combining into a single service, just ask the Canadians how much they like it.

Didn't the Canadians knock it on the head and go back to separate services???

I remember when I visited (1983 ish) they were all very pissed-off and hated their new dark green uniforms!! Nice people though. Had a great time.

[smartman]

John

You're right of course re-RR. But as I implied in a post elesewhere on the same topic the RR bit, (however splendid for 'UK'), doesn't guarantee us the longer term hi-tech involvement in the overall programme. If, however, UK Gov were to come clean on Typhoon T-2 plus, then that might make a difference to retention of our know-how? But are you a Typhoon fan?

[Grimweasel]

From the Guardian.....

"The services are heading towards storm-tossed waters about money. There is yet another cash crisis, and it is a big one. I wrote some months ago in these pages that the right way forward is to conduct a dramatic rebalancing of the forces, to fund the army properly by cutting big and unnecessary aircraft and warship programmes. We should keep saying again and again and again (because the public is reluctant to listen to anything about defence) that the £20bn Eurofighter programme is a complete waste of money. It has a political rationale, as a job-creation scheme and as an earnest of our European commitment, but absolutely no military one. It would make more sense to spend the money building Spitfires, which are at least pretty to look at. As it is, of course, the Eurofighter will go ahead because nobody has the bottle to stop it, while the British army endures another round of "salami-slicing". "

Hear Hear!!! comments please......

[John Farley]

I don't pretend to have any answers, but perhaps we should be a bit more "French" in our approach.

Isn't that the truth.

Sadly, since BAe was formed in 1977 (over a quarter of a century ago) it has not done a whole new aeroplane. They have done a really good job in developing existing aircraft, new technologies for manufacturing and cockpit systems. But, I don't see how the company has the corporate knowhow today to do a whole new aircraft (like the French still can) and that goes for civil as well as military. Very sad. But I see the decline of our aircraft industry as no worse than the decline of several other capabilities in the UK. Even more very sad.

As to our part in Typhoon it has of course been the vehicle for some of the things I mentioned above. And that is good news. The bad (from my perspective) is that it is little more than the definitive F16. What we actually need (operating site flexibility, air to ground and even a tad more stealth) is totally missing and it will be many more years before even the air to ground stuff is available. The other two bits need a new concept. Again the fact that the spec is so unsuitable for today is the result of the AD ideas needed to deal with the Warsaw Pact (remember those simple days?) Boy oh boy are we not paying a penalty for giving a missile a few extra knots that nobody needs today.

Even the USAF with their decision to have 20% of their JSF buy as STOVL versions has at last woken up to the fact that greater operating site flexibility is important for at least a significant part of their overall capability. Talking to the guys on the ground in GWII who were offered air support in 1 hour plus it is not hard to see why they said it will be too late in 20 mins.

I know a lot of people talk with considerable conviction about the future, but the fact remains none of them has any personal experience of it. And it often shows!

[smartman]

John

So you're not a Typhoon fan then?

And I would've thought that in terms of - "operating site flexibility (whatever that means in reality), A/G capability, and a tad more stealth" - then Tranche2 plus (if that becomes a reality) would surely fit the bill? Not to mention modernity (LC costs in particular, software, radar, cockpit, FCS, etc), reach, persistence, blah-de-blah. And if you can still carry those expensive AD toys whilst doing all the other bits without added performance/fuel penalty, what the hell!

Life does has its ups and downs, but we do need to get on ------

[John Farley]

Smartman

I am not a fan (whatever that means in reality) of any aircraft.

Life does has its ups and downs, but we do need to get on ------

Sorry you have lost me there - easily done as I don't know much about things other than aeroplanes.

[maxburner]

A few years ago the mantra in the MoD was 'Not one pound for air to ground'. That summed up the feelings about the role of Eurofighter, and explains in large measure the delays and costs of acquiring the air to mud capability we now need. BAe are not snow white by any means, but the costs and delays in Typhoon are as much to do with the MoDs requirements and the costs of European partnerships as they are to do with BAe's incompetence.

I also disagree with the view that BAe could not build a whole aircraft. We certainly could, but the question is would this or any other government pay for one.

[Navaleye]

I don't think its entirely fair to place all the blame on BAE for the delays to Typhoon. This is largely down to the German govt re-writing the spec and trimming budget post the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[pr00ne]

Maxburner,

Rollocks!

That was the US Generals quote when the F-15 was being steered past it's congressional hurdles.

Typhoon has ALWAYS been seen as a Jaguar replacement ever since AST403 and AST409 were split.

What has changed is the order of priorities. In the Cold War era the desperately urgent need for the RAF was to acquire an agile air to air platform to counter the percieved Mig 29 and Sukhoi SU-27 threat. As the only major Air Force anywhere without a decent agile air to air capability this was seen as a real gap.

The secondary requirement was the Air to Ground role to replace the Jag,. As we already had Tornado, Jaguar and Harrier in this role, the requirement was not quite so urgent.

Why do people feel the need to re write history?

[smartman]

proone

Probably a little fuzzy after last night, but I can't quite determine the thrust of your post. Maxburner's comment is broadly correct, and accurately reflects the Eurofighter WSDPS. Getting way off thread -------

[Jackonicko]

Smarty,

As you might guess, my involvement in Typhoon over the years has been limited to occasionally talking to handfuls of individuals (from BAE, MoD, DPA, QinetiQ and its predecessors, and the Mob), usually on a pretty superficial level.

I have, however, never heard of EF being thought of as being anything other than a multi-role aeroplane (going way back to AST 403/409 days), albeit that the stress placed on the A-A role has changed over time. While the A-G role has always been secondary, it's always been there, and I think that's what Proone was saying.

It's a fact that the mantra attributed by Maxburner to the MoD ('Not one pound for air to ground') was actually, provably, attributably and commonly used with regard to the F-15. I've never heard that it was 'common usage' in the Typhoon programme.

[Jackonicko]

Dick Evans clearly thinks that A-G capability is new for Typhoon though, and a feature of a 'new variant'

Evidence to the Defence Committee, on Wednesday 5 May 2004

Witnesses: Sir Richard Evans, Chairman, BAE Systems

The UK Government, and we support them in this completely, wish to make changes to the international contract to which we are not a party. The principal change is to introduce a new variant of the aircraft and to introduce that variant at tranche two. There is some truth in the speculation in the press regarding our view on the pricing of those changes which are very different from the views of the Ministry of Defence, but I have absolutely no doubt that in due course a resolution to this will be found and the Eurofighter programme will continue and be a highly successful programme.

If you want to change the programme, change the deliveries and change the specification, you are actually buying something different from the one you ordered and that is actually what is happening and we support the MoD completely on this. We think we need a surface-to-ground aircraft capability, so we are entirely supportive. This is a hell of an expensive venture and it requires a very big amount of investment to be put in and this is not an investment that the other governments are willing, standing at the bar, to share.

[maxburner]

pr00ne,

How rude! The mantra in question may have been attributable to a US general, but it was in common use in MoD. I worked there, and that's where I heard it.

The air to ground capability of Typhoon was always rudimentary when compared to Tornado, the emphasis was always on air to air. Tranche 2 redresses the balance.

[smartman]

Jacko

I think we're all on the same wavelength - maybe we're just using different hymn sheets. Having helped draft the original contract within MoD, and then spent many years seeing it through within BAE, I recall that of the 4 Nations only UK had a secondary A/S requirement (except that IT had a need for A/S training weapons). Must be careful about WSDPS content, but UK's A/S requirement was, simplisticly, reflected only by lists of weapons and sortie profiles. Thereafter, the principle acknowledged by EF GmbH and NEFMA (then NETMA) was that, within the terms of the 4-Nation contract, any A/S development could only be undertaken as a 'fallout' from work on the all pervasive A/A role (which, in reality meant not a lot). Throughout the nineties, all discussion/negotiation within the programme adhered to this principle. Maxburner's line of 'not a £ for A/G' may therefore have been a throwaway that he used to emphasise this point - if I'm wrong then sorry MB.

And yes, it was always the case that for UK the beast would replace Jaguar.