Typhoons an Raptors

[jwcook]

Hi

I'm hearing rumours of two Typhoons in the United States (China lake) that are being used for DACT for the Raptors, As expected the BVR side is dominated by the Raptors, but WVR the Typhoons are!!.

Is PIRATE being used?

Is this going to be a regular thing???

Cheers

[SASless]

So....translated that means using the proper tactics....the Typhoon is dogmeat.:ok:

One would think you fight the opponents weakness not his strengths.

[Maple 01]

And of course your ROE are always going to allow BVR engagements! :ugh: I thought you trained for 'worse case' scenarios – not to back-up the manufacturer’s blurb

[SASless]

But Maple....as I understand it the Typhoon has no gun. Even with the improved effieciency of modern missiles for dogfighting...is not the Typhoon at a disadvantage in that regard?

(You are right....our Brass will set us up for failure with the ROE's even if we had Death Rays.):sad:

[Fox3snapshot]

My understanding is that the Raptor smokes its opponents in every facet one would expect from a 5th generation fighter....well you would hope so at US$350 Million a piece if they close the lines down at 183 frames...! (Still sorting the canopy up/down issue but that's another story!) :ugh:

Is there an enemy out there that the Raptor will ever face...probably not!!???

Typhoon however, being a jet "Fitted For" but "Not With", will face the wrath of politicians and public alike who have lost faith in a well overdue program that doesn't seem to be able to redeem itself.

Standby for completely unnecessary operational deployments of both types to try and restore public confidence in the platforms. :rolleyes:

Vive Le France...:D

[OFBSLF]

Typhoon has a gun.Am I correct that you Brits are not buying ammunition for said gun?

[SASless]

OB,

We are not supposed to know that....besides why should it matter they have a very expensive piece of ballast and all they can do is throw up two up raised digits at the enemy when they run out of missiles.


Problems
In 2001, it was announced that the RAF would not use the aircraft's internal cannon. This is not due to any perceived inadequacy in the cannon, but instead reflected a need to save money by removing gun support costs, ammunition stocks, training costs, etc. The gun was also deemed unnecessary since the missile armament was believed to be adequate in the Typhoon's fighter role. [8] However, because removal of the cannon would affect the aircraft's flight characteristics, requiring modification of the aircraft's flight software the RAF decided that all of its Typhoons would be fitted with the cannon but that it would not be used or supported. The service argued that this would save money by reducing the requirement for ground equipment, removing training costs and avoiding the fatigue effects of firing the cannon. The RAF maintains the option to activate the cannons at very short notice should operational requirements change. [9]

[TheInquisitor]

Typhoon wiped the floor with Raptor in singapore.

It's not just the aircraft - it's the man in the cockpit. And on those terms, we'll win every time. Dry your eyes and deal with it.

[LynehamMuppet]

My understanding was that the gun wasn't actually a gun more of a big gun shaped paper weight to help trim the Typhoon? Don't get me wrong i think it's great... Who needs a gun when it looks that good? :}

LM

[SASless]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/nc_creeper/F18FGUNF-2202.jpg

Lets hear it for the Hornet driver!:D

[Magoodotcom]

Typhoon wiped the floor with Raptor in singapore.
It's not just the aircraft - it's the man in the cockpit. And on those terms, we'll win every time. Dry your eyes and deal with it.

When was the Raptor in Singapore? Do you mean Rafale?

[Magoodotcom]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/nc_creeper/F18FGUNF-2202.jpg
Lets hear it for the Hornet driver!:D

That Hornet is nose down with almost no energy. I hope he doesn't have anything he needs to do for the next 15-20 seconds...

I suspect there's a lot more to this story than the HUD image is telling us...

Magoo

[Just This Once...]

Some interesting figures in tha HUD shot.

As they say, fly it like you stole it.

[brickhistory]

It's not just the aircraft - it's the man in the cockpit. And on those terms, we'll win every time. Dry your eyes and deal with it.

The RAAF does have outstanding aircrew; just one will run out of them so quickly if the balloon goes up with some coming threats out there (Think Spratly Islands and/or Taiwan).

Unfortunately, the same applies for the RAF.

All too soon, it will be the same for us.

[Focks 2]

Next image in the sequence. Inside the 1000ft TR bubble.
http://www.stevelanephotography.co.uk/aviation/TEMP/hosting/f18fgunf22.jpg

[Lazer-Hound]

Raptor was never in the SIngapore competition. Typhoon, Rafale and F15E were. Typhoon was knocked out of the competition early doors, and F15E eventually won.

[Boogeyboard]

Typhoon however, being a jet "Fitted For" but "Not With", will face the wrath of politicians and public alike who have lost faith in a well overdue program that doesn't seem to be able to redeem itself.
Standby for completely unnecessary operational deployments of both types to try and restore public confidence in the platforms. :rolleyes:
Vive Le France...:D

A bad workman always blames his tools/or political master. Just buck up your ideas, stop crying into your G&T and get on with the job for heaven's sake. It's what your paid to do.

[Jackonicko]

"Well overdue program that doesn't seem to be able to redeem itself."

Overdue, certainly, but isn't every fighter programme? F-22 and JSF certainly are.

As it is the delayed ISD seems to have been good for budgets and for completing (or getting close to completing) some difficult development aircraft.

As to redeeming itself, the aircraft seemed to impress in Singapore, even if BAE's 'shambolic bid performance' did not, and even if Mindef eventually decided that there was too much risk that the advanced EOC1/2 A-G capabilities it thought it needed might not be available in the timescale promised. The capabilities it did demonstrate (especially radar range and the eye-watering exchange ratio against Sing F-16s apparently impressed the RSAF enough to disagree with Mindef.

It also seems to have redeemed itself with those lucky enough to be flying it, unless the RAF and the other partners have introduced a term at RADA as part of the OCU course.......

The frightening thing is how much misinformation and sheer malicious bollocks has been embedded in the minds of even those who should know better.

Until yesterday, I thought, like many, that the early Tranche 1 jets were incapable of being brought to a really useful op standard. I now know that all but a couple of Luftawffe jets are already under contract for a series of upgrades that will bring them to the full FOC standard (Block 5 with 'austere' A-G capability) and a further upgrade to Tranche 2 (Block 8) standards is cheap and easy enough that Austria's six T1 jets will be done at EF GmH's own expense.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg of damaging LM/Dassault propaganda and auto-foot shooting.

As to what Typhoon has been up to in the States, some of it is necessarily not something to shout about, but I understand that some achievements that could and should have been shouted from the rooftops seem to have been covered by the same security blanket. I believe that 17 haven't only fired ASRAAM, but getting confirmation of the alleged AMRAAM firings is like pulling teeth.

And no RAF jets have PIRATE yet.

[ORAC]

WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) - .......Earlier this month, the Air Force said it would cost about $100 million to fix structural weaknesses discovered in 73 F-22s. It denied a published report that the repairs could cost $1 billion (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,96097,00.html)...... :ooh:

[LowObservable]

Both the Typhoon and the F-22 were designed to dominate the BVR threat, defined at the time as Su-27, improved Su-27 and whatever the follow-on might be.
Both are better at that than their predecessors. However, until the fighter sensor people, the offboard-sensor people and the network-type people can defeat a well designed and functional stealth aircraft, the F-22 has a huge advantage and so far I have not heard of any tactical dirty tricks that can offset it.
However, it cost so much money that the RAF expects to have more Typhoons than the USAF has F-22s.

[brickhistory]

However, it cost so much money that the RAF expects to have more Typhoons than the USAF has F-22s.


Which is sad for both the RAF and the USAF as the numbers for each really should be higher.

[lasernigel]

If anyone bothers blowing up the picture of the HUD that SASlesshas posted,you will clearly see that is NOT a Typhoon.
The 'repair' program I know about but can't say anything else on here,suffice to say there is a fix.

[SASless]

Laze,

Your predjuice is showing.....I posted it because it is an F-22 in the cross hairs.

Any aircraft can be shot down...the Spitfire was the "greatest" fighter of WWII according to some.....and what was it's loss rate?

The F-22 and Typhoon are top notch new generation aircraft. Each has its strong points and each has its weak points. Tactics and supporting combat systems will determine if each are as good as they are being made out to be.

When fighters tangle.....there are losses on both sides. The key is to sway the odds to one's own side by all means possible. Having enough airframes and fully capable pilots is one of the factors to that equation. If one does not have enough in numbers, or enough support, that can lead to a stunning defeat no matter how good the few are.

[Lazer-Hound]

Laze,

Your predjuice is showing.....I posted it because it is an F-22 in the cross hairs.

Any aircraft can be shot down...the Spitfire was the "greatest" fighter of WWII according to some.....and what was it's loss rate?

The F-22 and Typhoon are top notch new generation aircraft. Each has its strong points and each has its weak points. Tactics and supporting combat systems will determine if each are as good as they are being made out to be.

When fighters tangle.....there are losses on both sides. The key is to sway the odds to one's own side by all means possible. Having enough airframes and fully capable pilots is one of the factors to that equation. If one does not have enough in numbers, or enough support, that can lead to a stunning defeat no matter how good the few are.

I assume that was to lasernigel, not me. I'm aware that, in a WVR knifefight, the winner is usually the best/luckiest pilot.

[RonO]

I'll take that bet - more RAF Typhoons than USAF F-22's.

Surely most likely is GB dumping Typhoon T3 to free funds for JSF that are half the price, bring in zillions to brit companies and can ....wait for it... fly off scottish carriers.

Cheaper - check, more taxes - check, more scottish jobs - check. Where do I sign?

PS Tough to knock Singapore for chucking Typhoon when Typhoon "advanced A-G" is just a wishlist bullet on an unfunded program's transparency. Seemed to show equal distain for frenchie promises to fix their radar.

[ORAC]

Cheaper - check, more taxes - check, more scottish jobs - check. Where do I sign? You are on drugs. The share we get for every JSF is already set - who ever they are sold to around the world. Lowest cost production contract on the component. But, since the vast majority of the components are produced elsewhere, thats where the profit goes.

With Typhoon we have a much higher direct production input including a production line. A lot of the wages/costs/money is internally recycled in the UK, as is our share of any profits.

Bottom line, we make a lot more bottom line profit per Typhoon for each one we buy, plus a guaranteed profit for every Typhoon or JSF anyone else buys.

Now, who, BAe or Treasury, makes most on an individual contract, and whether anybody is clever enough to work it out, is another question.....

[dirty_bugger]

hey ORAC, I think you're on to something there..you're spouting the same garbage that every leftie has spouted for the last fifty years...buy British..put more money into british pockets be dammed what we get.

For once lets buy the capability that will do the business for the forces, not the crap that gets votes. The Typhoon may be a great fighter and fun for the guys that fly it, but its not the answer for the 2015 timeframe.

I've had a quick scan of the other threads you've commented on....been a busy boy haven't you. I really hope you don't work for the forces, or if you do you you apply the same vigour to your day job.

[orca]

Saw somethign odd written above - that WVR best pilot and luck are the deciding factors....for equal aircraft yes, for unequal aircraft no.

The luckiest Jaguar driver in the world will get raped every time by unlucky Fulcrum driver with HMS. The most competent F104 driver ever will really struggle against su-30MK driver new to the frontline.

It's never a case of 'Airborne Top Trumps' but you have to be realistic.

[dirty_bugger]

Sorry ORAC.....just a quick appendix to my last post

7,396 posts since July 2000....bloody hell that 3.38 per day...including holidays and weekends, I really, really hope your not a member of our forces.

You really need to get out more.....Surf for porn its a better time well spent!

[dirty_bugger]

and again ORAC...

I just check....you posted 19 comments today alone...is that all you could fit in before stand easy! Honestly, if you're a pilot - give up your flying pay then we could maybe afford another Typhoon or two!

[Talk Wrench]

Hope the guys out there in China Lake are doing fine.

FJWOEU?

Me, ex SAOEU. :{

Cheers fellahs.

Is the Schooner bar still there? :E


Many memories.


Regards

Talk Wrench

[Jackonicko]

"Surely most likely is GB dumping Typhoon T3 to free funds for JSF that are half the price, bring in zillions to brit companies and can ....wait for it... fly off scottish carriers."

Half the price? It's legally impossible for the UK to pay less for its F-35s than the US customer. Though we're required to sign up to Production Sustainment at the end of 2006, committing to aircraft numbers and line positions, and to agree to financial penalties if we subsequently withdraw, we're expected to do so blind, with no price being set (with no input from us) until 2011.

That's on a programme with such a mismatch between the completion of development tasks and production investment that the GAO, McCain's committee and others want it dramatically slowed down.

That's for an aircraft that can't carry UK day one weapons, and won't carry any of our key weapons until the end of the next decade.

And that's for an aircraft on which, if we don't get ITAR waivers, we won't be able to sustain, support, upgrade or integrate our own kit.

And it's an admittedly excellent LO bomb truck, with a great radar and avionics, but with a modest t/w ratio, no supercruise, and an unimpressive combat persistance.

I can see that's so much more necessary than Typhoon Tranche 3.....

[ORAC]

Hey dirty bugger,

No, not in the armed forcs any more, earning a lot more outside now thanks. But its nice to have an admirer who does so much research on me. Obviously hit a nerve. You don't work for LM do you? :E

ps, 0414 GMT, I get up early too..... :}

[WhiteOvies]

FJWOEU? Me, ex SAOEU

No longer FJWOEU, now 41(R) Sqn based at Coningsby. Looks most odd to see F3, GR4 and Harrier in 41 Sqn colours but at least it keeps the sqn number going.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/yond/Coningsby/Coningsby%20290306/Harrier1.jpg

[LowObservable]

Saw somethign odd written above - that WVR best pilot and luck are the deciding factors....for equal aircraft yes, for unequal aircraft no.
The luckiest Jaguar driver in the world will get raped every time by unlucky Fulcrum driver with HMS. The most competent F104 driver ever will really struggle against su-30MK driver new to the frontline.
It's never a case of 'Airborne Top Trumps' but you have to be realistic.

“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.” - Damon Runyon

[LowObservable]

There seems to be an emerging if unspoken consensus here that, for the UK, JSF and Tranche 3 are alternatives.

[RonO]

Orac, name of game is production contracts awarded to brit factories, not royalties. You want 10's of billions worth of JSF business then you gotta order the sucker in decent quantities. No free ride. No pass go & collect $200. Go deep and the question morphs to do you want brit mil aerospace after EF is done? Without US partnerships aren't Bae & R-R left staring over a cliff?

Jacko,
sigh, picks up stick, approaches deceased equine..

assumption that US law forces export customers to pay US R&D costs is bogus. Shoot the nark that told you that.

UK will pay same UPC/recurring cost/flyaway as US i.e. $45m/$59m/$62m by variant according to latest. And yeah, I know it'll go up. Plus UK's generous contrib to development costs of 2ish billion pounds of which Gordo's coughed up about half.

So even the most Gucci USN model (which enquiring minds read is inching back onto brit wishlists) will cost the UK less in dollars than Typhoon in pounds. Roughly half price.

Ignoring money grubbing, not clear why if EF is so good at the Red Baron stuff and JSF is bomb trucker par excellence, why you're not begging for a mix n'match. Lobby for both and buy some Bae stock would be my advice.

BTW, ITAR waivers and getting UK design rights are two different things.

[Jackonicko]

We're going to pay £19 Bn for Typhoon regardless, either in payment or in penalties. The unit cost including R&D is therefore an irrelevance.

Each Typhoon's unit production cost is less than £45 m ($84.58m US, €66.26m).

Through life costs will be somewhere in the region of 200% of that figure, and are contractually guaranteed, together with defect rates, TBOs, etc.

We pay for Typhoon in £ sterling, and not in $ US, so there's a massive benefit to the balance of payments, and much of the money flows straight back into the exchequer in corporate and personal taxation.

No-one believes the JSF's quoted costs/prices, least of all the GAO. If we buy 82 aircraft (which seems to be the latest figure) then we've already paid out somewhere in the region of $24 m per jet, with the actual purchase price due to be set in 2011. Even if the $59 m figure were to be maintained we'd be paying $83 m per JSF and $84 m per Typhoon. Still sure that JSF will be cheaper than Typhoon then?

And through life costs are calculated to be equivalent to 300-400% of purchase price.

Which makes JSF a significantly more expensive jet.

And we don't need the niche capabilities it offers that Typhoon doesn't, with the possible exception of carrier capabilities. And if we do need it, then we need relatively tiny numbers and we need to be able to support, sustain, maintain, upgrade and integrate our own kit, and that's why the continued absence of the ITAR waiver we were promised is a show-stopper.

And it won't carry our 'Day One' weapons, and we can do the job better with TLAM and stand off than with JSF.

As to UK production of the rear fuselage, we can only be replaced if someone else can offer better value, and with Samlesbury up, running and tooled, that's unlikely.

[RonO]

Ah the holy grail of procurement - the uncancellable program. I don't think so. Doesn't current deal just say work can't drop in euro factories if UK numbers cut back? Couple obvious ways to do that without costing a penny. And then again, all the partners could just agree to change the rules couldn't they?

All Typhoon R&D is water under the bridge? I don't think so. Not if you want that fancy A-G. And don't forget you'll need extra cash to bring early frames up to latest standard.

On the other hand, all UK JSF R&D funding will be paid by Christmas. Sweet.

JSF TLC twice Typhoon's? I don't think so.

So R&D favors JSF. Production costs favor JSF. Assume same TLC so what's left? Oh yeah, each Typhoon is still twice the price. Ba boom.

Which is borne out by the current Norwegian experience. Twice as many JSF's at the same price.

Bombing bad guys in high threat neighborhoods a niche capability? I don't think so.

Bae the only place that can build fighter back ends? I don't think so. I doubt very much whether an order as small as 82 will keep production work in the UK. Bunch of congressmen right now think the Uk is getting too sweet a deal. Only buy that few and they'll be really pissed.

Why does this feel like mythbusters?

My advice is to drop the jingoism & dodgy math. Presumably sells your spotter monthly stuff - yankee's screwin' us again, read all about it - but a lot less than useful for a reasonable debate .

BTW, ITAR waiver won't get you design rights. You think once you get the waiver you'll get every US technology? You wish.

[NoseGunner]

Just to go back to the Gun shot.
I really hope he didnt claim that as valid. The Sqn weapons instructor will be crying into his beer!:}

[giblets]

Has anyone worked out any figure that gets anywhere near the taxed return on a purchase like the Typhoon? Corp tax, PAYE, Income tax let alone all the taxes on what the UK workers buy? Sure there was some research done in the past.

Got to be a good 20-30% goes back inthe the UK economy?
Lets not talk about the research, skills etc.

[Safeware]

Jacko,
"We pay for Typhoon in £ sterling" are you sure? Everything in the contract used to be in DM, so think we now pay in Euros.

sw

[engineer(retard)]

SW

From my misty recollection, we paid in sterling but the exchange rate in the contract was fixed for the duration so all paperwork was in DM. Tonka was certainly DM. I think that we also did not pay VAT because of the way the money was circulated.

regards

retard

[RonO]

Giblets, same question re-JSF?

Also remember, jilt JSF & watch your US suave hopes & dreams disappear down the same plug 'ole

[Jackonicko]

RonO,

You keep carping on about 'Design Rights'. That's not what's being asked for. We just need sufficient software access and tech transfer to be able to service, support and repair the jet in service, and to integrate our own weapons without having to wait for Lockmart's timetable or to pay its fancy prices. This is hardly unreasonable.

"Extra cash to bring early frames up to latest standard." R1 and R2 upgrades are already included in the headline programme cost and represent small beer anyway. EF GmbH is doing the six T1 Austrian jets from its own pocket.

"All the partners could just agree to change the rules." They could, but with two of the partners needing every jet they've ordered, it's unlikely, and penalties would be imposed. I've always been told that it would be cheaper to take Tranche 3 and then dismantle them with a JCB than to cancel unilaterally.

"JSF TLC twice Typhoon's? I don't think so." Typhoon's through life costs are contractually under-written. Typhoon isn't a maintenance heavy stealth fighter. Look at the comparison between F-16 and Gripen.

The JSF price, quoted before the $5 Bn weight problem, before the US cut more than 500 JSFs from its order book, before the GAO highlighted an 80% increase in development costs, was $59 m for the F-35B. No serious commentator believes that those costs are remotely achievable. Even if they are, the UK will pay that, plus R&D equal to $24 m, per jet. That's $83 m.

Most sensible people expect the F-35 unit production cost will be closer to $85 m than $55 m. Interestingly, the first five jets cost $870 m - a unit price (excluding R&D) of $174 m........

The unit production cost of every Typhoon, and the marginal cost of every additional Typhoon over and above the UK 232 aircraft total is a solid, achieved, virtually guaranteed $84 m. And we get 25% of that back in taxes, we maintain a better balance of payments, we maintain more skilled jobs, and we're part of a programme that will earn us more in export orders than our share in JSF.

And we get an aircraft we can maintain, repair and upgrade as we see fit, with better air-to-air capability than JSF, and able to carry the weapons we want and need.

The Day One mission is best carried out by TLAM and stand off, and for everything else, Typhoon's a better bet than JSF, even if the technology transfer is sorted, and even if the GAO's worries about development risk are proved unfounded.

[brickhistory]

Jackonicko,

While I think the UK should get what it bargained for in the JSF contracts, holding the GAO up as a source to buttress your arguements is counter-productive.

I cannot find ONE aircraft program that they have been positive about, ever.
Yet, many of the aircraft they reported as the next 'white elephant' have gone on to sterling service - the C-5, the F-18, etc., etc.

[Fox3snapshot]

The only White Elephant the UK has faced are the mammoth programs that they decided not to design run and build themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

Whilst I am an ozzy born and bred my Dad was Pom Bristol Aircaft Corp. framey and in those days they (the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations! Thanks to a catstrophe of a government in the space of a few decades the aerospace industry was left in ruins...come to think of it industry in the UK has been left in ruins...standby for the next (and last) UK factory shutdown!!!!!!!

You all should be embarressed that JSF even has made the slate for defense aquisitions.....after all Britain you were building the Best of the Best!

:sad:

[brickhistory]

The only White Elephant the UK has faced are the mammoth programs that they decided not to design run and build themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

The TSR2 springs to mind to counter the "run" part, however the rest of your post was on-target.

It would be great if there were still an as active, productive UK aviation industry "like in the old days." Both for the UK and to make us (the US) more competitive/imaginative. If Boeing and LM had more competition, it'd be better for all concerned.

[Fox3snapshot]

Nope, your on the button there mate...and whilst I have been stuck in the colonies for almost 4 decades I am led to believe tha TSR2 (which was a magnificant machine) was pretty much the end of Britain's hardcore efforts in the aerospace industry....

Not to take too much away from Canada either with the Avro Arrow, but I think a lot of Brit airframe and engine technology was buried there too...starting to think the Yanks had a lot to do with all of it! :oh:

[brickhistory]

From the bit I know, the TSR2 was a magnificent machine. Only the bloated management and the government-directed 'rationalization' of the industry doomed it to failure.

The CF-105 was a worldbeater for its day. Canada did an AMAZING job building an industry practically from scratch. First, the very creditable CF-100, then the Arrow. I believe our side couldn't compete with it so they caused our government to lean heavily on the Canadian government to kill it. Pity.

Of course, all the talent that fled south over the border after the cancellation was a great help in us getting to the moon!

[SASless]

(the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations!

Yes quite so. :ugh:

[ORAC]

(the Brits) kicked butts in every aspect of aviation development and operations!

As a user of the aircraft of that generation for over a quarter pf century - Canberra, Lightning, Buccaneer, VC-10, Harrier - Oh yes, oh yes indeed......

[brickhistory]

Orac,

Normally, I agree with with you, but in this case....

B-52, KC-135, F-15A, U-2, C-5, Harrier....

It's sad for both.

[SASless]

Victor, Vulcan, Belfast, Trident,Bac 111,Comet, Viscount, Herald, Argosy, Dove

[woptb]

Orac,
Normally, I agree with with you, but in this case....
B-52, KC-135, F-15A, U-2, C-5, Harrier....
It's sad for both.


:= := := := := := := := :=

[brickhistory]

AV-8 (although the B and subsequent upgrades are close to unlike the A as is is nearly possible. That better?)

[RonO]

Not sure Nimrod 4 indicates Brit only programs are so peachy

Jacko,
carping? Just observing that ITAR waivers don't authorize technology transfer.

As to “hardly unreasonable” requests, reason has little to do with it. Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning and now drag it off the street to get a better deal. You go for it girl. Wave that flag. Bang that drum. Count those jobs.

Much enjoyed the thought of "unfancy" Bae upgrades - "none of yon yankee plastic crap 'ere lad, just beat this 'orse shoe into shape wi’ yer knuckles" (apologies to YKW)

AFAIK, T1 to T2 upgrade, T3, & future weapons integration have been taken out of Typhoon program to make Typhoon FCP. Don't think that's been funded yet.

Typhoon partner deal was to stop them dang furriners from hyping big orders to steal work from pure & innocent brit lads & lasses. Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties.

Typhoons TLC being warranteed don’t make it cheaper. F-16 vs Gripen is interesting as it shows newer kit is simpler/cheaper to run than old, esp. if it's one of the major customer requirements. But isn't that intuitive?

Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list. I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list. What does it say? Still half Typhoon?

You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop. If you want to play mandarin, compare discretionary money2go for each.

Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m. Not sure £45m for T3 & beyond is credible.

I doubt if future exports for Typhoon are dependant on a UK T3 purchase. However JSF contracts prereq sizable UK orders. Sounds like you can have your export cake & eat it.

I'll say again, not trying to tell you lot that you should buy JSF. Your call. Just trying to turn Land of Hope n'Glory down a decibel or 2 to encourage rationale discussion. Judging by the name contest, that ship has sailed.

[ORAC]

U.S., Israel spar over JSF purchase
Associated Press

JERUSALEM — Israel is considering canceling plans to buy about 100 state-of-the-art F-35 warplanes from the United States because of a dispute over Israeli demands to modify the aircraft, military officials said Monday.

Israel is insisting it be allowed to upgrade the planes with its own technological warfare systems, as it has done with the F-15, the F-16 and the F-16-I, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the sides are trying to resolve the issue. The U.S. has rejected Israel’s request, in part because the Israeli system provides stiff competition to American companies, the officials said......

Israeli air force officials are currently at the headquarters of Lockheed Martin Corp., the project’s lead contractor, trying to persuade the U.S. to rescind its ban on Israeli upgrades, the Israeli daily Maariv reported.....

I think that completes the set. :hmm:

[Safety_Helmut]

So Jacko, come on then, what do you mean by:We just need sufficient software access and tech transfer to be able to service, support and repair the jet in service because we've got a pretty good history of cocking this area up.

Safety_Helmut

[Jackonicko]

"Not sure Nimrod 4 indicates Brit only programs are so peachy."

Typhoon isn't a Brit only programme. We're not talking about production, we're talking about in service sustainment and minor upgrades.

"Brits didn't ask for the secret sauce at the beginning..."

They were explicitely promised it, AND sprinkles, by Clinton, when they joined the programme.

So far, the degree of tech transfer has been such that essential operational analysis has been hampered, UK firms have sometimes been unable to bid for SDD work, and have been subject to needless delay and bureaucracy. Apart from that.....

"Explained by your MinDef chappie, reneging on UK orders means giving up brit workshare so they don't loose out in the Fatherlands. Plus paying moving expenses of course. But no penalties."

There are penalties written into the contract. Moreover the UK would have to continue to build components for the other nation's aircraft, or fund the establishment of production facilities for the assemblies it now produces, and would be further penalised for the reduction in production capacity.

The T1 to T2 upgrade is not a requirement, but is being undertaken on Austria's first six jets, and is cheap enough to be being undertaken at industry's cost.

"Prices I quote are Dec 2005 & after the events you list." You quote ancient prices that were restated in 2005, and which are disbelieved by the GAO, and which neither Lockmart nor the US Government are prepared to guarantee as people commit to the aircraft.

"I read Lockheed has published JSF partner price list." You read wrong, then, as the partners are being asked to sign up to production investment before a definitive price is set (due in 2011).

"You continue to include R&D to inflate your JSF price & leave it out of Typhoon. That's retarded, you need to stop."

Typhoon R&D and total programme cost has been stable for a while, now, whereas JSF's is still escalating. If we require a fast jet force of 232 Typhoon and 82-135 JSF, then we could notionally replace JSF with 82-135 extra Typhoon. Typhoon R&D costs would have been amortised over the first 232 aircraft, leaving the 'extra aircraft' available at unit production cost.

For 232 aircraft, the Typhoon Unit programme cost, including R&D, is £82 m. Easy.

They aspire to match F-16 life cycle (400% of price) costs on JSF, despite the demands of LO. Typhoon guarantees a significantly lower proportion.

"Your MinDef says Typhoon UPC for T1&T2 is £64.8m." No it doesn't. You quote an NAO price (from the 2005 Major Projects Report) which has astonished those in the programme, and which represented a £20 m rise since the previous annual report. Uness T3 has been cancelled, or problems have arisen that have resulted in a 50% increase in cost (and they haven't) the figure is wrong. The bottom line is that no partner will pay more than an export customer (that's contractually guaranteed), and we know that the Austrians paid €62 m per jet. The previous figure of £45.9 m is in line with Austrian, German, Italian and Spanish figures, and so can be assumed to be broadly correct.

Unless you believe that we're paying a UPC in £ bigger than the price being paid by Austria in Euros.......

£45 m = $85 m. That's far from 'double' the JSF UPC, and JSF prices are still escalating wildly. It's by no means unlikely that $85 m won't be exceeded.

In any case, any price is too expensive for an aircraft for which you can't gain operational sovereignty, which you can't support, sustain, modify or upgrade, and which can't carry and can't be made to carry the weapons you need.

[RonO]

You're mixing ITAR waivers & JSF technology access yet again. UK didn't asked for 100% JSF technology at sign up time and Billyboy never promised it. Your own Minister admits it wasn't part of the original MOU and Turner's on record saying it was effing stoopid to hand over the moolah before cutting a deal on access.

Anyhow as I said, you go bang that brit drum and see if you can get some more jobs for Turner out of this. Every other country and every state in the union is looking for an angle so why shouldn't you? But puleeze cut the sanctimonious bullcrap that this is about anything but money & jobs.

For me it's deja vu all over again. I was around when computer source code was pulled. Customers pissed and moaned then. Partial answer was interfaces for customer written plug-ins. I'm sure aerospace will do similar. If EF is sending out source code today, I'll guarantee they're not happy that chunks are being lifted straight into other folks programs and will follow the exact same path. Interestingly enough, 99.9% of customers despite their protests never did their own plugs. 3rd party business never really flowered either. Customers figured out sharpish that OEM provides better quality at lower prices. Now there's something for Drayson to mull over.

According to your Minister, no penalties per se for reducing Typhoon orders and T3 numbers will be established during partner negotiations in a year or two. BTW reducing UK workshare is not a "penalty" if UK orders are cut. Not unless you reckon the world owes the UK a living. Of course that would explain some of your other comments.

You are mistaken that JSF TLC targets are same as F-16.

I did not quote "ancient prices", I quoted current forecasts. Lockheed is setting similar price expectations. And no, they're not varying wildly. And yes I did read it. You could too. The idea that Lockheed/JPO/Administration is sandbagging to get signatures is absurd.

The UK contribution to JSF R&D is as stable as you can get - it's fixed and will be paid off in full this year. You do realize that the GAO bible under your pillow only talks about the US???? any doom & gloom there does not impact your R&D bill. And you do realise "amortised" doesn't mean that's when the bill comes due?

Soooo if we accept your claim that all Typhoon R&D is committed (which it is NOT), any future financial choice would be between JSF UPC & Typhoon UPC. Right?

Two months ago Ingram said Typhoon UPC is £64.8m. Your claim that the NAO showed a £20m hike is incorrect. It never showed T1/T2 UPC before and explained why.

OK, NAO & Ingram could be wrong. HMG mistooks are common enough. However I'm still not convinced thin air £45m is credible. Unless you're 'arry Potter, you don't know T3 costs.

But let's pretend Typhoon will be £45m each. At $45m, F-35A is still half price.

Your closing "thought" is barking. What logic explains the US stiffing half of NATO into buying jets that don't work. Do your C-17's work????

[Unmissable]

What has JSF gotbthat typhoon doesn't (on militarycapability terms)

Answer:

1.

[reacher]

Ok, in kiddie terms no greater than postage stamp, please explain:


Why dont the US want to transfer the technology for a JOINT, and im not just talking inter-service here, aircraft? Fair enough I could see them being worried if Pakistan or Indo wanted to buy some, but why are they squabbling about transfering the technology to their oldest and most war tested allies? Espesically when everyone is potentially going to be (or hopefully) fighting "together" for the fore-seeable future.

It even makes basic monetary sense, the more aircraft sold, the more money those making the supposed limited transfer technology can make, even if it is licensed.

[Jackonicko]

The UK always needed the technology/software access it's now asking for.

According to Lockheed there's no problem, and we'll get what we need 'just in time' anyway.

Unfortunately, however, Technology transfer has already proved problematic on this and other programmes (eg RADEOS) so you can hardly blame us if we're not taking these bland assurances at face value.

There is no doubt that an OEM will sometimes provide better quality at lower prices, but only when it suits, and we need to be able to undertake EOCs and UORs, and to integrate kit when we require it. We need the flexibility to be able to support, sustain, upgrade and integrate using our own resources - not that we intend to go that route all of the time.

This isn't "sanctimonious bullcrap about money & jobs" - though of course those are vital, it's also about having a capability we can use when we need it, in the ways in which we need to use it. It's not about buying jets that don't work, it's about buying jets that won't work the way we want them to, over which we don't have 'operational sovereignty'.

I haven't spoken to Drayson about Tranche 3 penalties (I haven't spoken to the bloke at all), and Lord Bach was never, ever, willing to talk about T3 at all, but I have spoken to people at the highest levels within EF GmbH and NETMA, and I'm perfectly aware of the repercussions of ANY unilateral withdrawal from any part of the programme.
According to people I've spoken to who have good access to the programme JSF's LO technologies make it unlikely that the aircraft will meet its support cost targets, and those targets are broadly comparable to today's frontline aircraft, while Typhoon's are an order of magnitude lower. To deny simple fact seems much more like nationalistic tub-thumping than anything I've read from the pro Typhoon lobby.

"Two months ago Ingram said Typhoon UPC is £64.8m. Your claim that the NAO showed a £20m hike is incorrect. It never showed T1/T2 UPC before and explained why."

Ingram merely quoted the 2005 NAO MPR, and made it abundantly clear that that was the source for his parliamentary answer. The 2004 NAO MPR quoted a UPC of £49.1 m but it was also revealed that the full cost of the UK's 55 Tranche 1 aircraft to be £2.5 Bn, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 m.

You'll be aware that the UPC within each Tranche is to be reduced, as you'd expect.

The £64.8 m figure is out of kilter with all previously released figures (UK, Austrian, German, etc.) by about the same amount, and the exact basis on which it was calculated has not been revealed, beyond the statement that this "reflects the costs agreed for Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 only."
If this figure were an accurate UPC, it would mean that the UK was paying £20 m more per jet than Austria, which is contractually impossible, and which would have resulted in a firestorm of fury and recrimination.

You choose to believe a unique figure (Ingram explicitely quoted it as coming from the 2005 MPR, so it's a single source figure) while many other more credible sources give another lower figure (the same lower figure).
I suspect that this figure will be explained fully within the next few weeks.

On the other hand, if JSF costs were remotely reliable, Lockheed would be undertaking to honour a price band for the aircraft it is now expecting its partners to commit to, and wouldn't be waiting until 2011. It can't, of course, because there are simply too many uncertainties in JSF, making any current price prediction useless. At least with Typhoon we can underpin price estimates by referring to prices that have actually been paid by customers for real aircraft.

And because the US will have to claw back the massive increases in R&D spending and the reduced production totals from somewhere, no-one should put money on anything but massive price rises for JSF.

[Jackonicko]

Reacher,

1) Because they want to bolster LM's competitive and monopolistic position. If the JSF line at (say) Lossie can incorporate a UOR integrating a new weapon, then that's potential work for Lockheed lost. And what would happen if we integrated a weapon that might compete with a US offering?

2) Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us.

As has been clear when UK officers have had difficulty gaining access to essential information in Iraq, and on countless programmes, where difficulties with technology transfer have often severely impacted on capability, cost and timescale.

Bigger than a postage stamp, sorry!

[Magoodotcom]

Reacher,
1) Because they want to bolster LM's competitive and monopolistic position. If the JSF line at (say) Lossie can incorporate a UOR integrating a new weapon, then that's potential work for Lockheed lost. And what would happen if we integrated a weapon that might compete with a US offering?
2) Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us.
As has been clear when UK officers have had difficulty gaining access to essential information in Iraq, and on countless programmes, where difficulties with technology transfer have often severely impacted on capability, cost and timescale.

Bingo! There it is...finally! It's all about, and has always been about intellectual property, not classification levels.

The US considers the lines between defence contractors in the UK and those of other Euro countries to be too blurred in too many areas (e.g. Thales, EADS etc).

With many of the Euro countries continuing to sell armaments and other high-tech wares to China, India and other 'non-aligned' states, the US probably thinks it's just a matter of time before something slips through the net and falls into the hands of the Acme State Reverse Engineering Company in downtown Shanghai!

Magoo

[ORAC]

It's all about, and has always been about intellectual property, not classification levels. They are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. In fact, they are usually facets of the same thing.

A government pays for the development of a technology. They will have the property rights - but also classify it, because the prospective enemy doesn´t care about the first.

A nation such as the UK will want the ability to quickly adapt/modify the aircraft for national security/war fighting reasons. The foreign manufacture will want to retain the capability for profit and future sales reasons.

It just depends on your point of view.

[RonO]

Orac, ah the pure and simple english rose doing it all for national security and the selfish yankee swine just thinking of his filthy profit....the train is coming, fast, fast, untie her before it's too late, she must be saved !!

[RonO]

Jacko, I swear you’re tailor-made for a noo labor cabinet post, you shift ground quicker than a one legged irish fiddler.

Do love the clichés and labor-speak. “Sovereign independence” is a classic. Brings up all the right images of plucky queen bess launching armada to fight off Goering’s hordes. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be. Now what does it say here in the fine print: UK won’t indulge in major ops except as part of a US lead coalition. Ah well.

I doubt if I've gotten you off your crap financials for good but I suppose I should be grateful that you're now just comparing production costs and given up on the carpet baggers best friend – amortization.

Your comments on JSF price projections being “not remotely reliable” & “useless” are as ridiculous as before. Do you really think the US government is giving bogus price predictions to the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, Turkey & Denmark??? Do you really think Lockheed gives useless price projections when it bids on other UK contracts? If so, WTF does the UK keep doing business with them?

Your theme song that the US will have to “claw back massive increases” in US R&D costs from the UK is just flat wrong. No matter how you sing it, the UK has a fixed price JSF R&D contract. Fixed price means price is fixed. Fixed, fixed, I tell you (manic laughter)

I understand your opinion that NAO screwed Typhoons current production cost. And it’s been a year now and they’ve not fixed the mistake. And your Minister still quotes them believing them to be correct. Got that. Clearly NAO doesn’t have the same stamp of infallibility as the GAO (more offstage laughter).

Anyhoo, you’re right about one thing, it’s T3 production costs that are relevant here. You think they’ll dramatically decline. The EF rich and powerful have whispered such things in your ear so it must be true. I agree we’ve got a better handle on Typhoon pricing but won’t final T3 pricing depend on how much is added to bring them up to JSF A-G capability levels? And how big will T3 be? All in all, given EF’s past history of managing costs, I’d say room to doubt your EF buddies promises.

Anyhow to get price competitive with JSF-A, Typhoon T3 will have to drop to £25m per. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that ain’t gonna happen. Nah, much more likely JSF will remain half the price and will scoop the F-16 follow on business.

For JSF TLC, give the USMC a holler. They’ve got some rather different ideas than you.

On technology access, far from blaming you, I said I encourage the UK in using its current leverage to get what it wants. It’s a big bad world out there and you should use every edge you have. But I do find your image of some poor Scottish RAF grunt struggling to rewrite FCS software with frozen fingers as bombs fall whence all but he had fled, to be a total crock. The question is who will get the call: Lockheed or Bae. If there’s a choice, look for maintenance costs to skyrocket as service levels quickly diverge.

I find it mildly amusing that one plank in the “we want it all and we won’t wait” campaign is that the US should trust its best ally with all the technology yet at the same time monopolistic Lockheed can’t be trusted to upgrade in a timely or affordable manner. No conflict there. Are you aware that the UK buys a shedload of kit from Lockheed & other yankee companies that in different scenarios could be just as vital. You think you have sovereign thingie on all of them? Pal, have I got noos for you.

Most sense was John Farley on this topic. In response to why is the UK asking for this on JSF and not for the other 101 bits of Yankee kit in brit service, the answer came “because we can” (I paraphrase).

By the way “Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us” is total horse manure. UK gets more US classified data than anyone else and you ought to know that. Also love the snide dig at US technology, tad jealous maybe?

You should also know the congressman in whose fiefdom the waiver lies, asked the UK to pass laws to prevent technology transfer to bad guys instead of relying on the coin flip of the minister/goverment du jour. Tony said no. So go and make babies elsewhere was the response. Suprising?

I’ll end with a tip: scratch Willy from your resume & speed dial. Just like everyone else.

[Big Bear]

I've just come back from a tour of French defence industries and, whilst I don't wish to open up the can of worms that is the relative merits of such companies, one major theme was apparent throughout the entire visit - each company proudly proclaimed that they could produce their flagship products without sourcing any subsystems or parts from the US. They are very happy to let Uncle Sam have his intelectual property rights because they are fully aware that there is no way that he is going to play nicely with the other kids in the playground and share fairly. Instead of moping around they have gone off and done their own thing. Whilst there is a lot scope for commonality in defence there is an old saying regarding eggs and baskets.

Bear

[ORAC]

Do you really think the US government is giving bogus price predictions to the UK Why not? it did for the F-111. :hmm:

[Jackonicko]

"Do love the clichés and labor-speak. “Sovereign independence” is a classic."

Would be if I'd said it.

I repeated that well known 'Noo Labor' man Jock Stirrup's phrase, however. "Operational Sovereignty."

And while it's less easy to incorporate UORs by SEM/STF on a software driven platform like JSF, it's not impossible, and we do need to be able to do so, just as we need to be able to repair leading edges, etc. without a return to works.

And I can't think of any other US supplied platform (with the exception of the C-17, where the terms of the lease would complicate mattters) which we could not modify if required, and for which we do not enjoy the level of operational sovereignty we require.

If you seriously believe that the US will maintain the JSF prices at their currently stated level (and if you believe that F-35, unlike C-130J, F-22 and grey Merlin's mission kit, will encounter zero price growth) and if you seriously believe that cost increases and the effect of declining orders will all be taken care of by the US taxpayer, and not passed on to foreign customers, then I'll have several pints of whatever you're drinking, and I promise that I'll keep the lid on this coffee pot if ever you wake up. Reality will be a nasty shock for you, I'm sure.

If the US Government and Lockmart seriously believed that they could maintain these prices, then they'd offer a guaranteed unit price ceiling to those nations signing up now. They have not and will not. They can't go back and take more for SDD, so they'll have to recover the costs in production prices.

As for Typhoon, you clearly don't "understand your opinion that NAO screwed Typhoons current production cost" because that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that the 2005 MPR figure is £20 m out of kilter with the 2004 figure, the figure separately given for T1, the figures quoted by Germany, Italy and Spain (whose prices have to match ours, contractually) and for Austria (which have to be higher).

Neither you nor I know exactly how the MoD cam up with the new figure because neither they nor the NAO have yet explained it. But we do know that the £45-49.1m UPC is the accurate ballpark figure.

As for support and through life costs, I have spoken to the Marines, and the Navy, and the USAF, and I suspect to people from those services who are closer to the program than you are.

As to my supposedly snide dig about sharing 'good old American know how' I was being largely serious, and the underlying dig was that this was a programme which has some important elements that are based in no small measure on 'good old UK know how' - and you ought to know that! A tad jealous, perhaps - but better than being more than a tad ignorant and arrogant.

As to your tip, Willy was never on my speed dial. I was on his! :p

[Confucius]

A bad workman always blames his tools/or political master. Just buck up your ideas, stop crying into your G&T and get on with the job for heaven's sake. It's what your paid to do.

Get bent. All aircrew have opinions (some too loudly voiced it's true), but it's a basic freedom thing. If something ain't right nobody should be afraid to voice it, whether or not you like it.

[Gen.Thomas Power]

Chill out mon brave. You are right about a great many things, but don't let a few misinformed dick-wads get you down or otherwise distract you from the certainty that depite the fact that your country f*cked us over Suez, the UK is your one true ally (measured in blood and treasure) and desrves a bit of respect. So lay-off Queen Bess, if only because a large part of your military-industrial infrastructure is located in 'Virginia'.

The bald truth which I and my countrymen are naturally reluctant to admit is that we are simply not trustworthy: our prime defence contractor is a corporate tart that will sell anybody's secrets (including our own) at any price to anyone; our govt will not proscribe UK military sales to China because it doesn't make financial sense and, as long as we can get away with it without seriously jeopardising our strategic relationship with the US, any penalty paid in terms of our own military capability is probably worth it; and although our military are entirely honourable and trustworthy, they have been immasculated by the bodies politic and economic.

As I have opined on other threads I don't think JSF is what we need - unless we feel obliged to try and make some sort of meaningful Day 1 contribution to the ubiquitous 'US-led Coalition Campaign', which we clearly do. However, why not make a meaningful Day 30 contribution instead - I'm sure Willy, or maybe it'll be Jeb by then (and you rebelled against our system of inherited privelege?!) will greatly appreciate it. Whatever the UPC, or JSF's forecast or actual TLC, running a single fleet of Typhoon with a quasi-national design/support authority has got to be cheaper and more flexible (perhaps only just) than running two seperate aircraft types with all the associated transatlantic IPR bollox (and I am not under-estimating the challenges stemming from all the pan-European IPR bollox).

As you rightly identify, the UOR argument is utter pap. The UK gov doesn't have the minerals to underwrite any risk, technical or otherwise, on any platform in any situation short of General War; the idea that that sort of work would be done/underwritten at huge expense by anyone other than LM is complete ar$e. Besides, what new or even old weapons system are we going to be able to afford or want to integrate onto JSF that won't already be in the weapons integration programme, or for which clearances can't be read-across with an acceptable degree of risk? Stormshadow, BVRAAM, or perhaps some other weapon designed to compensate for a lack of stealth? Maybe integrating ASRAAM would be cheaper than buying AIM-9X - not. These ideas advanced by the same sort of barking mad, buy-British-bugger-the-integration-and- performance-cost strokers that decided to Spey the Phantom.

However, an entirely valid consideration for Typhoon . . . we are going to have to spend a bootful of money that we don't currently have on integrating a number of different weapons onto Typhoon, perhaps under UOR, and if not, in a timescale which, if he knew/could accept the truth, would probably make Jackonicko physically ill. That's the investment that needs to be amortised. . . and another good reason for wishing you every luck with JSF and your next campaign. . .

And let's hear it for Benedict Arnold, or 001 as we like to call him.

GTP

[RonO]

Gen, you're right, got carried away there a tad. I'm done.

[SASless]

RonO,

The Marines have embraced the V-22 Osprey and the Harrier...thus they have been known to go with bad choices of gear.

[RonO]

sorry i just deleted that stuff.

[brickhistory]

And let's hear it for Benedict Arnold, or 001 as we like to call him.

GTP

Spew......morning coffee on keyboard.........

[Jackonicko]

General P,

I'd take your opinion that "the UOR argument is utter pap" and that the "UK gov doesn't have the minerals to underwrite any risk, technical or otherwise, on any platform in any situation short of General War" rather more seriously if only we hadn't incorporated UORs on most platforms in most operations we've undertaken since the Falklands.

And if only you had the faintest clue as to what you were talking about.

Stormshadow is planned for integration on JSF (albeit not for years) and so is ASRAAM. Meteor isn't.

As to the relative expense of integration of ASRAAM vice -9X, you're comparing an in-service weapon, already integrated on multiple platforms, versus a paper weapon.

Sometimes UK weapons and systems are the right answer (Skyflash might provide a useful historic example, or Storm Shadow, or Sea Eagle), and insisting that US is best is the kind of barking mad nonsense that you criticise.

Historically, I'd say that when we've bought mature US kit, it has been very successful, but recent acquisitions of less mature kit (C-130J, the Merlin mission system, etc), US industry has proved less impressive.

[Red Snow]

GTP
I think you're a bit wide of the mark re. Spey Phantom. Quite apart from the operational reasons for needing a more powerful engine (and the clear performance advantages in many areas) there were balance of trade/foreign reserves issues, which still have some relevance to procurement to this day

Jacko
Bit confused by your ASRAAM/AIM-9X remark. Aren't both 'in-service weapons, already integrated on multiple platforms' ??

[SASless]

Jacko,



Per some quick googling, the RAF perferred the US made J-79 engine for the F4 but had to convert to the Spey for commonality with the FAA F-4's. The Spey allowed better acceleration, climb, and range but made for a much slower airspeeds.

The British Phantoms could be distinguished from their American cousins by their wider and shorter engine exhausts. Beginning in 1975, RAF Phantoms were fitted with a distinctive rectangular antenna for a Marconi ARI 18228 RWR, attached to the top of the vertical tailplane.

The changes ordered by the British government led to a considerable increase in the cost of the aircraft, and worse, although the Spey was more powerful than the J79 and had greater fuel economy, the British would probably have been better off to have stayed with the J79. The match between an engine and an airframe can be surprisingly tricky, and the Spey-powered Phantom turned out to be a textbook example of the troubles that can arise when trying to mate an engine to an aircraft that wasn't designed for it from the outset.

The British Phantoms required substantial airframe modifications, with the rear fuselage width increased to accommodate the Speys, and 20% larger intake ducts to provide the greater airflow required by the Rolls-Royce engines. Even then, the Speys were temperature-redlined to Mach 1.9, due to cost-reduction measures imposed on Rolls-Royce that dictated use of cheaper metals. Between the airframe changes, which undermined the Phantom's "area ruling", and the limitations of the engines, the British Phantoms were sometimes described, most likely by a certain famously caustic senior British aviation writer, as the "most powerful, most expensive, and slowest Phantoms in the world."

However, although the 1960s were the great age of British weapons procurement fiascos, the selection of the Spey was by no means a case of excessive nationalism at work, and the problems seem to have been sometimes exaggerated. Since British carriers were smaller than American carriers, FAA Phantoms had to have more power to get off the decks, both in terms of drive for the BLC system and greater thrust. In fact, the Spey-powered F-4s had superior acceleration and rate of climb to J79-powered F-4s, outpacing US Navy Phantoms during their stint on the USS SARATOGA until their American cousins could catch up and then fly past them.

The British Phantoms also had better low-level performance, an absolute benefit for RAF strike pilots who normally flew above the treetops, and enjoyed a 10% greater radius of action. Ground-attack pilots particularly enjoyed knowing that they could take on adversary fighters at level or superior odds. The fact that the Phantom could carry four AAMs on the fuselage recesses without interfering with carriage of attack munitions was a significant advantage.

As a strong plus, from 1979 on the British Phantoms carried the UK-built "Sky Flash" AAM in preference to the American-made Sparrow. Fit of the Sky Flash to the Phantom was simple, because the missile was based on the Sparrow airframe, with British-built seeker. The Sky Flash was much superior to US-built Sparrows of the time, spurring the Americans to catch up with improved Sparrow variants of their own.

The RAF's initial misgivings about the type gradually grew into admiration and affection, one RAF pilot concluding: "All in all, the Phantom was an excellent aircraft." It was retired with regrets. A number of "Yanks", such as the C-47 Dakota and the P-51 Mustang, have served with distinction wearing RAF roundels, just as the British Canberra and Harrier have served with distinction wearing the red-white-and-blue in return. The Phantom was one of the significant American eagles in British colors, proving capable enough to overcome the nationalism that sometimes puts the two nations at odds.

A very good discussion of the history of the F4 in UK service.

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/history.html

[brickhistory]

RonO,
The Marines have embraced the V-22 Osprey and the Harrier...thus they have been known to go with bad choices of gear.

Did I miss something on these two a/c? The Harrier has turned in sterling service over its USMC life, so I am puzzled by your using it as an example of bad US gear (there is crap stuff put out by us, but not this a/c). The losses during its early life are more due to training than a 'bad' a/c, so what gives?

Likewise, why is the V-22 'bad?' It has no track record for operational service so how can you make a judgement call on its merits? (Mind you, I am not bringing up the political issues regarding the a/c, nor any of its long gestation issues.)

Please return to your regularly scheduled programming..........

[RonO]

Made aside in a long post that USMC doesn't buy fragile kit. Decided 2 mins later it's dumb continuing a religous argument so deleted entire thing. SAS squeezed into the 2 min window with his thought.

Re-harrier, didn't think fragility was the issue, more the demands on the driver.

[NickLappos]

brickhistory might want to refresh his screen regarding the Harrier's "stirling" history.

The stirling service of the Harrier? What, in bombing the end of its own runway? In failing to provide true air cover and support for the ground troops in the Falklands due to its woeful range? It is inept as a fighter, and as a bomber, except when it crashes, as many of them have.

The US Marines have lost 1/3 of the Harriers they started with, and in Desert storm, Harriers had a loss rate 3 times higher than real fighters.
An LA Times article details this awful tale at http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/farfrom1.html

"Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents."


Other than that, SASless, is off base.....

[SASless]

This link takes you to a paper written about shortcomings of the V-22 Osprey.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/SJC.htm

[ORAC]

In failing to provide true air cover and support for the ground troops in the Falklands due to its woeful range? And just how would we have done without them? And, no, we would not have had CTOL instead, CV01 was cancelled long before the idea of the Shar came along.

(I was lead to believe the USMC regard for the AV-8 was that it was close at hand when needed, not 200 miles off-shore. When grunts on the ground needed it, it was there. Like super artillery. In essence, as it was explained to me, the USN and USAF are more interested in minimising aircraft loss rates, the USMC being more interested in minimising marine loss rates.)

[BEagle]

The Harrier (and its wet jet sibling) was really only a clever Hunter with shorter legs. But it certainly had a role in CAS during the cold war in RAFG and the sqns were very proficient with the GR1 and later with the GR3.

The Shar was needed for the Malvinas as the closest that the F4s could get was ASI. It did as well as it could; the GR3 also acquitted itself pretty well. But the carriers were extremely vulnerable to SuE/Exocet attack and had to be kept well away which limited time over the target areas.

In GW1, the RAF's GR5 couldn't even drop bombs. It did nothing. But the USMC got stuck in with its AV8Bs; this exposed the vulnerability of the Harrier to ManPAD systems.

CVA01 plus P1154 would have been something entirely different; the current GR7 is a development of the AV8B as the UK had given up on Harrier development, to its eternal shame. It is a short range bomber without even a radar system and offers little in the way of credible air defence to the fleet when embarked.....

So please, no wars for the RN FW element until the F-35 is in service.

[Lord_Flashheart]

Jackonicko,

"And I can't think of any other US supplied platform (with the exception of the C-17, where the terms of the lease would complicate mattters) which we could not modify if required, and for which we do not enjoy the level of operational sovereignty we require."


I'm not sure this is completely true... AWACS radar upgrade? ASTOR MTI/SAR radar codes...? C-130J avionics/glass cockpit? DIRCMS suites? The Nimrod MRA4's mission system is even built by Boeing...

There's a whole load of US stuff that if we want to make major changes we're going to have to go to the OEM or invalidate the warranty.

Chinook Mk3:} being a case in point... - You can mod it yourself, but at your own risk....


Plus thanks to lean and just-in-time delivery could not the US just have us over a barrel by restricting say, key C-17 spares, if we ever went to war and they disagreed?

"Sorry, UK, we'd love to help you out, but there's been a fire in the factory producing the spare widgits you need - current batch all destroyed, I'm afraid....."

"What's that - you're NOT going to invade Hawaii? Wow, its your lucky day - we've just found a box under the table...." ;)


The key for JSF is what will the Israelis do (at the moment they are honking a bit about ingretating their kit) but I can't see that they will not be allowed to integrate Derby, Python and all their specific EW black-boxes that go in the latest F-16s...

[Jackonicko]

Lord F,

Because the JSF is a software driven aeroplane, to a greater extent than anything we've ever seen before, you need tech tansfer and software codes to to anything.

And while most of the platforms you have mentioned have sensors or systems we can't touch, the platforms themselves could be upgraded and modded if required - and without the manufacturer's permission. Thus we could enhance the defensive aids on E-3D (or add a new datalink, or install defensive AIM-9s, or whatever).

As to the Chinook 3, weren't the mods designed and incorporated by the manufacturer?

[ORAC]

Latest reports are that the recent F-22 incident where the canopy would not open and the pilot had to be cut out was caused by..... a software problem. :ugh:

[Lord_Flashheart]

Latest reports are that the recent F-22 incident where the canopy would not open and the pilot had to be cut out was caused by..... a software problem.

Reboot it!:E


True Jacko - JSF will be software-driven (along with everything else) but to use a slightly OT example - I would argue I have 'operational sovereignty' of my PC.

Windows XP is installed on it, and though Microsoft don't let my see the source codes I can tweak it, modify it, shut down bits I don't like, install software that they'd rather I didn't and so on to my heart's content.

In short, because the interface is so good, there's really no need to go poking about in the source codes for anything. Should anything really go wrong I can always uninstall + reinstall it as a last resort.

Therefore, if you have the knowledge to poke about in the source codes of XP, you're probably almost qualified to write an OS from scratch...


For JSF, this middleware interface will be the key, no only for us, but also for convincing the rest of the global market (Israel etc) who may want in the future to add non-US weapons.... (The UAE for example made a huge fuss over F-16 codes - but they are still buying Black Shaheen/Storm Shadow). Since the US dominate the guided weapon market anyhow, are they going to let a few lost sales of AIM-9Xs to Israel trump the potential sale of 'replacement F16' JSFs to that country?


Or perhaps we should demand Lock Mart use Linux????:)

[ORAC]

Or perhaps we should demand Lock Mart use Linux????

SAN JOSE, CA - 05/15/2006 - LynuxWorks Inc (http://www.lynuxworks.com/). today announced that L-3 Communications Display Systems has chosen its LynxOS-178 Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) to power a portion of the Panoramic Cockpit Display (PCD) subsystem for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. This display system delivers information for all the major functions of the F-35, including flight and sensor displays, communication, radio and navigation systems as well as an identification system which gives the pilot total situational awareness.

The key factors in L-3 Display System's choice of LynuxWorks' RTOS...were its adherence to open standards [and] its Linux compatibility..... :E

[brickhistory]

Nick and SAS,

I'd counter that to the USMC, the Harrier is a good airplane. I don't dispute that they gave a bunch back in inadvertant recycling, but the Corps certainly seems to like having them around. So, to use the AV-8 as an example of a 'flawed' piece of equipment did not add to SASless's arguement.

And to the V-22, I don't have an opinion on it, yet, regarding its OPERATIONAL success/failure history because it doesn't have one. Just because its development history has been tedious does not make it a turkey.

It may very well be said bird, but its too early to say yet, IMO. Very few a/c development projects, particularly when as challenging as the whole vertical to horizontal flight thing is, have gone off without much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Again, whether the USMC really wanted the a/c is another, political, matter that the congressmen from TX decided.

[RonO]

Plural of software code is software code. No s.

Anyone that's been in the biz for more than 30 seconds will tell you 2 different teams can't be updating same software. If Gates let you dick around with XP, next day's MS fix or upgrade would screw you royally. That's not even going near any qualification issues.

Fact is JSF is just pushing trend of more integration. Means ability to modify will be mostly limited to OEM or whatever he allows via plug-ins or i/faces. No reason to suppose those can't and aren't being worked out with Lockheed but they won't result in a charter to do whatever they want.

To be clear and so hopefully some jackass doesn't put words into my mouth, I'm saying put aside all jingoism & money & it's still not practical for RAF or Bae to be able to dick with JSF systems anymore than they'll be able to dick with Astors's radar. Exception will in ways formally agreed up front. Benefit is more capability, better quality.

[RonO]

Just read this. Sounds like a deal has been reached. I guess we just now have to wait for the UK order to be placed later this year.

Bush, Blair Resolve Dispute over Joint Strike Fighter
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
The United States and Britain announced agreement May 26 to end a long-running dispute over technology that had threatened plans to cooperate in developing a new-generation Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
A statement by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair on the final day of their two-day summit appeared to put to rest a row over British access to codes used in U.S. avionics systems aboard the F-35 fighters.
Britain, angered by U.S. reluctance to share the codes, had been preparing to pull out of the project and the planned purchase of 150 aircraft at $104 million apiece.
Bush and Blair said they agreed that Britain “will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.”
U.S. officials said the move would allow the British to make their own adaptations to the JSF without having to call in U.S. technicians.
”Both governments agree to protect sensitive technologies found within the Joint Strike Fighter program,” Bush and Blair wrote. “Together, we are working out the details, while remaining committed to these principles.”
The statement did not mention another dispute over the U.S. cost-cutting move to cancel a $2.4 billion contract for the British firm Rolls-Royce and the U.S. giant General Electric to develop a backup engine.
The JSF has been billed as the United States’ biggest fighter program. The Pentagon has planned to buy 2,400 of the stealthy multi-role fighters and international sales could account for another 2,000 to 3,500 aircraft.

[SASless]

104 Million USD translates to 56.2 Million UKP at today's rate.

What does the Typhoon sell for now?

Britain, angered by U.S. reluctance to share the codes, had been preparing to pull out of the project and the planned purchase of 150 aircraft at $104 million apiece.

[Confucius]

Typhoon is about £75M/US$131M apiece, including development costs incurred since the early/mid 80s, right now. About the same as the off the shelf price of a '22: not strictly comparable, I know, so **** off you pedants out there.

[Jackonicko]

Confucious,

I'm puzzled why you should want to make up a new price for Typhoon. There are more than enough out there, after all.

The unit programme cost (including R&D) is £82.5 m or £84.78 (Total UK programme cost (there are two credible figures) divided by 232).

The current unit production cost, excluding R&D, has to be less than the price paid by Austria (€62 m).

The cost of Tranche 1 for the UK was £2.5 Bn, covering 55 jets (it's actually 53 aircraft, two having slipped to Tranche 2 to allow for Austria's Tranche 1 Block 5A jets) giving a unit cost of either £45.45m or £47.17m. The NAO 2004 MPR gave a UPC of £49.1m.

The cost of Tranche 2 was £9.56 Bn for all partners, which gives a Unit Production Cost of £40.5-billion. Alternatively, known UK T2 contracts to RR and BAE (some of which had an element of R&D) totalled £5.05 Bn, giving a maximum UK UPC of £56.14 or £55.49m (T2 changed from 89 to 91 jets).

The 2005 MPR gives a UPC of £64.8 m - which is clearly about £20 m above the actual price, above the German/Italian/Spanish and even Austrian prices and clearly distorted by some odd piece of accounting (RAB, perhaps?) or by the inclusion of what should be counted under R&D or through life support costs.

Anyone listening to RonO's optimistic repetition of Lockmart's price targets might be surprised by the JSF unit price of $104m. We should not be surprised at all.

The costs for the JSF system development phase alone have increased by a staggering $13 Bn (from $28 billion to $41 billion) and if you thought that this was not going to be reflected in further price rises, you were deluded. If US politicians and taxpayers know that they are paying $110 m per JSF they were never going to stand for export customers like the UK paying just $83 m (Lockmart's $59 m plus our unit R&D spend of $24 m) per jet. I don't even think that would be legal!

JSF funding and related financing was explored in depth in a recent issue of Defence Analysis, using cost data produced by the UK National Audit Office and used in House of Commons answers, plus JSF price and inflation data from the US Government Accountability Office, and from a “raft of US reports”.

These figures make it clear that while the International Partners' SDD costs have to remain constant and capped there is no such price cap for the production phase, and that the “UPC has risen annually”, and that “the price has continued to increase over the past five years”, threatening fleet sizes, and that the price has already inflated by 36% in real terms.

As early as 2002 the GAO were using a $67 m UPC (excluding R&D), while Lockmart and the DoD were holding to $50 m. There has been a 72% cost rise since 2002, so that the figure for 2006 will be in the order of $86.2-million for the A-model.

The starting price for the UK F-35B is already higher than that, with JSF procurement (exclusive of the SDD phase and long-term support) quoted at £10-billion for 150 aircraft. That was a £66.67-million UPC in 2002, with an adjusted UPC growth to £75.75 m in 2003, £90.15 m in 2004 and £104.6 m in 2005.

It seems as though the latter figure is what we're going to be charged (in addition to the $2 Bn SDD funding we've already committed).

Thus the Typhoon costs about £45-49 m today, and the JSF costs £56 m.

And the vast bulk of Typhoon spending has a positive impact on our balance of payments, and is recycled through the UK exchequer, while the JSF eats foreign currency reserves.

And this was supposed to be a cheap F-16 replacement.....

[Confucius]

Confucious,
I'm puzzled why you should want to make up a new price for Typhoon. There are more than enough out there, after all.
The unit programme cost (including R&D) is £82.5 m or £84.78 (Total UK programme cost (there are two credible figures) divided by 232).
The current unit production cost, excluding R&D, has to be less than the price paid by Austria (€62 m).

I'm puzzled by why you are puzzled. First you, rather patronisingly I might say!, accuse me of making up a price (£75M incl r&d), and then quote a similar cost (£82.5M incl r&d). Puzzling indeed, perhaps you misread my post?. Maybe the £75M I saw quoted was a few years back, that would explain the 10% increase to £82.5M you quote. Still, not too much of a difference to bother with such a long post, I would have thought.

By the way, thank you for the info on the '35 - it wasn't one I was posting about previously, nor had I any intention of doing so. I merely quoted an 'off the shelf' price of a '22 (NOT a '35) - the US has written off r&d as far as (likely-to-be-rare) foreign sales are concerned. Its unit cost incl r&d is more like $350M based on their (reduced) likely production numbers.

[RonO]

Jacko your pants are on fire,

US only JSF unit program acquisition cost (total US R&D plus total US manufacturing divided by total US order of 2,458 aircraft) = $104m.

Projected US flyaway price, (cost to buy production aircraft off the line) = approx $50m.

JSF partner contracts state they will pay same US flyaway i.e. approx $50m. For example, Norway has been told to expect $45m for its F-35A's.

These numbers can be verified in a number of recently published US official publications. They are not my math. They are not pulled from anorak weekly. These are the costs & prices presented to congress this year.

The US will not be passing on additional R&D to the UK £2 bill contribution. Guaranteed in writing.

There is no US law that says US R&D has to be recovered thru exports. Not usually done. US goverment is not some 7/11 that needs to recover investment or make a profit. EXACTLY same as UK paying more for Typhoons than Austria because UK swallows R&D.

JSF will bring $25 billion plus to the UK. More than enough in taxes to pay for the entire UK JSF fleet.

So to answer Confucious, JSF partners are currently projected to pay appprox $50m per aircraft. Up or down a bit depending on variant. Up to you to guess how much that will drift in the next 5 years or so before deliveries begin. Bound to go up some. But basically half current Typhoon pricing.

Or you can believe wacko jacko's $100m or $150m or $200m (£104.6 m) or whatever other number he's pulling out of his ass.

I'm being pedentic. I'm running the risk of being thought an idiot for arguing with one. But I'm heartly sick of Jacko's lies, distortions and half truths here and in his spotter monthly articles. They prevent any rationale UK debate re-JSF and carriers (probably the not so hidden agenda) which doesn't do the Brit military any favors and by lowest common denominator journalism just confims public notion that any defense money is wasted. You loose..

[West Coast]

As a former US Marine, I find myself in agreement with Brick and Orac as to the relative success, or a better term, popularity of the Harrier.
The Marine Corps fancies itself expeditionary. That's an Indian term for get there with not nearly enough airpower to sustain anything but a minimal threat unless deployed at MEF level. As such there is a view that aircraft are disposable in a way that the other services don't share. When you look over your shoulder and hope to see your organic heavy weapons in support and it dawns on you that the MPS ships are still two days sail away, you know that at least your gonna have a handful of Harriers no more than a few dozen miles away.

[RonO]

Interestingly enough (or maybe they do it all the time) the website reporting the Blair/Bush JSF deal has removed the erroneous $104m price tag.

[ORAC]

Agreements to Enhance U.S., British Forces Interoperability (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/20060526_5242.html)

I wouldn't get carried away over the Bush statement. Clinton was similarly rosy. The bottom line is the sentence, "Together, we are working out the details," the statement said, "while remaining committed to these principles."

So it's just a statement of principles, a bit of spin for the end of the get together. The devil remains is in the details - and in the Congress. Bush may be giving his support, but he is already a lame duck predident and all his political capital is already spent...

Financial Times (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060526&ID=5752761):
The statement provides support for the UK's position as it negotiates a production agreement with the US. A memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon is expected to be negotiated by the end of the year.

"We are very encouraged by the personal commitment shown by the president on JSF," said a Ministry of Defence official. "However, there is still some way to go to fully resolve technology transfer issues."

US officials had already said they hoped for a solution that would allow sharing. But there is an obstacle posed by members of Congress who worry that US secrets may leak out from Britain.......

(Background on ITAR and the road blocks of Hyde and Hunter in the Senate & House: DID (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/uk-warns-usa-over-itar-arms-restrictions/index.php) - and why Bush and the White House are impotent to strike a deal)

[Jackonicko]

RonO,

I don't know about flaming pants or half truths, but I'm merely quoting JSF figures from Defence Analysis, which is usually pretty rigorous, though using £ when they presumably meant dollars (as I repeated in one of my paragraphs) was poor.

That section should presumably read: "JSF procurement (exclusive of the SDD phase and long-term support) quoted at $10-billion for 150 aircraft. That was a $66.67-million UPC in 2002, with an adjusted UPC growth to $75.75 m in 2003, $90.15 m in 2004 and $104.6 m in 2005.

But the bottom line is that the Typhoon costs about £45-49 m today, and the JSF looks likely to cost US £56 m apiece, plus R&D, plus the £600 m of 'non SDD' spending identified by the NAO.

As I said. Nowhere did I suggest a figure of $200 m.

I don't care what Lockheed are predicting as a price at the moment. Unless and until they offer a guarantee or an absolute ceiling or cap it's meaningless. Typhoon has had some cost escalation problems, and I doubt that they're over. The total UK programme has already increased in cost by 14% over the past 15 years. That's pretty disgraceful. But it's at least better than JSF, whose total programme costs have increased 23% in just five years (2001-2005), and whose development phase costs rose by a staggering 81%! Nor has Lockheed's record on keeping to cost been impressive on F-22, or indeed on any of its recent programmes.

EF GmbH can tell a customer what a Typhoon will cost, and can guarantee that cost, which will be a tad higher than the partner nations pay (and three nations agree what they pay, and Britain did too, until the 2005 MPR). Lockheed cannot and will not.

Whose cost and price data is likely to be more reliable and more stable?

When it comes to Typhoon costs you pull one number out, while I'm citing several sources. Ditto JSF, you just parrot Lockheed's number (disputed by the GAO), while I have several numbers that "I'm pulling out of my ass."

If you're running the risk of being thought an idiot it will be for your spelling (heartly, rationale, loose etc.) and for your blind, unquestioning acceptance of the nonsense put out by Lockmart's PR department. I wonder what you think I've said that counts as "lies, distortions and half truths".

[TruBlu351]

Next image in the sequence. Inside the 1000ft TR bubble.
http://www.stevelanephotography.co.uk/aviation/TEMP/hosting/f18fgunf22.jpg

Yeeha! That's what I'm talkin' about!! It's all about nose position :ok:

So, ahh........210kts closure @ 900ft with increasing G. I wouldn't be backing off either!! Worth the bubble bust :}

Gotta love those flying tennis courts.

[Al Fresco]

Looks like he's behind the 3/9 line with another 400ft to go to me!

[ORAC]

Reporter.gr: 29 May 2006 - European Eurofighter consortium proposes a $5 billion industrial participation program to Turkey if it agrees to become the fifth partner of the group, matching the over $4 billion offer made by the multinational JSF group led by Lockheed Martin, reports Turkish Daily News.

The bidding game between the European Eurofighter consortium and the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) group entered a new stage over the weekend with Eurofighter -- which builds the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet -- proposing a $5 billion industrial participation program to Turkey, a deal that will take effect if Ankara decides to become the group's fifth partner, against the more than $4 billion offer made by the JSF group.

Giovanni Bertolone, chief executive officer for Alenia Aeronautica, said that the proposal involves the final assembly of the entire program beginning with the manufacture of aircraft for Turkey. An Alenia official said that the assembly work would involve about 100 aircraft for the Turkish Air Force plus over 300 aircraft the Eurofighter group hopes to sell to other buyers.

“This is a comprehensive proposal presently in the process of deep discussions [with the Turkish authorities],” Bertolone told reporters in Florence. “Our impression is that the SSM [Turkey's defense procurement office] are favorable toward this industrial participation proposal.”

He said if Turkey became the group's fifth partner, it would be tasked with promoting the fighter in “countries with which it has friendly relations,” like Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

[TruBlu351]

Looks like he's behind the 3/9 line with another 400ft to go to me!

Our rules apply a stoopid 1000ft concrete wall :yuk:

[Ex Douglas Driver]

He better be rolling right to keep the nose in plane!!! He's got a little alpha to use for a bit more nose position.... :}

BTW that picture wouldn't of been illegal under the old Kiwi rules.:E The bubble we had was 600ft horizontal and 200ft vertically.:ok:

[RonO]

ORAC, I fear you misunderstand ITAR. Bush does not need Congress in order to approve technology transfer to the UK. My understanding is that the negotiations underway are to establish what the UK needs in order to do it's sovreign thingie with JSF i.e some mutually agreed subset of the whole. What Bush & Blair did was guarantee the successful outcome of those talks.

[ORAC]

Bush does not need Congress in order to approve technology transfer to the UK. I would disagree.

[SASless]

If I remember correctly Ol' Bubba transferred missile techology to the Chinese without going to Congress. But then that was a Democratic Party Administration in power.:suspect:

[ORAC]

If I remember correctly Ol' Bubba transferred missile techology to the Chinese without going to Congress. And what was the outcome? in particular the tightening of oversight by the 2 committees in question, and the chances of the White House doing so again?

[RonO]

ORAC, I would also point out the oodles of JSF technology that's already gotten to the UK. Suggest you read the links that YOU posted, they explain ITAR reasonably well.

[RonO]

Here's one snippet

"ITAR relates to Section 38 of the USA's Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778), which authorizes the President to control the export and import of defense articles and defense services."

[Lord_Flashheart]

I would also point out the oodles of JSF technology that's already gotten to the UK.

And vice versa - R-R LiftFan and Dera's/QinetiQ's VAAC technology that has crossed the Atlantic in the opposite direction, without any strings attached...

[RonO]

Didn't mean to imply a one way flow. Quite clearly is not.

Meant to say that Lockheed can send info with just the Bush OK as proved by the fact they have been.

No strings?? mmm I doubt it, at least to the R-R bits. Not like them to forget to do patents.

[ORAC]

Strike Fighter Tests Transatlantic Ties & The Enemy Within (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/37668fb0-ef79-11da-b435-0000779e2340.html & http://eureferendum.********.com/2006/05/enemy-within.html). Copy of a FT article about UK-US defence relationships and an opposing opinion piece.

[Jackonicko]

Endless server load warnings.

Both articles also posted at:

http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=6573&comm=1

[ORAC]

Se here Jacko: Dedefensa.org (http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=6573&comm=1)

[RonO]

Not impressed by either article. Both parties too busy grinding axes.

As prereq to an ITAR waiver, the good senator requested the UK made rules & regs to prevent US technologies leaking to 3rd parties. Tony declined that opportunity so no waiver. In other words "if the UK won't implement safeguards, you're stuck with mine". A position that's got solid congress support.

Either way it's irrelevant to UK's JSF program. A sizable UK order is virtually guaranteed now that agreement's been reached on technology sharing.

[Jackonicko]

I suspect that, like Norway, the UK will commit to the next phase and book slots, paying penalties if it subsequently cancels.

It will do so without any guarantee as to exactly what the aircraft's capabilities and characteristics are, and with no firm guarantee as to what it will pay for the privilege. It will do so as part of a high risk, high cost programme that is almost certain to run into difficulties as a direct result of having to make production investment before enough of the development programme has been completed.

We should not sign up to JSF, if samity prevails, but I suspect that we will.

Without operational sovereignty, however, I'd hesitate in predicting that the F-35 will ever actually enter UK service.

[sense1]

I suspect that, like Norway, the UK will commit to the next phase and book slots, paying penalties if it subsequently cancels.
It will do so without any guarantee as to exactly what the aircraft's capabilities and characteristics are, and with no firm guarantee as to what it will pay for the privilege. It will do so as part of a high risk, high cost programme that is almost certain to run into difficulties as a direct result of having to make production investment before enough of the development programme has been completed.
We should not sign up to JSF, if samity prevails, but I suspect that we will.
Without operational sovereignty, however, I'd hesitate in predicting that the F-35 will ever actually enter UK service.


Jacko, I agree with alot of what you said in your last post. My motivation on this topic is only that the RAF/RN get the best available platform to conduct ops of the future - within a budget that HM government is able (willing) to afford.

At the end of the day, I am of the opinion that the JSF is probably the way ahead for us. I know that there are many potential problems (more delays, further cost increases) with this bird but IMHO there isn't anything more appropriate available. Our relatively large workshare in this programme should help to ease the pain of unit cost increases.

The Typhoon is/will be a great Air - Air platform and one day in the future it will be good at Air - Ground. I do not, however, think that it will be as good at A-G as the JSF will be. This is mainly due to the stealth properties JSF will have and, if the statement made by Blair and Bush is true :hmm:, then we will have a true stealth capability in the Brit armed forces for the 1st time - bring it on! :ok:

Looking at the alternatives:


Rafale - a fairly decent jet but won't offer HM Armed Forces anything they don't already have in the Typhoon airframe except carrier compatibility.... does this make it worth buying?! I personally don't think so.

F-22 - again its another Air - Air optimised airframe, not giving us a decent Air - Ground capability. An amazing jet - don't get me wrong! But not what we need.

More Typhoons (Tranche III & beyond) - like I have said, it will be good at Air - Ground in the years to come, but its still optimised for the fighter role. No internal bomb bays or real stealth characteristics. We need JSF to balance the Typhoon fleet - this will give us 2 airframes, one that is great at Air - Air and good at Air - Ground and a platform that is great at Air - Ground and good at Air - Air.

Existing 4th generation jets (F-15,F-18 etc) - not a chance! We will get the latest technology and something that will be built (at least partly) by British workers.

All of this just my humble opinion - would like to hear others!
Sense

[steamchicken]

And where is our unique contribution? How much value do we put on VAAC?

[RonO]

The keys for the UK in choosing JSF are:

Flies from boats
Generates huge amounts of $$$ for UK economy
Offers unique, highly desirable capabilities like penetration of high threat defenses
Saves money over buying Typhoons

Once ordered, I expect next shoe to drop will be reduction or elimination of UK Typhoon Tranche 3 as hinted by MinDef.

Jacko, stop being such a sore looser. Both UK sovreign thingie & UK spec are guaranteed. In fact, UK gets identical spec aircraft to US.

[Jackonicko]

JSF advantages:
Day 1 Stealth
Flies from a boat

JSF drawbacks (even if we negotiate the tech transfer we require):
Already likely to be more expensive in pure cash terms than Typhoon, and without the same industrial/employment/balance of payments benefits
By comparison with extra Typhoons (or even navalised Typhoons) JSF will require a new and separate maintenance and support infrastructure. In a 12 squadron FJ force will we need two or even three types?
Unlikely to be integrated with many of our core future weapons
Unlikely to meet planned its planned ISD, and Harrier unlikely to be able to extend to fill the resulting gap
Neither a true multi-role nor a true swing role aircraft
Stealth may be yesterday's technology - did the F-117 loss and F-117 hull loss in the Balkans signal this?
Still an unproven and very high risk programme, with 99% of the flight test programme still to do

It won't be "the best available platform to conduct ops of the future" if we don't have operational sovereignty. It won't be operationally useful if we can't support and sustain ops without LM and the USA's say so, and if we can't integrate weapons and kits via UORs, or if we don't have the necessary clearances to repair birdstrike or combat damage to the clever leading edges, and the kit to test the RCS of repaired areas.

Even if we have a full-up F-35 and everything we need to operate it without restriction, its one unique capability (day one) can probably be better served up via TLAM and stand off weapons.

And there's a real doubt in my mind that it will be affordable. Only an incurable optimist (or the truly gullible) would still swallow Lockmart's stated prices.

[ORAC]

JDW (http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdi/jdi060601_1_n.shtml): JSF engine design changes cause knock-on effect

Design changes that helped to reduce a weight growth problem two years ago are now resulting in problems for the propulsion system of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant is running at about five per cent, or 190°F (87.7°C), higher than the system's limit in tests, according to programme officials. Around half of the temperature increase, or 100°F, is being attributed as an inadvertent consequence of the programme's 2004 decision to compensate for the aircraft's overall weight growth by raising engine thrust levels.

The new turbine vane design is set to be introduced sometime in mid-2006, and that fix alone should solve more than half of the temperature problem, said Rob Burnes, chief of the JSF joint programme office's propulsion directorate.

[RonO]

Developing Seaphoon & buying more TLAM's is the cheapest option and will overwhelm UK industry with export orders???

UK industry won't miss $25+ billion of JSF revenue???

R-R won't regret not supplying motors to the last big manned fighter program???

The UK has stopped all work on stealth because it's a dead end technology????

Jacko is not in total denial???

To be serious, not many folks think the UK would be looking at JSF if it wasn't for the carrier requirement. Getting such a capable aircraft, saving so much money and generating so much extra UK business is just icing on that cake. Most other countries are rather envious but I guess it's the brit way to downplay the success of your industry. No wonder they're all looking to move stateside.

[Jackonicko]

RR's place on JSF cannot sensibly be lost, regardless of any UK order for the jet.

At pretty high levels, senior BAE personnel in the UK and stateside aver that the company's rear fuselage work (for SDD and production) flows from our Tier One status, and is entirely unrelated to UK uptake. There's a degree of smugness about this, because it makes our $2 Bn SDD investment extraordinarily good value. They claim that they can only be replaced if someone else can offer better 'best value', and with Samlesbury tooled up that's a tad unlikely. They may be mistaken, though it strikes me that one undeniable core competency demonstrated by "the Baron" is his unerring ability to draw up contracts in his own best interests!

Moreover, while Tom Burbage has made noises about how difficult it would be to justify a nation participating industrially that was not taking aircraft, he's never been willing to clearly contradict this BAE claim, and I and others have asked him to do so on numerous occasions, and will doubtless do so again, many times, during the run up to Farnborough and at SBAC.

[ORAC]

Since the LM/DoD standard reply to Norway, Italy or anyone else complaining about workshare is that, under the contract arrangements, work is not tied to the number of aircraft ordered and that the participation fee gives one the right to bid, but that contracts will solely be awarded on the basis of best price. Since the UK has paid the fee, and is the only Tier 1 partner too boot, they would be between a rock and a hard place if they tried to do otherwise..... :cool:

[RonO]

ORAC, Jacko is suggesting that the UK could retain it's JSF Tier 1 status and $25 billion revenue stream by quitting the program and not buying any aircraft. In other words, stopping payments to the program at the end of this year. The US wouldn't be at all mad at being screwed over.

He also thinks the 2nd engine R-R participation would survive the UK leaving.

And Bae can't be replaced as supplier.

Barking on all three counts.

Burbage won't answer the question because it's not going to happen. The UK will stay in the program and will place orders. Why would he be so stoopid as to speculate otherwise? Jeesh.

[ORAC]

Saudi order for jets will keep RAF waiting (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=860512006)

BRITAIN'S fighter pilots will be kept waiting even longer for the nation's long-delayed new jet because dozens will be sent to Saudi Arabia instead.....

The MoD has committed itself to two further tranches, of 89 and 88 aircraft respectively. But the pressure to sell the plane abroad has forced the department to agree a reduction of at least 24 in the number BAE pledged to include in the second delivery, in order to satisfy the Saudis.

The RAF will at least have to wait longer to get its full complement. But defence sources last night suggested the Saudi order could be used to "get the MoD off the hook", and allow the government to cancel the third tranche without incurring huge cancellation fees.........

[ORAC]

A link from Defence Industry Daily. I don´t suppose one of our Francophone ppruners could translate and provide a precis of what they think the gaps/shortcomings are?

DID:.....the May 2006 issue of French publication Defense et Securite Internationale carried an article entitled "Rafale et Typhoon: Les Europeens auraient-ils tort d'avoir... raison" [PDF format] (http://www.areion.fr/publishing/www_DSI/PDF_ARTICLES/DSI_15/DSI_15_FERRARD.pdf). It looks at the Rafale and Eurofighter in particular, and notes some of the issues that have stalled their export success. The article argues that the planes were well adapted to European needs, but had critical gaps when placed on the global export market. While these shortcomings and others are all being addressed in time, many of these improvements are arriving just as the aircraft's market window is narrowing. Were the Europeans really wrong to be right? The article is completely in French, but we're putting the link up for DID's international and multi-lingual readers because it was interesting.

[Jackonicko]

Way too long for me to justify translating, but Alta Vista say:

'Ow you say?

Altavista say:

"Rafale and Typhoon
Would Europeans be wrong to be right...?
Jean-Louis Prome_

Rafale and Typhoon, the two fighters provided by European industry, constitute, with encroire the experts, the best possible compromises as regards performances, of technologies and capacities of evolution. Contrary to their American candidates, F-22 and F-35, the choice of the furtivity, more adapted at the time of the cold war than to the situation present or conceivable in the medium term, did not weigh more than necessary on the design of the two European planes. Which would be adapted thus perfectly to the present needs and foreseeable. Néan less, the prospects for the sales export of the Rafale and Typhoons' prove minimalists today.

Europe, as regards offer, fighters today a paradoxical landscape. Its domestic market currently constitutes only in the capable world to offer, as of the launching of a program, effects of series comparable with those from which the products profit from on the other side of the Atlantic. Thus, they are not less than 992 Tornado which left the Italian chains, German and British. And the partners of Typhoon envisaged to acquire some, with them four, not less than 620 (including 392 already ordered). Quantities more than honourable. Even in comparison with the American market: USAF indeed pains to find the budget necessary à la order of 183 F-22 Raptor! And yet, far deconsolider this domestic market, Europe continues àse to turn towards the American products. It is thus quedes country not taking part in the "great" programs of European fighters acquired still recently of F-16 while even the nations headlights, such Great Britain and Italy, integrated the F-35 program, agreeing kind to rock with the profit of the American industry of the budgets of R&D which could probably better have been useful, if they had been employed on other programs, intérêts européens. But there is not the single paradox of this Europe which offers the luxury to develop in its centre several competitor programs of which systems of weapons among most advanced in the world.

TYPHOON: The MEILLEUREN AERIAL COMBAT

Typhoon Side, the majority of the specialists recognizes with the European system of undeniable weapons its air-to-air capacities. Thus, for example, the fusion of the sensors (radar, electronic support measures, Infrared Search and Track, IFF, MIDS) allows it the classification and the precise localization of the targets. The range of acquisition and to detir air-to-air system of weapons, man?uvrability of the cell, the recovery of the plane by the calculator in Takeoff of a Rafale B equipped with Apache missiles and tanks auxiliary. Within the Air Force, the Rafale will firstly replace the Jaguar, left service

cases of confusion of the pilot or too low speed, constitute with so many assets quien do undoubtedly today one of the best apparatuses of aerial combat of the world. Such an amount of in combat with moyenne/grande distance (with missile AMRAAM AIM-120C of 70-80 km range and three years Meteor of 120 km) that with short range with the ASRAAM and soon the Iris-T. Was Parcontre, the will to bring to the system of weapons of real air-to-ground capacities expressed tardily - too? - in unrolled program. To speak clearly, Typhoon is a system of air-to-air weapons with which one would like to associate air-to-ground capacities afterwards. It was not developed entant that true system of weapons general-purpose ready to evolve/move at high speed at very low altitude like was it, on its side, the Rafale. The centering of mass very behind of Typhoon, conceived to bring to him a very great man?uvrability in air-to-air combat, a very unstable apparatus in volen high subsonic with risks - not yet completely evaluated - at the time of the droppings of heavy air-to-ground armaments. The system of weapons does not have either the very powerful air-to-ground modes from which the radar and the OSF (Optronique Secteur Frontal) profit from the Rafale.

For the hour, only the integration of the bombs with laser guidance Paveway 2 of 250 kg (guidance via a Litening nacelle of Israeli origin) obtained a concrete financing; the RAF wishing to lay out decette capacity on its Typhoon as of the next year. British and Italians plan, moreover, to integrate the cruise missile Storm Shadow on their Typhoon; Spain and Germany should choose, for their part, the Taurus missile. The RAF wish erait also, in the long term more remote, to mount the air-to-ground missile Brimstone (developed starting from the body of the missile Hellfire, this missile, thanks to its British millimetre-length homing head, can seek, in an autonomous way or not, the targets of the tank type), firstly intended for Tornado and Harrier, under its Typhoon. In short, to integrate air-to-ground armaments of precision under Typhoon is expensive. And the European partners balk to finance such integrations. In fact, the concern of the delivery of air-to-ground armaments of precision became priority for the European industrialists when they saw the Singaporean authorities, at the end of 2005, to draw aside Typhoon of the competition precisely to sanction this capacitaire absence.

Because, more seriously, the requirements for the European partners as regards air-to-ground are already met via other parks for fighters: Harrier, AMX and Tornado, even later F-35, for the United Kingdom and Italy, Tornado for Germany, EF-18 for Spain. It thus acts primarily, by this desperate search for versatility, to improve the chances of the system of weapons to export.

RAFALE: THE BEST INTO AIR-TO-GROUND
Acting of the Rafale, the apparatus, on the other hand, right from the start, was optimized for the air-to-ground combat. Its radar and its OSF post particularly advanced operating modes allowing the search and the identification for targets terrestrial, even mobile, the detection/localisation and the identification (via the electronic whole of war Spectra) of the ground-to-air means of the zone on flight, three-dimensional visualization and the realization of complex trajectories making it possible really to marry the relief, to draw advantage from all the obstacles to walk on with the shelter of the unfavourable means. As regards air-to-ground armaments, the Rafale F2 current - a first squadron of twenty machines, EC. 1/7 Provence, should be set up with St-Dizier as from this summer - will be with same, from the very start of the next year, to use new propelled guided bombs AASM with hybrid guidance GPS/inertiel. To a first alternative with decametric precision, towards 2008/09, an alternative equipped with a homing head will be added will infra red ensuring a metric final precision. Obviously, the Rafale also carries the cruise missile Scalp-EG and the future nuclear ASMP-A. What makes a system of air-to-ground weapons of it particularly efficient. More than Typhoon. Nevertheless, as well one as the other constitute essentially, in Flight tests of Spanish Eurofighter. Resulting from program EFA (European Fighter Aircraft) launched in the years 1980, the apparatus is nantet impression has a good potential.

that the other constitute essentially, as regards air-to-ground, of the "trucks with bombs" delivering their "intelligent" weapons remotely of safety target deleurs. It is not thus any more question of carrying out del' brought closer air support (CAS). These planes prove expensive and rare bientrop to be kind risky. The CAS constitutes today one of the missions allotted to the helicopters of attack (Apache and Tigre) and, especially, to extremely precise and reactive ground-to-ground artillery become thanks to the existence of guided ammunition and to integration with command and advanced information systems (standard Atlas in France).

A MYOPIA SENDS TREATMENT The true operational problem of the Rafale, in particular to the possible customers with export, it is, today, the insufficiency of its system of weapons as regards aerial combat long range. It be-with-direau-beyond 60 to 70 km. Carrying only air-to-air missiles MICA with average carried, equipped with an effective but suffering radar RBE2 of an unquestionable "myopia" in comparison with the American and Russian candidates, the Rafale, when it functions in an autonomous, short way serious risks to be made detect and cut down by the adversary before to have been able itself to react. The exercises carried out with the Known-30 Indian ones and American F/A-18 showed it. At such a point that, of a communaccord, the protagonists get along, at the time of these exercises, has fine not irremediably not to penalize the pilots French, to limit confrontation to the volumede detection and of shooting of the Rafale. However, Known-27/Su-30 and their missiles Vympel R-77 with long range start to be widely diffused: Algeria is equipped some, but also of the countries such as Ethiopia or Érythrée. In short, the system of Rafale weapons, also penalize by a maximum speed from hardly My 1,8 instead of My 2 for Typhoon or Known-30, runs the risk more and more to be found confronted with "short-sighted" adversaries less that him. An unacceptable risk for possible purchasers. Admittedly, integration, acquired, of the European missile long Meteor range (close of 120km of range with final acceleration for réduireles chances of the target to avoid the interception), by 2012, just as the development of procedures of acquisition of targets and shooting off-set via the liaison16/MIDS, a pilot of Rafale then seeing itself offering surses screens of edge a tactical situation widened to the echoes detected by external sensors (AWACS for example), would owe modifi er significantly the situation. With the advantage of the Rafale. More especially as is considered by the French Air Force the possibility of integrating, for this horizon, an active electronic antenna with the lengthened range. Thus, on paper, about 2012, aumieux, probably a little later, the Rafale should it be able to start to be credible, as regards aerial combat long range, with close to the potentials customers export. But it will be quite late. The Rafale appearing then, near the rare world air forces having the sufficient budgetary means to acquire a system of so expensive weapons, like an "exceeded" apparatus, although expensive, preceding generation, by the new exportable American fighter, namely F-35.

RAFALE TOO FRANCHOUILLARD! Moreover, Typhoon, in the trade negociations with export, profits all the same from serious A all: he is the military little brother of Airbus. A whole symbol. In particular for the possible European customers. It is what partly explains the choice of Vienna of commander18 Typhoon. A system of weapons however surpuissant compared to the real operational needs for Austria. And also that Athens still hesitates, in spite of strong the American espressions, with completely giving up the idea of an ordering of Typhoon. A European passion - relative - of which the Rafale, the obviously, catalogues Franco-French, does not profit. Out of Europe, any time, the European apparatus still pains to find its credibility. Would be this only because of its air-to-ground capacities summons

very limited. Born year less, the advertisement of a forthcoming officialization of a Saoudi order relating to a first batch of 72 Typhoon to deliver very quickly, since 2008, should contribute to give some lustreà the commercial step export of the European consortium. It does not take born year less comes to delude. Most recent of the various studies available to evaluate the future of the market of the fighters estimate between 250 and 300 the number of apparatuses to be delivered annually during twenty next years. And on this number, hardly 20 % would relate to markets soumisà the competition. The balance being distributed between domestic markets American and European. Moreover, on these 20 %, the share accessible to the fighters European, twin-jet aircrafts and thus very expensive, would owe serévéler marginal. The more so as the competition will be large with American F-35 which, for a similar price, will seem technologically more advanced inevitably. In fact, the essence of this share of 20 % accessible should be satisfied by the "pointed" single engines, standard Gripen, and the Russian twin-jet aircrafts (Mig-29, Known-27/Su-30 and descendants), definitely less expensive and which, indeed, are sold like rolls. Without counting the announced arrival of the UCAV, these combat drones, at the price comparable with that of a fighter of entry of range, able to patrol on zone in waiting of detection, by the network of networks, of a terrestrial target to treat by one of the "intelligent" bombs carried in its compartments. In other words, even acting of Typhoon, the prospects for success to export should not make illusion. They are tiny.

TO SECURE A SUFFICIENT CAPTIVE MARKET They will not constitute, true emblablement, as that was the case with Tornado sold with 120 specimens in Riyadh, than a no-claims bonus. Appreciable, certainly, but a simple no-claims bonus. In fact, the economic viability of a program like Typhoon was penséedès the origin to be able to exploit itself the only domestic orders, the European co-operation making it possible to ensure itself of an industrially credible and sufficient initial market captive. The masterly error made with the Rafale consisted in, on the other hand, believing that a system of so expensive weapons would manage all the same to find its place on the market export and that this one would counterbalance the absence of a captive market of sufficient launching. He is well too late, from now on, to regret that France did not know to accept the sacrifices necessary - in particular the abandonment by Snecma of an autonomous capacity of developer of military engines of high performances - to be able intégrerle European program. Or although ellen' did not know to make the choice of a system of weapons optimized for export, i.e. of an apparatus less advanced and thus more accessible single engine by the air forces traditionally customers of the Mirage. Because, with the Rafale, technically adapted but well too expensive, Dassault Aviation irremediably cut dela customers of the Third World which had made the success of its precedents generations fighters. But there, it had to falluparvenir to persuade the Air Force to be satisfied with a less powerful system of weapons and not corresponding to sesattentes operational. Lastly, the delay dedix years recorded in the operational service entrance of the Rafale, compared to the initial calendar of the program, made perdrela window of opportunity whose bénéfi cier the system of French weapons in the temporary absence could hope for more modern American candidates.

PERFECT BUT TOO EXPENSIVE SYSTEMS Admittedly, the Rafale, resulting from an alliance of interest between industry and operational French, constitutes, on an technico-operational level, a powerful system of weapons. Probably, even, lemieux adapted, today, by its versatility and its autonomy of employment, voireses important capacities of evolution (for example the reciblage in flight of the weapons deprécision), with the needs for quantity of air forces of average size. The versatility of the Rafale, its capacity successively to carry out, during the same flight, several missions - aerial combat, recognition, strike fixed terrestrial targets and other mobiles - makes it possible, indeed, to maximize a single park of relatively modest size. It makes more with less. Capacity of the Rafale to be functioned in total autonomy very as far as to be also integrated into a complex network of networks in fact a system of weapons much more adaptable to the diversity of the situations of combat which can meet an average air force than an American apparatus standard F-35 optimized to function like a pawn of a system of systems essentially controlled by the United States. The Rafale, or even Typhoon, preserves thus more than leF-35 the purely national liberty of action of the country user without obérer the capacity being worked within a coalition controlled by the Pentagon. It does not remain about it less than the Rafale, on the commercial level, is connected for the hour with a failure. Remain that with the Rafale and Typhoon, European before are very developed systems of weapons with the point of technology intended to satisfy their operational rather than possible a clientè export. With the risk, quite real, to thus give up the place with the Russian airframe manufacturers and tomorrow Chinese and Indians."

[ORAC]

"furtivity", that´ll be franglais for stealth then..... :}

[RonO]

"...pawn of a system of systems essentially controlled by the United States"

that would be the UK then?

[NoseGunner]

What annoys me about JSF is that we are getting the worst one. Every Tom Dick and Harry will have better range/endurance and better payload than us. Never mind, at least it'll look good at airshows:rolleyes:

Hang on this all sounds a bit familiar............
:ugh:

Personally I think that we will buy it whatever - but come 2020 (when JSF will just be getting sorted) the mature Typhoon will be far better when stealth or operating off carriers is not required.

[ORAC]

Confirmation that Italy have won the European JSF assembly line:

.....Another issue that may have been decided is whether Italy will be the site of a second final assembly plant. Italian government and aerospace interests have lobbied to set up a site to produce aircraft to be purchased by Italy and several other European nations.

In an e-mail statement, a spokesman for aerospace manufacturer Alenia Aeronautica said the Italian government has submitted a formal proposal to the Pentagon.

Lockheed spokesman Smith said the company understands that the U.S. “has given Italy preliminary approval of a final assembly line in Italy, for Italian aircraft.”

[jwcook]

Lockheed spokesman Smith said the company understands that the U.S. “has given Italy preliminary approval of a final assembly line in Italy, for Italian aircraft.”

I thought the Italian line was to produce all European JSF's except the UK's??.

Does that mean the UK will produce the JSF on their own line or that the UK's will be built in the US?.

If its the latter, I wonder why???

Cheers

[secretprojects]

Thats because as Tier 1 partners we get the real deal, not the substandard "monkey model" being assembled in Italy :rolleyes:

[RonO]

will the Italian ones have (thrust) reversers?

[ORAC]

F136 engine in trouble again. Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1888945.php)

[ORAC]

The Australian - June 24th: Stealth fighter project 'flawed'

AUSTRALIA'S biggest-ever defence project, the $16 billion Joint Strike Fighter, has potential flaws that could reduce the world's newest warplane to just an "average aircraft", according to internal Defence Department documents. The documents reveal the JSF is beset with serious software problems and a cockpit display system so bad it had to be almost completely redesigned.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, a staunch defender of the troubled JSF program, will travel to the US at the weekend for talks with the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin......

Dr Nelson agreed that the transfer of information from the US to the project partners, such as details of the plane's stealth technology, was a significant issue and he vowed to walk away from the project unless guarantees were given. "I will be meeting with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld next week and this issue will be discussed," he said......

Australian scientists from the DSTO have identified "major risks" to the plane's performance in its complex software, advanced cockpit displays and central computer system. A DSTO report from December, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, warns that a "technical risk assessment" by DSTO found "major risks" inherent in the aircraft's cockpit display system.

"Late or substandard software development within the display system results in poor mission system integration," DSTO says. "Realisation of this risk may result in loss of functionality, poor system reliability, or poor man-machine interface which reduces the pilot's ability to perform." It describes the integration of technology for the plane's cockpit as being only "at the laboratory breadboard stage".

Sources told The Weekend Australian last night that the cockpit problems were so severe the system had been completely redesigned.

Another major problem identified by Defence scientists is the central computer system -- the same issue that led to the Collins-class submarines initially being labelled as "dud subs".

DSTO complains of difficulty assessing the scale of the JSF's software problems because of a lack of information from the US.

"Software is a key enabler ofthe integrated mission systems, which transform a kinematically average aircraft into a highly capable weapon system," DSTO says. "The lack of technical information prevents DSTO from conducting a thorough analysis of the integrated performance of the (cental computer system). "The lack of information is due to a number of factors including the novel acquisition approach, US International Trade in Arms Regulations, and what would appear to be proprietary restrictions."..........

[ORAC]

US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the F-35: "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues" (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf) (pdf file).

Australian Parliamentary Library Research Note No. 32: "The F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) Project: progress and issues for Australia" (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn32.pdf) (pdf file)