JSF: Drayson Bats For Britain [Archive]

Violet Club

15th Mar 2006, 01:34

The esteemed Lord Drayson is in America giving those Yank chappies a jolly good dressing down over their confounded JSF carry on.
Yes, he's telling them in no uncertain terms just how cross we are and how we expect them to buck up their ideas, and be quick about it. The noble Lord is not fooling around. He's making it plain that we are seriously miffed, and if things go on like this, well, we might just have go elsewhere for shiny new fighters. This JSF situation won't do. It won't do at all.
HMG is dashed angry. And in case anyone thinks the UK is totally over a barrel and has no choice but to be led about by the nose while those dashed Americans fall around laughing at our kinda funny accents and stoopid ideas of partnership, well Lord Drayson has made it very, very clear he means business.
"We are determined to make a success of the Joint Strike Fighter. We still want and need this aircraft."
-- Drayson to Senate Armed Services Committee, 14 March
That's bally well telling them your Lordship. They'll have to sit up and take notice now.
Good show what.

ORAC

15th Mar 2006, 05:47

BRITAIN yesterday threatened to scrap a planned £10 billion purchase of the new Joint Strike Fighter if the United States refuses it access to American military secrets.

Lord Drayson, the Minister for Defence Procurement, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Britain would lose sovereign control without the technology transfer deal. The transfer is being resisted by both Congress and Lockheed Martin, which fears that it would mean handing over preciously guarded stealth aircraft technology to industrial competitors in the UK.....

Lord Drayson’s comments, on a trip to Washington yesterday, represent a significant escalation in a diplomatic row that has rumbled on, largely in private, for several months.

Speaking to reporters before the showdown with Senators, he said: “We should be absolutely clear about what our bottom line is on this matter . . . we will not be able to purchase the aircraft.”

Data-Lynx

15th Mar 2006, 07:29

Cutting between the threads, I am left with the impression that MinDP is in the States with a bad attack of: "Does my bum look big in this?"
The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
Speaking to reporters before the showdown with Senators, (Lord Drayson) said: “We should be absolutely clear about what our bottom line is on this matter . . . we will not be able to purchase the aircraft.

BluntM8

15th Mar 2006, 16:31

Well, I'd be quite glad if we got Rafale, or any other off-the-shelf new generation aircraft that fits the role, or could be adapted to fit the role.

I'm beginning to get tired of the feeling that our people and our quality of life are being mortgaged against high value aquisition (sp?) programmes which are not running especially smoothly. I can accept that the need for modern kit is pressing, and I can stomach the fact that money has to be found from a shrinking budget. It seems to me that (alongside the capability gap) issues a driving force in the choice of programme (JSF/JCA) is political, aimed at protecting our position on the world stage. So be it - I'm not a politician and don't properly understand such issues.

However, if the choice has to be made between quality of life and new kit, surely we (them, the govt...) owe it to our people (us, the services...) to make the pain as brief as possible. It seems to me that the JSF programme is increasingly becoming an albatross around our collective necks, and that we ought to be brave and step away from the programme. To me, it's time for a tough decision.

I think Rafale would be a sensible choice for our needs, but I admit that is largely based what I've read and seen in the media and here at my station rather than intimate knowledge of the air requirement or whatever it's called. Or in any case, there is enough existing and impressive technology available from other sources that we can look further afield than the JSF programme.

What do you think?

southside

15th Mar 2006, 17:22

If we back out of the JSF project at this stage it will be a national disgrace, but Paul Drayson is right. We cannot allow the Septics to sell us an aircraft without the software codes.

Tarnished

15th Mar 2006, 18:40

Rakshasa

15th Mar 2006, 19:30

What would work?

Drayson: "Stop Pi$$ing about or Iraq can 'k off."

Never in a million years....:(

Dollond

15th Mar 2006, 21:54

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4811250.stm

Ministers have warned that the deal to buy the Joint Strike Fighter from the US ... may fall through.

Lord Drayson said: the UK had a "Plan B" if forced to withdraw from the deal but declined to say what that involved.

Why would Lossiemouth be affected if we went for a different a/c?

Roland Pulfrew

15th Mar 2006, 22:00

F:mad:k me; a post from Southside I actually agree with. Wonders will never cease!!!!! ( Sorry guys I apologise!;) )

Blunt M8

If we end up with Rafale we should be completely embarrassed! Even more of a national disgrace than the England v France match last weekend!!!!

Violet Club

15th Mar 2006, 23:46

"If anyone can get something for free, they'll take it."

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England dismisses British concerns yesterday, while noting that the UK has 'only' invested $2 billion in the JSF programme but the US would be funding the entire $2.4 billion F136 'back up' engine effort.

Meanwhile Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says it would be a "profound choice" for the UK to leave the programme and that the US would like y'all to remain in the JSF partnership.

Translation: ...and the limey horse you rode in on.

Jackonicko

16th Mar 2006, 12:28

Where was that reported, Violet?

LowObservable

16th Mar 2006, 12:50

Its not only about the software codes (for integrating future UK only weapons for example), it also includes gaining a sovereign capability to maintain/fix/check the LO signature throughout the in service.
Tarnished

How about asking for the keys to their Corvettes and droit de seigneur over all the high-school cheerleaders in the DFW metro while you're at it?

Data-Lynx

16th Mar 2006, 15:59

More detail is at the MoD site (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/LordDraysonJsfOperationalSovereigntyIsVitalForUkDefenceInter ests.htm) and comment on the F-35 second engine is at scotsman.com (http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=399772006)

Roghead

16th Mar 2006, 18:19

How about asking for the keys to their Corvettes and droit de seigneur over all the high-school cheerleaders in the DFW metro while you're at it?

Your point being?

LowObservable

17th Mar 2006, 00:46

That certain people may regard that request as unreasonable.

ORAC

17th Mar 2006, 04:35

gashman

17th Mar 2006, 06:05

and buy a Lada instead of a BMW? (or I guess it would be a Citroen 2cv instead of a Ford Mustang).

ORAC

17th Mar 2006, 06:16

A lot of people might want a BMW, but after checking their sums end up buying a ford, or peugot, or citroen. It doesn´t have to be the best, just good enough for the job, affordable and maintainable. And if you want to know how the UK does its sums - we bought the Jag, not the F16, the F3 not the F15 etc. So if the USA thinks the UK will have to buy the JSF just because its the best, they might be in for a shock. And the UK are not the only ones doing the same sums - so are Australia and Norway.

LowObservable

17th Mar 2006, 12:30

BluntM8

17th Mar 2006, 15:00

If we end up with Rafale we should be completely embarrassed!

That's one point of view...

Even more of a national disgrace than the England v France match last weekend!!!!

...but I agree with that!

As I said before, I haven't got a whole bunch of wizzy facts about Rafale so I can't really put forward a strong argument, but I'd be keen to hear arguments against Rafale, and for another platform if we did pull out of JSF.

Sorry - not trying to stir up trouble.

Blunty

Maddog Red

17th Mar 2006, 16:45

Stuff the Yanks let them go it alone and pay all the costs, if they dont want to play ball with us we should take our bit of the ball back and lets be honest how many secrets have we given them over the years, oh let me think, the Jet Engine for one, so Mr Yank perhaps we should charge you for that. Just if we could hey, we might become a world power again lol.

umba

17th Mar 2006, 20:18

Will the Yanks be impressed/persuaded by a man who is in his current appointment thanks to a certain £1m donation to the Labour party?

Tarnished

18th Mar 2006, 03:03

Abso-frickin-lutely.

ORAC

18th Mar 2006, 07:08

Perhaps it might occur to them that if that's how the present government does business, the French are much better known for arranging backhanders than they are.... :hmm:

brickhistory

18th Mar 2006, 07:54

That's fair. But if you're trying to sell me a car, refuse to sell me the workshop manual and insist it has to be serviced in your garage, at your rates, throughout it's life - don't be surprised if I shake hands, thank you for the tour, and walk over to the dealer on the other side of the street....

In this case, it appears that, to continue the auto analogy, the deal was already signed and payments begun, when we took the owner's manual and voided the warranty unless you used our garage.

Not exactly a shining moment for us on this one.

ORAC

18th Mar 2006, 10:27

Not accurate. Our payment as a tier one partner was, partly, to be able to bid to build components of the aircraft. That we have done with RR with engine parts etc. We have and keep those contracts regardless of whether we buy any ourselves.

To extend the analogy. If the man in the showroom builds gearboxes for BMW, he doesn't lose the contract if he goes across the road and buys a Ford....

southside

18th Mar 2006, 12:39

Will the Yanks be impressed/persuaded by a man who is in his current appointment thanks to a certain £1m donation to the Labour party

How do you think G. Bush was elected? Why is it that to become President of the US, you MUST be a millionaire.

brickhistory

18th Mar 2006, 12:55

How do you think G. Bush was elected? Why is it that to become President of the US, you MUST be a millionaire.
?Que?
They don't spend their own money; now your point might be valid because they are rich and run in the same circles as the heavyweight donors, but they don't spend their own fortunes.
BTW, I doubt that Nixon was a millionaire prior to his presidency; I know Carter wasn't, nor Ford. Even the darling of Europe, Bill Clinton (you have GOT to be kidding!) was not a millionaire (at least not on the books) prior to his terms.
Now, please don't misconstrue my rant as being thrilled with most of our politicians, but be accurate when lobbing shells this way.

Oh, yeah, while I'm at it. What does it matter to you? We'll elect our set of buffoons, you take care of your own.

jwcook

18th Mar 2006, 21:03

Brick history is right!, The US have the best politicians money can buy!!:E

Cheers

umba

18th Mar 2006, 21:37

Southside,

When exactly was Drayson elected?

brickhistory

19th Mar 2006, 04:04

jw,

Sorry, that was not my point. I mean ours are no different that Britain's, Australia's, or most other established democracies. It takes money to get elected, thus the politicians 'follow the money.'

Ginseng

19th Mar 2006, 14:08

ZH875

19th Mar 2006, 14:14

How do you think G. Bush was elected? Why is it that to become President of the US, you MUST be a millionaire.Surely he was elected because his brother in Florida cannot run a true and fair election, alledgedly, and the votes of the people were lost in the darkness of nepotism.

The second term was won because half the country was fighting in EyeRack and had to vote for Dubya to ensure there was a flight home.

You never see a poor president or Prime Minister.(or MP for that matter)

cokecan

19th Mar 2006, 14:21

Lord Drayson can lecture the Americans as much as he likes. If I were in their position, I'd be nervous about giving the UK access to all the technologies when the current UK Government is forging ever closer defence links with its EU partners, and therefore perhaps with other non-EU nations with which the Americans would not wish to do business. We are in no position to lecture them on this.

Regards

Ginseng

surely if the US feels it has legitimate security concerns over allowing UK access to information relating to how the hardware/software works its a bit daft to allow the UK to actually get its mits on the hardware/software - albeit with a scouts promise not to probe too deeply?

if they really feel that they can't trust us then they shouldn't sell it to us, the current debacle just reeks of commercial interest - that i hope bites them in the backside when we cancel the proposed order.

brickhistory

19th Mar 2006, 14:42

Surely he was elected because his brother in Florida cannot run a true and fair election, alledgedly, and the votes of the people were lost in the darkness of nepotism.

The second term was won because half the country was fighting in EyeRack and had to vote for Dubya to ensure there was a flight home.

You never see a poor president or Prime Minister.(or MP for that matter)

So much for that elected official, the Florida Secretary of State who oversees the FL election process. How crafty of the Governor to engineer the count. Oh, and the US Supreme Court's rulings while he was at it. And, for the hat trick, the re-election of the British PM. Damn, he's good!

Half of us are in Iraq? Wow, I have GOT to buy some more properties. Seems there must lots of places standing empty!

Ginseng

19th Mar 2006, 15:01

You sum up the arguments for the US (from their perspective) not allowing us access very nicely, although I think it has less to do with them not trusting "us" than with them not trusting others to whom we may have treaty obligations to which they (the US) are not a party. There is no point in railing on this issue without trying to understand the US perspective.

Regards

Ginseng

cokecan

19th Mar 2006, 15:22

i do understand their perspective: they are concerned that if we fully understand the systems in the JSF then that knowledge will seep into anglo-french systems and from there into franco-X systems that will then get through to china.

understandable, perfectly understandable.

what isn't perfectly understandable is they could possibly expect us to buy something that others have control over, bad enough if its a car, utterly unacceptable if its your nations defences.

LowObservable

19th Mar 2006, 15:44

I think it's worth remembering that the US is not a monolith, even in the defense community. There are those who want a truly multilateral fighter, and others who want to defend what they see as the national crown jewels.

WE Branch Fanatic

19th Mar 2006, 17:00

This issue is also discussed here (http://www.eureferendum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1508&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).

Jackonicko

19th Mar 2006, 18:54

Christ that's scary stuff, WEBF.

Mad UKIPpers convinced that this is all "MoD spin" and that this is a non-issue, and that actually it's all just camouflaging the evil New Labour party's obsession with ditching the USA (our faithful allies) in favour of those evil socialist Europeans.....

I s'pose that Jock Stirrup's in league with Jaques Chirac. :rolleyes:

tucumseh

20th Mar 2006, 07:48

Cokecan

"they are concerned that if we fully understand the systems in the JSF then that knowledge will seep into anglo-french systems and from there into franco-X systems that will then get through to china"

Spot on. I'd also guess the US are nervous about what's happening to QinetiQ. They publish tech stuff arising from MoD contracts on their website, while the MoD deny the contracts exist!

ZH875

20th Mar 2006, 17:08

"After the election, a consortium of newspapers studied the ballots. These newspapers are almost all liberal. Their report does not support your allegation"

Interesting that the report has a section "Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)" so if all the votes were not re-examined, who (actually) won. The report further states:
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
And finally:

According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Irvine), who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.

And G Dubya wins a ballot that even hardline regimes would call 'Illegal', and there is no way a large number of people will believe any other way..

ORAC

21st Mar 2006, 07:02

Well, that´s now 4 out of the 8 international partners.....

BRUSSELS, March 20 -- The Netherlands wanted a greater say in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the aircraft set to replace the current F16s in 2015, Dutch daily De Volkskrant reported on Monday. According to the newspaper, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Cees Van der Knaap has insisted that the United States allows Dutch pilots to participate in the testing of the JSF so that the Dutch requirements can be incorporated into the final version. Van der Knaap also felt that the Americans must share more technological information with the other countries that are helping to fund the development of the new fighter plane.

The state secretary has insisted on this in a letter to the US Senate, De Volkskrant quoted sources close to the defence department as reporting.

Whether the Netherlands will actually procure the JSF should become clear in November, when the partner countries will sign an agreement on the numbers as well as safeguards for production and future maintenance.......

Lazer-Hound

21st Mar 2006, 10:19

Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?

Is it possible HMG is simply looking for a way to dump JSF (and consequently CVF) and blame the Spams for it?

Kitbag

21st Mar 2006, 10:28

Good grief! Do you mean you think HMG is not being totally honest and open? ;)

Jackonicko

21st Mar 2006, 11:01

"Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?"

It's obviously inevitable that you won't have (or need) the ability to independently support, sustain, operate, modify or upgrade a handful of leased aircraft.

It's deemed acceptable that a strategic missile system will require the support of the manufacturer to support and sustain, and you don't need to be able to incorporate ad hoc upgrades or mods to meet urgent operational requirements.

A tactical aircraft, procured in large numbers, is an entirely different ball game.

I don't see any evidence at all that HMG is looking for a way to dump JSF, let alone the CVF which was a plank of its SDR.

John Farley

21st Mar 2006, 11:06

Laser-Hound

I don't know what you had in mind with your etc, but with respect to the three programs you mentioned I would suggest we had no real cards to play. We wanted something and 'they' had it. The JSF is a very different matter as our actions could seriously hurt that programme.

Kit bag may have a valid general point but in this particular case I don't think it applies.

While I was away thinking Jacko dealt with many other relevant points

JF

Lazer-Hound

21st Mar 2006, 14:37

UK 'sees progress':

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=1633313&C=america

robin

21st Mar 2006, 15:03

Preparing for a sell-out...........

This bunch talk tough in the media, but are next to useless at negotiating

steamchicken

21st Mar 2006, 15:45

John, to revisit a Gatbash years ago, could you recap for us how much of the VAAC(?) system you worked on in the UK is in the JSF?

Or, alternatively, remind me to lay off the crazypills.

tucumseh

21st Mar 2006, 16:48

“Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?”

I think it important to realise that this is very much a personal crusade for Lord Drayson. He put his marker down in his Defence Industrial Strategy. Because he understands the detail, he is getting into areas that his predecessors have delegated to CDP. The problems arising from not being in control of the build standard of our equipment, be it an aeroplane or whatever, are well known. (SA80 is the all time classic example). There are some notable examples of projects hitting trouble because we have not acquired (or properly controlled and managed) these rights; but many, many more where laid down procedures have been followed, we have the rights, and the equipment is fully supportable in the UK. But, as usual, the successful projects are never mentioned, and it’s certainly never mentioned that there are extant procedures. Easier to spin it as a new initiative.

I’d like to think he realises that adhering to these procedures on Day 1 of any project is the basis of good project management. If you don’t, it’s catch-up for ever more and, by definition, you don’t have the funds to do it. All he is doing is clamping down hard on IPTs who are remiss and trying to ensure best established practice is followed. And word is he’s climbing all over them. And he's picked a high profile project to make his point.

However, the fact that the sponsoring branch for aforementioned procedures have, for many years, been proposing cancellation, supported by many who think the subject (incl. safety!!) a waste of money, indicates (to me) that he doesn’t quite have all bases covered. If he wins, whoever is charged with implementation will have to re-invent the wheel and will face much resistance. His approach is top-down, but it will take a long tiime to get to the bottom. Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that 99% of DPA haven't the foggiest what I'm rambling on about.

John Farley

21st Mar 2006, 18:41

Steamchicken

I understand that the 'unified' flight control software as developed by RAE/DERA/QinetiQ in the VAAC aircraft is now the basis for the FCS in all three versions of the JSF. Tarnished will correct me if I am out of date.

Jackonicko

21st Mar 2006, 19:42

What a pity we didn't withold that......

Tarnished

21st Mar 2006, 20:42

JF/Steamchicken

Unified flight control strategy is applicable to the F-35B (STOVL) model only. The CTOL and CV versions employ "traditional" flight control strategies. The argument over the wisdom of "unified" is reignited every time a new pilot joins the team. Harrier pilots are generally reluctant to embrace it, non-Harrier pilots seem to take to it more readily.

For the uninitiated, unified controls effectively turn the hovering task into a close formation station keeping task. Station keeping with a fixed point on the ground instead of another aircraft and at close to zero knots instead of 350 kts. This means that from a fixed hover at 100 ft say, in F-35B to descend forward pressure on the stick will reduce thrust, and to move forward the throttle is advanced from a central detent.

All very clever stuff happening in black box ones/zeros land, but I think that gets the basics across. Piece of cake in the sim when I was introduced to it.

Tarnished

Unmissable

21st Mar 2006, 22:12

“Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?”

The first simple answer is ROE. If you don't know why the system is telling you that a blip on the radar screen is hostile, how can you justify shooting it down. We do not want to always follow Uncle Sam's definition of a threat or hostile. Nor do we always want to follow the US tactics for (programmed) countermeasures

With Trident and TLAM, the target is pre programmed, C-17 doesn't fire weapons.

Second is whether we can bolt on (reporgramme the jet for) our own new weapons. Trident and TLAM are weapons, C-17 doesn't have any.

Violet Club

22nd Mar 2006, 01:02

Here's what's going to happen. You all know this already. Sometime in June (or maybe a bit later, for drama) the US will yawn, roll over and hand a note to the UK. The note will say all the right things - right up to the point of making a single, solid guarantee that actually satisfies the UK demands. It will, however, promise to sort everything out when the time comes. Oh sure.

Because, of course, it's much to early to expect all of this very complicated tech stuff to be sorted out. So, you guys just go have some more shortbread pie (or whatever it is you eat) and tell the Queen that everthang's gonna be fine.

Expect a bit about how you UKers are really, really important and are much more special then those other yurpean qweers - you'll get the really good stuff, for sure. Don't worry fella.

Victory will be declared! Another mighty triumph for m'lord.

The UK will never, ever leave this programme. The leap of emotion, intellect and self-confidence required is beyond anyone in the decision making process. We are locked in. STOVL may well get canned - we'll buy CVs instead. Whatever.

Back in the US, where the real decisions are made, elements in Congress are cutting up rough - and the UK fuss is coming in handy to beat the Pentagon with, so Lord Drayson gets a polite audience. By today they don't even remember his name (and as for the other guy, well what the hell kind of parents call their kid 'Jock' anyway, god damn those Limeys are weird).

Mr England and Co. have already given the British team two fingers. Our 60-something aircraft (150 you say?? Come and see the fairies at the bottom of my garden) are now a total irrelevance and the Pentagon never wanted the second engine in the first place.

The UK served its purpose back at the one crucial point where internationalising the programme was part of the go/no-go decision. That was when we had negotiating power - and that's when the people who signed the original documents were asleep at the wheel. We will continue to pay the price for that, £2 billion and counting.

Meanwhile BAE is lining up to dispose of its Airbus share to EADS, to buy L3 - another company that (like BAE) innovates, integrates, aspirates, but doesn't do or make anything.

The entire aerospace future of the UK is being sold down the river (did nobody hear the warning bells when Salmsbury was flogged off).

Serfdom beckons for the 51st State.

Congratulations, Level 1 partner.

Jackonicko

22nd Mar 2006, 09:30

"Come and see the fairies at the bottom of my garden."

Didn't the hedge trimmer scare 'em off?

steamchicken

22nd Mar 2006, 10:43

John, Tarnished: Thanks. That was roughly what I recalled, but it's good to have genuinely authoritative information.

It is indeed a great pity we didn't stamp a great big Union Flag all over it.

pr00ne

22nd Mar 2006, 14:22

WEBF, that is one SCARY website!!!!

ORAC

27th Mar 2006, 09:25

US seeks to end dispute with UK on fighter jets (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12026770/)

The Bush administration is considering ways to provide Britain with technology related to the Joint Strike Fighter after Britain threatened to pull out of the $257bn programme.

The UK defence procurement minister told Congress earlier this month the UK would withdraw from the JSF programme unless the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin – which is building the F-35 next-generation stealth fighter – agreed to share technology Britain says is necessary to ensure "operational sovereignty".

A senior Pentagon official said the US was "disposed to really working out this issue". An official at the State department, which is responsible for licensing military exports, said Washington wanted to be "as supportive as possible of the UK's defence requirements within the framework of existing law".

A top former administration official said the State department was considering several options, including a presidential waiver. The State department declined to comment on that possibility.......

Unmissable

27th Mar 2006, 13:43

Another possibility is for the UK to buy Rafale jets from the French.

....and of course the frogs will release all their technology to us when Typhoon is an even more direct competitor to Rafale. The principle of understanding the jet applies to Rafale just as much as JSF.

Ghostie31

27th Mar 2006, 14:11

....and of course the frogs will release all their technology to us when Typhoon is an even more direct competitor to Rafale. The principle of understanding the jet applies to Rafale just as much as JSF.

Isn't the Rafale just the Typhoon in a french flag?
Seems funny how they were on the Typhoon board, then left after a while, then suddenly a plane comes out which happens to be a spitting image?

:confused:

pr00ne

27th Mar 2006, 21:52

Ghostie31,

If you really think that the Typhoon and Rafale look alike then you either have never seen either, or you REALLY need a new pair of glasses!

ORAC

28th Mar 2006, 06:43

U.S.-U.K. JSF impasse persists (http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1645922.php)

....The British say they remain committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for which they’ve already spent $2 billion and plan to buy 150 of the jets when they are ready some time next decade. But for the first time, Britain is asserting its right to use and maintain joint weapons systems on its own terms, said Lee Willett, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London.

“This is not just hot air. The U.K. are actually backing themselves into a very tight corner and challenging the U.S. to call their bluff,” Willett said. A recent agreement between Britain and France to build a new fleet of aircraft carriers showed “it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the U.K. has a serious Plan B,” he said.....

ORAC

12th Apr 2006, 08:19

And now add the Italians..... Italian industry hits out at JSF technology transfer. (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/11/Navigation/177/205904/Italian+industry+hits+out+at+JSF+technology+transfer.html)

Over even more interest in the article: "Italy’s request to host a second final-assembly and check-out facility for the JSF has been approved."

So it looks like the Italian doubling of their order to gazump the UK has succeeded, and the original stated position was that there was only sufficient work available in Europe to justify one line. What chance now for a UK line?