JSF and A400M at risk? [Archive]

Barn Doors

28th Sep 2008, 19:14

British Aerospace have repeatedly said that navalising the Typhoon would be relatively straightforward. Please don't respond with the inevitable "well they would say that" as even British Aerospace is no longer in a position to make wild claims in the hope that the Treasury will fund them.

No, I've been personally briefed on the solution....it isn't one, it's laughable, and a Heath-Robinson solution too.

The JSF is an over-priced and unproven design which is already promising to offer nothing that can't be achieved with the Typhoon. Stealth capability is a pointless luxury and VTOL/STOL is something which belongs to the days of the Cold War. The Times article draws your attention to the JSF's lack of firepower when compared to the Typhoon, and also highlights the delicious prospect of our government paying more than two billion quid every year for two different strike aircraft over the next decade. Hmm...

I think you'll find that Typhoon is also an "overpriced and unproven design" - how many Ops do you see it proving itself on, seeing as though it's already "in-Service". Don't get me wrong, as an AD platform designed last Century (for today's, not tomorrow's threats BTW) it's got good capability. As an A/G platform it's maturing, nothing more. Sit down, do some sums and the Eurofighter flyaway cost is huge (last conservative estimate 160m GBP all-in!!!). If JSF ever comes in at $300m a piece I will eat my hat, regardless of what you believe written in The Times! Oh, and JSF aint VTOL sunshine, it's STOVL - go read again.

So, all in all, you're ashamedly misinformed and revelling in the fact that a well regarded broadsheet news article has seemingly supported your fragile opinion on a debate that you have no expertise or wisdom in.....ergo, you're an armchair enthusiast and, whilst I respect your right to have an opinion, I think you're pretty bonkers.

:ugh::ugh:

L1A2 discharged

28th Sep 2008, 20:11

JTO,

The ammo so freely being converted into empty cases is still (afaik) bought on the tonka budget. No money in the typhoon fleet for tyres nevermind such stuff as ammo.

None provisioned for typhoon, no firing maintenance spares for the guns, no manpower for the post firing maint, no gunbay(s) equipped for post firing etc etc ...

'only going to be ballast' was the term in use, therefore strip and regrease only to maintain airworthiness. Too expensive to build ballast blocks and get them certified.

And as for the way it gets loaded ...... :sad:

Still, thats all 'old' info - might have changed in the 3 months I've become happier, but I doubt it.

Jackonicko

28th Sep 2008, 20:38

Typhoon will NEVER be as good an aircraft for CVF as a STOVL JSF.

Typhoon will NEVER be as good a day one strike aircraft as JSF.

It may not be quite as good a carrier aircraft as Rafale or Super Hornet, even after the extensive mods that would be required. But it could perhaps be good enough?

And a Marinised Typhoon would give useful commonality with the RAF's aircraft, with consequent cost savings.

But the real savings would flow from scrapping BOTH JSF and CVF. That would free up enough cash for tankers, Support Helicopters, recce, SEAD and all of the other kit we need.

Barn Doors,

You undermine any credibility you may have had with the ridiculous statement that Typhoon was developed to meet today's threats, not tomorrows. It was designed to cope with a developed Flanker, assuming parity in radar, avionics and weapons - and that is exactly the threat now being developed and likely to be out there 'tomorrow'. Nor does Typhoon have a 160 m flyaway cost - or at least not in Euros (the price is in the order of €60 m as shown by the Austrian order) or pounds (the flyway or UPC is in the region of £37 - 42m for a Tranche 2 jet). The total unit programme cost is £82-86 m (£19-20 Bn divided by 232). Only a witless, innumerate nerk like Lewis Page could get to £160 m GBP......

HaveQuick2

28th Sep 2008, 21:16

"Only a witless, innumerate nerk like Lewis Page could get to £160 m GBP......"

Not true Jacko. Apparently others can also manage to get it to that figure.

SammySu

28th Sep 2008, 21:19

Tim

Who are these "British Aerospace" people you refer to? Last time I looked both Typhoon and the JSF consortium featured British input from some multinational defence company called BAE Systems. Perhaps thats why your view on their products seems to be so very 20th century.

Rafale is indeed a smart machine, but really needs to get an LDP fitted to save the embarrasment of a SEM buddy lase/ self generate coords for AASM.

Tim McLelland

28th Sep 2008, 21:49

Clever boy Sammy - nobody had spotted that British Aerospace isn't called British Aerospace any longer:rolleyes:

Anyway, wild claims, name calling and b*tching aside, I haven't actually read so much as a single line to suggest that my view (and that expressed by the Times) is somehow wrong. But then I really can't see how anyone could come-up with a plausible reason why the government would still be stupid enough to continue pouring money into the JSF when it patently isn't going to result in an aircraft which is in any way significantly superior to the Typhoon - which we've already got (or will be getting). It really is that simple.

It would be quite refreshing if the government really do make the right decision - for a change!

Engines

28th Sep 2008, 21:51

Tim and others,

Trying to get the emotion out of the thread, may I offer the following:

Typhoon is an excellent BVR air to air combat aircraft. It's what it's designed to do. It will probably have a very reasonable air to ground facility in a short while. The delta wing layout and need for external fuel tanks will probably lead to restrictions on mixed weapons carriage (reduced space) but that doesn't make it a bad land based platform. It's very, very unlikely that it will ever be navalised - not strong enough (it's not weak, just not designed for carrier landings or catapult launches) and too fast on the approach (fine for runways, just not for carriers).

JSF will be a good strike fighter. It's what it is designed to do. Stealth, internal weapons and good internal fuel capacity have been attained by going for one engine and forsaking the air to air qualities Typhoon has in abundance. STOVL variant (35B) offers exceptional basing flexibility (including landing on a bare and relatively cheap flight deck) at a cost in range and payload. CV variant (35C) does better from a more expensive deck.

The point is that different aircraft are designed to do different jobs (not always the ones they end up doing, but the point still stands). Comparing them nearly always ends up as an 'apples and oranges' discussion, or worse, name calling.

My take - UK buy of JSF will go ahead, but I wouldn't rule out another slip in our delivery dates - this would hack the US off big time and reduce our ability to influence the programme, but our Government may decide it's a price worth paying. I don't agree but hey, I'm not in charge.

best regards to all as ever

Engines

Barn Doors

28th Sep 2008, 22:22

Jacko,

It was designed to cope with a developed Flanker, assuming parity in radar, avionics and weapons - and that is exactly the threat now being developed and likely to be out there 'tomorrow'.

Why are you so Air-to-Air orientated here? All well and good playing cat and mouse with MiG-this and Su-that to only get your ass burnt off by SA-surprise that Typhoon was NOT designed to be anywhere near!!

Only a witless, innumerate nerk like Lewis Page could get to £160 m GBP......

I neither agree or disagree with your petty journo squabbles, and I didn't get the figure from any of his articles either. Last time I was at CGY there weren't 232 jets on the line and talk was uncertain of getting anywhere near that many. Any way you slice it, Typhoon is already a monster of a money-pit even when the Saudis bailout the production commitment.

:=

Jackonicko

28th Sep 2008, 22:42

Barney,

Flyaway infers a proper unit production cost - and we know that that is in the €60 m/£42 m ballpark. That's really not disgraceful or extravagant enough for the usual motley crew of slack-jawed 'Phoon-haters

Even if we were to talk unit PROGRAMME costs, then we can't get to the kind of figure you use. All of this: "Any way you slice it, Typhoon is already a monster of a money-pit" is just so much witless and tiresome buffoonery.

If production is limited to T1+T2 (about 144 aircraft) and we pay the full costs for the 232 aircraft programme, then the Unit PROGRAMME Cost (not the flyaway, numbskull) might reach £132-139 m. That's worst case.

Barn Doors

28th Sep 2008, 23:05

Jacko,

My apologies for mistakenly using the wrong phrase when making my earlier point - do you suggest that your 140m GBP figure is acceptable then?! Treasury now saved from impending doom.....

Sorry, one should show more respect to an enthusiast with 3000+ posts.

XV277

29th Sep 2008, 00:00

Mmm....muses...I wonder if the UK will end up buying the CTOL Naval JSF, the Rafale - or will that early MOD concept drawing for CVF showing parking boxes marked 'F/A-18E/F' come true....?

Jackonicko

29th Sep 2008, 00:29

Barney,

F*ck me that's a big chip on your shoulder, fella.

'Petty Journo Squabbles', 'Enthusiast'......?

What's next? Beagle Pup-driving amateur? Former UAS mediocrity?

All accurate insults, but can't you argue the point, rather than attacking the man?

I'm not a pro FJ pilot, like you, but looking in detail at programmes is my bread and butter, and I have notebooks full of interviews with IPT folk, Main Building desk warriors and NAO people, and files of correspondence too.

I therefore do understand the difference between a flyaway, a Unit Production Price, and a Unit Programme Cost, and it gives me the pip when the stupid, the lazy, or those with a pro JSF agenda distort Typhoon prices. You quoted a 'flyaway' of £160 m GBP - which is about 400% wrong as a 'flyaway' or 'Unit Production Price', and about double the planned unit programme cost.

I hope that you're a bit more careful with your flight planning calculations.

The only way programme costs can rise to £130 m are if more than one third of the Typhoons covered by the umbrella contract are cancelled. I don't and would not approve of that.

There are plenty of good reasons to kick Typhoon (and more than a few valid criticisms of F-35, too), without dragging in exaggerated and partial views on cost, and silly claims extrapolated from Typhoon's 'Cold War origins'.

****-canning Tranche 3 would not save the UK any money, up front - though we'd save on support and operating costs. Cancelling the carriers and JSF could still save the better part of £12 Bn.

GreenKnight121

29th Sep 2008, 00:54

How much would eliminating the entire MOD cost? I'll bet you like that number even more.

Caspian237

29th Sep 2008, 03:23

I think this article should be taken with a pinch of salt. Consider this part

If Britain abandons the JSF, it will be seen as a further snub to the Americans following Gordon Brown’s decision last week not to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

After a quick google search I found this August article from the Mail Britain must send more troops to Afghanistan to defeat Taliban, says military chief | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1048298/Britain-send-troops-Afghanistan-defeat-Taliban-says-military-chief.html)

The interesting part is

Military chiefs are understood to want to bolster the number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan's southern 'badlands' by 50 per cent, from about 8,000 to 12,000.

The Times are trying to make an interesting story about a gulf between UK and US policy that does not exist. They imply that the US have asked Britain to send 4000 more troops when in fact it was our own generals that seem to have floated the idea in the first place. How then can the decision not to send them be perceived as a snub to the USA? :confused:

Sorry, I know this adds nothing to the discussion re JSF and A400M but perhaps it highlights the emotions the Times are trying to engineer in their readers and casts doubt on the story's authenticity.

The Times:- "Mr Bush. Are you aware the UK was going to send an additional 4000 troops to Afghanistan?"

Mr Bush:- "Er, really? I hadn't heard that."

The Times:- "Well they're not going to do it you know! How do you feel about this snub?"

Mr Bush:- "Ummm, what?"

Truckkie

29th Sep 2008, 08:08

Cancellation/delay of JSF wouldn't have an immediate effect on operations in the sand pits, however:-

Cancellation/delay of A400M would put these ops at considerable risk as the AT fleet cannot cope now!

If A400M is cancelled we'd better start buying wings for the C130Ks and look at some fatique-reducing options for the 'new' C130Js that are already approaching outer-wing fatigue life.:mad:

indie cent

29th Sep 2008, 10:05

Cancellation/delay of A400M would put these ops at considerable risk as the AT fleet cannot cope now!

If A400M is cancelled we'd better start buying wings for the C130Ks and look at some fatique-reducing options for the 'new' C130Js that are already approaching outer-wing fatigue life.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

Got to agree with Trukkie here. For the guys on the ground it has to be helo's and AT over future/possible fast air, for pressing concern.

If EADS are attempting to renegotiate the penalty clauses for late delivery, it surely does not bode well for the entire project. No company in this situation would announce the full extent of any delays until the last possible minute.

EADS announces new A400M first flight delay (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/25/316499/eads-announces-new-a400m-first-flight-delay.html)

Not that anybody will be the slightest bit surprised. A400M 'looks' and 'sounds' great in its conception. Although (as I understand it...), delivery #1 is due 2010; of an unproven airlifter, built by a company with zero previous military experience, with brand new hypothetical engines, that are not even straight off the drawing board but a theoretical stab at the world's most powerful turbo-prop.

The thing still hasn't flown.

Which would be fine. Were it not for the immediate and pressing needs.:ugh:

We have future requirements, lets not forget the here and now.

Tim McLelland

29th Sep 2008, 11:24

It's all about the wider picture. Throwing performance figures back and forth is something best left to plane spotters. Likewise, juggling cost figures is a hobby best reserved for politicians. The point is quite simple; the Typhoon is a perfectly adequate aircraft for the new carriers, no matter how many fancy scenarious you might like to imagine. It's clear that unless the Treasury is prepared to cough-up money for Typhoons that they claim we no longer need, then they may as well take them. The "navalisation" issue is a red herring, besides, the RAF's JSF replacement Typhoons wouldn't even need "navalisation" in any case.

Consequently, the JSF has not been a particularly attractive option for a long time. As the development plods-on, the costs keep climbing and the Americans continue to treat us as inferior partners in the project, it becomes even less attractive until (as the Times says) we reach a stage where a serious choice has to be made. Given the huge cost of the JSF purchase, and the availability of Typhoons, it's a no-brainer. Even our confused and twisted politicians ought to be able to make the right decision this time and get out now. Let's leave the Americans to play with their shiny new toy at their own expense, methinks.

ORAC

29th Sep 2008, 11:32

AW&ST - 22nd Sept: "Two for One"
Limited weapon-bay space in F-35 drives talks at the Pentagon on a new weapon

Options to expand the limited internal weapons capacity of the F-35 JSF are emerging as operators begin thinking seriously about how they will use the stealthy aircraft's combat capability.

THe USAF and USN have begun talks talks to define the Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) intended to replace both the air-to-air AIM-120 AMRAAM and anti-radar AGM-88 Harm beyond 2020 and allow the F-35 to defend itself against both opposing fighters and air defenses.

Operators are concerned the baseline F-35 will carry only two AIM-120s internally, in addition to air-to-ground munitions. The larger AGM-88 is an option for external carriage only, but is not on the weapons road map for the JSF.

"I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air dominance weapons", Maj Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command's advanced air dominance branch, told an IDGA air-launched weapons conference in Vienna, Va, last week.......

Separately, studies into "super-packing" the JSF's bays to increase the number of weapons carried have come up with a way of loading six AMRAAM-sized missiles internally, according to the program office. This could be an option for later F-35 capability blocks.*

The JSF program office (JPO) meanwhile, says it will cost at least $100 million to add a new weapon beyond the initial suite being integrated under the F-35 development program. Weapons planned to be cleared for the baseline Block 3 JSF include two AIM-120s internally and two AIM-9X externally on the outboard wing pylons.

Block 4, proposed for funding beginning from 2015, would add the latest AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block 2. New air-to-ground weaponry would include the the Small-Diameter-Bomb Increment 2, Dual-Mode Laser-Guided Bomb and AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand-off Wweapon, all carrier internally.

"Anything beyond Block 4 is notional", Capt. John Martins, JPO air vehicle director cautioned at the conference, but the program office has a "wish list" of weapons for Block 5 (targeted for 2017). Block 5 includes the anti-armour Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and anti-ship Joint Strike Missile internally, as well as laser guided 70mm rockets, AIM-120s, JDAMs and JSOWs externally. Block 6 would nitionally add the European Meteor BVR missile and the UK's Spear air-to-ground missile......

With no anti-radiation weapon programmed for the F-35, the Air Force and navy continue on their separate ways, with a decision on low-rate initial production of the U.S. Navy's AGM-88e Advanced ARM Guided Missile (AARGM) scheduled in October...... The Navy requires 1,750 AARGMs...... IOC is planned for 2010 on the F/A-18C/D followed later by the F/A-18E/F and the EA-18G......

The Air Force's position is not to spend additional money on HARM upgrades, including AARGM, but to focus instead on weapons suitable for carriage in stealth aircraft... The Air Force has in excess of 2,000 HARM in it's stockpile....

*(The above, of course, is based on the larger internal bay of the F-35A/C, not the smaller one of the F-35B. So which, if any, of the alternate designs being considered would fit is open to question. Even if something like the super-pack were possible, which I doubt, I also doubt whether the capability to bring it back aboard wouldn't be there either.)

Barn Doors

29th Sep 2008, 11:39

Indie/Truckkie,

Completely agree that given the current Op Tempo the need for more/better AT is a priority. I have no experience of the A400M programme but one thread that seems to run common here is sceptisism over 'unproven' designs - we've come a long way since the days of having to actually build aircraft to find out how they fly/handle/operate.....modern modelling and simulation, whilst not being the whole solution, is now suprisingly accurate. I'm not sticking up for the aerospace companies, simpy suggesting that 'unproven' is perhaps not an argument

Jacko, your worst-case suggestion, which could very soon become reality BTW, was 140m GBP.....that's not a good news story, come on! If you consider the capability you get for the money, right now, it's doesn't paint a rosy picture - they couldn't even get the austere capability for A/G ops sorted in time, and how much extra are we pumping into the Typhoon programme to give it this capability? I guess the answer is in one of your notebooks somewhere perhaps?

The research in the Times article is clearly flawed (3 x 500lb bombs??) and therefore loses it for me I'm afraid.....please don't get me wrong, I didn't produce the 160m GBP figure, and I understand changes will be made to procurement plans but, to get back on track, cancelling the A400M and our JSF buy is not the solution by any means.

Jackonicko

29th Sep 2008, 12:45

"They couldn't even get the austere capability for A/G ops sorted in time, and how much extra are we pumping into the Typhoon programme to give it this capability?"

The official position is that the Austere air-to-ground capability embodied under CP193 (single target engagement on a single pass using EPW and Litening III) was 'sorted in time' for FOC on 1 July 2008, when the Typhoon force was declared combat ready in the air-to-ground role.

I would venture to suggest that the extra funding required has already paid for itself, since Saudi Arabia would not have bought a single-role Typhoon

Jetex Jim

29th Sep 2008, 13:40

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Luftwaffe, which originally had zero interest in Typhoon Air to Ground, is also participating. Now Typhoons will replace some Luftwaffe Tornados and instead a squadron of ancient air to air tasked Luftwaffe F4s must soldier on until 2015.

indie cent

29th Sep 2008, 13:55

- we've come a long way since the days of having to actually build aircraft to find out how they fly/handle/operate.....modern modelling and simulation, whilst not being the whole solution, is now suprisingly accurate.

Barn Doors, that's just my point. The faith we have in modern techniques reducing testing and design timescales completely flies in the face of the reality of putting an aircraft together (no pun intended). Surely I don't need to point out the A380, 787 delays to prove my scepticism.

Furthermore, the A380 and 787 are single mission airliners! The C-17 and C-130J both had huge complex issues to solve in their development programmes. The A400M was supposed to replace the C130K - the 'unproven' aspect, I would suggest, is absolutely an argument.

I do, however, agree that cancelling JSF and A400M is not the answer. We may not have that choice, financially.

(Dons floppy hat and shoes...) I propose we accept EADS request to waive late delivery charges. As long as they understand we will take first A400M delivery and make first payment around 2020. Replace the J's which will by then, be shagged...

In the interim, use the money allocated to the A400M to buy C-17's, enhance the J's capabilities and develop the '400 in a sensible timescale.

J's stay at Lyneham 'till endex, A400M arrives at Brize when ready - Catara simplified, Lyneham happy.

I'm still working on my plan for JSF.

indie

Tim McLelland

29th Sep 2008, 15:22

"I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air dominance weapons", Maj Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command's advanced air dominance branch, told an IDGA air-launched weapons conference in Vienna, Va, last week

This is just the sort of stuff that makes me giggle, and if this is the sort of language that is exchanged between the JSF partners, it's little wonder that we've been dragged along in this saga so needlessly. I mean, what is this guy talking about? Going in where precisely? To do what, against whom?

It's quite comical - both Britain and America are busy trying to avoid going bust, and people like Koch are waking-up in cold sweats becaus the F-35 has only two air dominance weapons. I think it speaks volumes for the absurdity of the whole saga.

brickhistory

29th Sep 2008, 15:36

I mean, what is this guy talking about? Going in where precisely? To do what, against whom?

Erm, isn't one of the foundations of a military service to be able to handle the next fight no matter who it might be?

And how many times have you gone into any such fight?

Should the balloon go up anywhere with an air-to-air threat, will you be leading the squadron in your jet?

I'll also be pleased to pass on your sentiments to the US services' Public Affairs offices if you'd like.

Barn Doors

29th Sep 2008, 16:13

Jacko,

Your estimate of 19-20Billion that you quote is now nearly 5 years old!

NAO won't even list the currently forecast cost of Typhoon in its reports, instead saying it's "Commercially Sensitive", i.e. well fookin' over-budget and embarrassing so don't come over all 'holier than thou' when it comes to the numbers dear boy, please. Lets just agree to disagree on this and move on.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/070898i.pdf

Tim McLelland

29th Sep 2008, 16:53

Erm, isn't one of the foundations of a military service to be able to handle the next fight no matter who it might be?

Hmm, well I suppose so. I take it from your comment that you imagine that the FAA or RAF would somehow be incapable of handling any fight, equipped with an F-35 armed only with a mere pair of air dominance weapons then? I'd advise you to refer to the lessons of history;)

Seriously though, you're illustrating precisely the attitude that I was referring to in my last post - this fatally flawed American-inspired notion that in order to prevail, there must be a constant battle to create yet another over-priced warplane that is somehow even more technically brilliant than the last one. We've reached a stage where we can afford to get out of this expensive game and accept that, given the available resources of our government and the outstanding abilities of our service personnel, the Typhoon would be a much more practical choice for our carriers.

It's fine to conjure-up this "we must be prepared to defend ourselves against anything" notion but when it comes down to the practicalities of what is realistically likely rather than hypothetically possible, you get a different answer.

Engines

29th Sep 2008, 17:55

Tim,

I'm sorry to disagree openly, but the Typhoon is not a viable choice for the CVF. The studies BAE Systems did were thorough, but the solutions offered for getting to the deck were risky in the extreme.

CVF is designed to be adaptable - it can take a STOVL doing VLs, or be converted to take a CV aircraft doing cat and trap. (UK is doing additional work on SRVLs, as threaded elsewhere). What it can't do is take a Typhoon, because the sort of recovery envisaged needs a completely new landing aids system and deck layout, plus new arresting systems. But the biggest obstacle is the aircraft.

Designing combat aircraft for conventional carrier operations HAS to be done from the start. (T-45 is the only example I know of a move from land to sea and that was a 90% redesign - and it has no weapons payload to carry). Coming to the deck at around 135 kts with full controllability is hard, taking the wire is hard, and taking a cat launch is super hard.

Typhoon can't get there. Period. If a redesign were to be attempted, I'd bet that the only bit left unchanged would be the name.

JSF STOVL is in flight test and is doing ground tests on the hover pit at Fort Worth. It's a real programme, with real challenges and real firm backing from the USMC. If you want a hypothetical solution to aircraft for CVF, go Typhoon.

Happy to swap PMs with you on this if you want.

Best regards as ever,

Engines

brickhistory

29th Sep 2008, 18:32

Hmm, well I suppose so. I take it from your comment that you imagine that the FAA or RAF would somehow be incapable of handling any fight, equipped with an F-35 armed only with a mere pair of air dominance weapons then? I'd advise you to refer to the lessons of history

Oh, I hadn't thought of history. Thanks for that.

So it's to be .303s all around then?

Seriously though, you're illustrating precisely the attitude that I was referring to in my last post - this fatally flawed American-inspired notion that in order to prevail, there must be a constant battle to create yet another over-priced warplane that is somehow even more technically brilliant than the last one. We've reached a stage where we can afford to get out of this expensive game and accept that, given the available resources of our government and the outstanding abilities of our service personnel, the Typhoon would be a much more practical choice for our carriers.

A. You don't have those carriers yet. I hope you do get them, but until they are bobbing at anchor, I'd be wary.
B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.
C. Are you seriously arguing that technological innovation and progress is not a vital part of the military air business? Using your oh-so-welcome historical vector from above, the outstanding service personnel in the Fairey Battle expended a whole lot of blood because the RAF 'had gotten out of this expensive game.' There are countless other examples as well.

You are awfully generous with the lives of those who actually will do the fighting.

minigundiplomat

29th Sep 2008, 20:11

It's a real programme, with real challenges and real firm backing from the USMC.

Is that the same USMC caught 'sexing up' the performance data from the Osprey V22 trials?
This may compromise their impartiality somewhat.

(No axe to grind either way, just couldnt let that one pass)

Tim McLelland

29th Sep 2008, 20:44

B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.

You think so? Personally, I'm inclined to go with BAe's view and that which seems to be gradually emerging within our government - at long last.

Transall

29th Sep 2008, 21:20

Hi,

Is there a genuine naval aviator on this forum who believes that the Typhoon is suitable for carrier operations?
I don't think so.

Best regards, Transall.

Tourist

29th Sep 2008, 21:35

Transall.

Don't be ridiculous

There are almost no aviators left on Pprune, let alone ones on drugs...

Tim McLelland

29th Sep 2008, 22:23

Thankfully, the final choice between JSF and Typhoon will not be made by naval aviators or the Navy ;)

Barn Doors

29th Sep 2008, 22:53

Tim,

Respectfully, I can assure you that there is no choice between them, and no decision of one vs other to be made.

BAe's view will always be that their prodigal aircraft programme is the one the Govt should be fully supporting - oh, and BTW they're certainly running out of money and need another "commercially sensitive" cash inject to prevent a loss of UK jobs......always the same - British Waste-of-space. Your inclinations are your own, but your dreams of a CVF full of Typhoons is nothing more than that.....a dream!

Being proud of our Country's past aviation achievements is commendable but don't let it make you ignorant by believing the propaganda coming out of Warton right now.

TiffyFGR4

30th Sep 2008, 01:09

So what IF we do pull out of the JSF project......Maybe we'll go for a navalised Typhoon, Rafale or maybe the F/A-18.....And lets just say, for example, we decide to navalise a few Typhoon's for Royal Navy & it works out fine & cost-effective etc etc. All well & good, that's the Harrier's replaced in the FAA/Royal Navy service, lovely jubbly for them. So, what about the Harrier's in RAF service? What are we going to replace them with then? The Swedish JAS 39 Gripen C/D or Gripen NG? Good choice? Curious.

Hope things go well for the A400M....

ORAC

30th Sep 2008, 06:19

JSF is taking a battering at the moment - as the reliance of small numbers of stealth fighters.

Flight has an article this week entitled, "Rand Analysis Sparks off F-35 crisis".

The basis of the article is that Rand did a war game based on F-22s in the Taiwan Straits against the PAF. The F-22s lived but their tankers got shot down so the F-22s were lost anyway.

Cue much shouting in Australia, again, about how the F-35 is inadequate for their needs and they need F-22s. Though how they got there from the above I am not sure. Lots of articles in Oz papers and magazines, much support of F-35 from the government. e.g. Govt Should be defending JSF: Opposition (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/24/2373338.htm?section=justin) JSF "Clubbed Like Baby Seals" (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/us-stealth-figh.html)

I am sure Oz mates can provide links to the more informed of the articles.

Most unfortunate result is the F-35 program chief blaming a conspiracy to do the F-35 down but unable to explain how or why. Comes across as paranoid.

At the same time Congress has approved a defense spending billing encouraging the USN to budget for a third mutli-year purchase of F/A-18E/Fs for a buy of about 150 aircraft through 2016. But that will overlap with and eat into F-35 production/procurement. They also reduced F-35 production next year by two aircraft, to 17.

Not a good month for the F-35 program.....

Tim McLelland

30th Sep 2008, 09:53

Thou speaketh in riddles BD - why would BAe be any more inclined to push the (relatively minor) modification of just a part of the Typhoon fleet when they already have a significant stake in JSF? Actually, please don't bother even answering that as we're going round in circles here! You obviously have your view and I have mine. As I've said, I tend to agree with the growing (and welcome) view that JSF is a complete waste of money. Contrary to your comments, the choice will be made (there are no other viable options) and hopefully sooner rather than later.

There was of course a great deal of speculation that the option of using the Typhoons that we will already have was merely a bluff to give America a nudge in the right direction, but anyone can see (unless you choose to stick your head in the proverbial sand) that the JSF saga simply continues to become less encouraging and even more expensive. You can argue the merits of both JSF and Typhoon but ultimately it comes down to the cost, and given our financial situation, I don't think the Government will have the stomach to spend that much money for so long, on an aircraft which we can comfortably do without. We're talking about huge sums of money. Argue as much as you like but really it's that simple.

Jetex Jim

30th Sep 2008, 10:35

It seems that the only reason BAE are participating in JSF at such a high level, is because the UK JSF buy justifies continuing with the JSF-B version.

Should the UK JSF order go, JSF-B will not have much going for it. And the BAE participation won't have much justification either.

But remember, the BAE share of JSF-(A,B&C) manufacturing could quite easily be performed at a BAE plant in the USA, rather than Warton. Anybody telling themselves that although JSF-B may not be technically the best, but at least its making jobs in the UK, is deluding themselves as well.

Postman Plod

30th Sep 2008, 10:35

If the bin F35, then I'd guess the carriers are called into question. Binning the carriers will save a bag full of money (and I personally tend to agree with Jacko that perhaps we should just get out of the Carrier game as the money is needed elsewhere - helicopters, transport, armoured vehicles, maybe more T45 and the rest of the Navy, etc etc.) however I can't see that happening frankly - too many jobs in important constituencies are at stake.

So lets say hypothetically that we do bin Dave, but still get the carriers. What should we put on them if not a navalised Typhoon (and I'm not for that or against it, but suspect its not as simple as some are suggesting)? Rafale, F18E/F, AN Other? How much less would we be paying for an existing aircraft, how effective are they (particularly Rafale?) and how much more may we end up spending on conventional carrier ops? Would it even be cost effective?

EDIT: Additionally, is there any particular driver for theUSMC buying Dave B over any other version? What will they be operating the aircraft from, and would they not be as well to operate from conventional carrier aircrft from conventional carriers for commonality and interoperability with the USN as they once did?
(Edit cos I got my B and C versions the wrong way round, doh!)

Modern Elmo

30th Sep 2008, 15:26

What should we put on them if not a navalised Typhoon (and I'm not for that or against it, but suspect its not as simple as some are suggesting)? Rafale, F18E/F, AN Other?

F-35C's for the RN. Then collect the whole set and buy F-35A's as well as B's for the RAF.

Evalu8ter

30th Sep 2008, 16:02

Tim,
I don't know how you get the impression that the Typhoon only requires "relatively minor" mods to be a carrier aircraft. It would need a massively uprated (and preferably functional.....) undercarriage, a substantially beefed up fuselage with arrestor gear, a marinisation programme to replace/upgrade potentially corrosive systems as well as a probable re-write of some fairly meaty flight control software. Apart from the latter (which is just very expensive and time consuming...) all of the others have a substantial impact upon weight and thus performance. If you were to marinize the Typhoon you would cause a significant reduction in the platforms capabilities, eroding any margin it has over F18E/F or Rafale. Therefore, t'baron's coffers aside, there is no point in going down that route. Better to keep F-35B, migrate to F-35C (though it's not without issues itself...) or dumb-down to the super-bug. Sell T1/T2 Typhoons to pay for them if required. Remember, History is prologue. As Engines tells you there have been very few cases of a land combat aircraft sucessfully becoming a carrier one. BAES may well have some glossy brochures, snazzy powerpoints and Jedi mind tricks to seduce weak-minded lobbyists, journos and politicians - listen to the coal face, it is not worth adapting Typhoon.

USMC need F-35B for their LPH/LPDs - they cannot operate Cat n Trap F-35Cs off them. In USMC doctrine the F-35 is there to support the RW/V-22 community, therefore they co-locate. If F-35B goes, the USMC will be reliant on F-35Cs on USN CVNs -and that is not a place they want to be (think Guadalcanal....).

West Coast

30th Sep 2008, 16:28

and that is not a place they want to be (think Guadalcanal....).

You think that pissed off the Marines, look at what happened at Wake Island. There was quite a bit of animosity between the Marines and the Navy after the Navy washed their hands of Wake allowing a successful Japanese invasion.

Tim McLelland

30th Sep 2008, 18:51

Well like I said earlier, I really don't think BAe is still able to be in the business of making wild claims which turn-out to be costly mistakes, and then assume that the Government is going to pick-up the bill. We all know that those days are gone, so I merely base my comments on the statements from BAe (made at least twice to my knowledge) that equipping a batch of Typhoons for naval operations wouldn't be a particulary complex affair. I accept that there may be a bit of over-optimism on their part but in all honsetly I can't imagine BAe would claim that such a conversion programme is both possible and financially worthwhile if it isn't. Why would they?

Anyway 'nuff said - let's wait and see what happens - should be fun, in a dark sort of way.

Jetex Jim

30th Sep 2008, 20:19

I can't imagine BAe would claim that such a conversion programme is both possible and financially worthwhile if it isn't. Why would they?

Because some at BAE imagine that they can get away with it. Again.

They know that a strategy that proclaims a project at first trivial can, over time, become, "Well its taken so long and you've spent so much, -- how can you possibly cancel now?"

Maybe F18s would be best?

Tim McLelland

30th Sep 2008, 22:25

oh dear...

Jetex Jim

1st Oct 2008, 05:03

oh dear...

Well, perhaps you might like to review the status of the MRA4.

TiffyFGR4

1st Oct 2008, 08:53

I say,(In my opinion) let BAE work on a navalised Typhoon & lets see if their claims will be, as what they say they'll be. Let them work on, one, two, three or whatever number of Typhoon's they'll need, and if it all works out well, seriously consider that option.

I'm not "Anti-F35" and I'm certainly not "Pro-F35", never thought it's a good deal for us for a, "Watered down", (The Yanks not wanting, so it seems, to share tech/codes with their "Closest-Ally", so much for trusting your friends) "Stealth" aircraft. Stinks to me!

F/A-18? Nice, but, cancelling an aircraft in favour for another it (F-35 A/B/C) was designed to replace........Well, that's a bit like going to buy an Aston Martin DB9 & thinking; 'Naaaaah, I'll buy the old Aston Martin DB7, the one the DB9 was designed to replace, instead'. Still a nice buy though....

Rafale? A tempting buy....But what about the workshare? Weapons fit, avionics etc, most of it would have to be changed?....

Gripen NG? A good replacement for the Harrier's in RAF service.

As I said, this is just my opinion(s), so... =)

Regards

Arclite01

1st Oct 2008, 09:24

Let BAE work on the navalised Typhoon as a true 'Private Venture' - you know, the thing that aeroplane companies used to do when they took commercial risks.................

Arc:oh:

If it's any good then maybe we would buy it....................... if not then 'no thanks', What about Rafale as an alternative ??

Jetex Jim

1st Oct 2008, 10:33

Let BAE work on the navalised Typhoon as a true 'Private Venture'

Tee hee, you can always rely on pprune for a laugh.

Tim McLelland

1st Oct 2008, 11:21

Jetex, my point was that I'd already mentioned that BAe were unlikely to be able to embark on a "navalisation" programme which the Government would pour endless amounts of money into. As I've said, those days are gone, it just wouldn't happen, so if BAe think the concept is viable, they must be pretty confident that it can be done affordably, as they must be aware that the Government is unlikely to pick-up the bill if it turns-out to be the complicated and expensive saga that some people fear.

I guess we will just have to wait and see. If the Government is inclined to carry-on pouring billions into the JSF programme then I will be genuinely surprised - I think that on the basis of everything that's been said over the past months and years, it's pretty clear that the project is unaffordable. I accept that given limitless money and time, JSF might produce an excellent aircraft, but that rather misses the point. We really don't have the finances to buy whatever aircraft is judged to be technically superior when we will already have aircraft which is "good enough" for our requirements. Naturally, you can imagine all kinds of scenarios where the JSF might be judged to be superior to the Typhoon but that's the kind of argument that you find in the pages of aeroplane enthusiast magazines - it's not the kind of judgement that a government makes.

Ultimately, it's a choice based on available funds, potential requirements and a wider view of what roles the carrier force is likely to perform. We've already reached a stage where the Government has to ask the MoD what we can comfortably do before deciding whether to do it rather than making knee-jerk decisions on the assumption that the armed forces can handle any challenge. The truth is that we obviously can't - we just don't have the resources.

Consequently, I think the Government will ultimately decide the JSF's fate in this way. It's not about purchasing a technically-brilliant aircraft which is capable of handling even the worst-case scenario. It's about money, and just how much overseas military/political clout the Government can afford to maintain with the finances that are available. Consequently, it seems clear to me (for all the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts) that the less-ambitious Typhoon option must look like the most attractive choice to the Government now. I'm sure they would - in an ideal world - proceed with JSF regardless, but we're not in an ideal world.

Tourist

1st Oct 2008, 12:00

Tim.

1. Are you a Navy Pilot?
2. If No, are you a Pilot?
3. If No, are you aircrew?
4. If No, are you an aircraft engineer?
5. If No, are you another type of engineer?
6. If No, are you Navy?
7. If No, are you Military?
8. If No, have you ever been Military?
9. If No, where the hell in your deluded mind do you think you know better than all the people who you are arguing with who do tick all those boxes?

Arrogant much?

strek

1st Oct 2008, 13:24

2 things:

Do anyone really believe that Navalising a Typhoon is a 'relatively minor mod'. Adding a new radio system is a major modification.

IF Typhoon is such good value, why is it excluded from the NAO Major Projects Report. Is it because:

a) If people saw the real cost of Typhoon against the budgeted profile many would have a heart attack/choke on their breakfast.

b) Some high level Politics (probably coupled with the threat of massive job losses or a(nother) government bailout)

c) Because it BAE are so completely transparent and without fault that there is no need....

May be wrong

:ok:

Jetex Jim

1st Oct 2008, 13:41

comments on the statements from BAe (made at least twice to my knowledge) that equipping a batch of Typhoons for naval operations wouldn't be a particulary complex affair
Well if they are so sure, maybe they could offer a firm fixed price contract.

Very unlikely, when was the last time BAE, or anyone else in military manufacturing commited to such a thing?

TiffyFGR4

1st Oct 2008, 17:20

Came across this a short time ago...

Eurofighter Typhoon - (http://www.eurofighter.com/po_bl.asp?id=65)

"He highlighted the unique selling points of our product – carefree handling, highly integrated man/machine interface – and even gave a “provisions are in place” nod to recent media speculation (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837746.ece) on aircraft carrier operations for Eurofighter Typhoon"......

Interesting?...

rrovers

1st Oct 2008, 17:47

ianp

1st Oct 2008, 17:56

I am only a simple helicopter chappy but this talk of Navalising the Typhooon has got me a little confused.
Capability aside the most important thing I can think of is the structural integrity for any Naval FW aircraft. Having watched from the stbd D as F-14, A-6 and F 18 thump into the deck of assorted CVN I find it hard to believe we have built a fighter tough (heavy) enough to take that type of treatment just in case we need a Naval version?
Not seen a Typhoon undercarriage close up but I have just been looking at snaps on google of a Typhoon and Buccaneer and I know which one I would rather fly in to the deck with.
Oh, and lets not start on wet build...... :)

ORAC

1st Oct 2008, 17:58

i thought the french pulled out of the euro fighter because they said it could not be navalised and thats why the rafale came about and it was to do with the position of the engine air intakes i beleive You thought wrong.

The French had a requirement that the aircraft had to be able to operate off the Foch, which limited it in size/range etc. Nobody else was willing to accept the consequent limitations, so they had to go off on their own. That was well before the design was finalised and, only subsequently, was it optimised without having to take into account carrier capability.

Rakshasa

1st Oct 2008, 18:22

Naval Typhoon must've been shot down so many times on this forum, Adolf Galland is looking down from the heavenly mess bar and starting to get jealous of the kill tally!

As for what our options are if no F-35?

Umm.... errr..... Bombed up Goshawk, anyone? :ooh:

Engines

1st Oct 2008, 18:23

Tim,

The idea of forums like this is to exchange ideas and also to exchange information that can change our ideas. I've certainly learnt plenty on this site. You might like to consider these points....

When I say that Typhoon won't get to a deck without VERY significant modification (to the point of being a new aircraft), it's not because I think so - it's because I've spent a fair bit of my working life on carrier based aircraft projects, including T-45 and JSF, and also studying aircraft design. Typhoon is a beautifully designed and engineered land based air dominance fighter, optimized for BVR combat at all altitudes. The designers made a number of well judged design trade offs to get that performance - nearly all of those decisions make the Typhoon basically unsuited to carrier operations. I could go into detail, but I won't here.

So what about the BAES studies? The MoD had to show the Treasury that they had looked at all options, and navalised Typhoon was one. So studies had to be done. They showed what was theoretically possible, but identified very serious risks and a number of unresolved (and quite possibly unresolvable) issues. In the end, it comes down to physics and maths. Both were against Typhoon.

Some BAES people may have a view of the results of the studies - they are entitled to them. My opinion (considered) is that Typhoon won't go to a deck. That fact (and it is a fact, Tim) supports the Uk MoD decision.

Interestingly, studies showing how land based fighters can easily go to a carrier deck aren't new. I recall seeing a swing wing Lightning proposal, and Lockheed produced a beautifully crafted brochure for a navalised F-22. There have been proposals covering F-16s, Mirages, Hunters.....and on. What all of them had in common was that they didn't stand a chance of working.

Best regards as ever,

Engines

mr fish

1st Oct 2008, 19:02

having followed this debate with interest for the past couple of days a thorght comes to mind, at least f35 is flying and testing is gathering pace as we speak.
unfortunately the same cannot be said for a400m, what will we replace THAT with if chopped, c17s seem to cost way too much and c130j isn't enough, is it??

Nomad72

1st Oct 2008, 20:02

Agree F-35 is the way forward in the perfect world. If the aircraft is as exportable as they claim then we may well get alot of money back in the long term based on out Tier 1 involvement.

However, if we were not in a perfect world, here's a wild idea (based on nothing but a 3 cans of stout):

The UK MOD is committed to 100 Typhoons it doesn't want but can't cancel. (100 x £42M = £4.2Bn)

The French Air Force has an aircraft in it's arsenal that is a compromise between a naval and a ground based fighter and is therefore (based on the fact that the other Air Forces wouldn't accept its performance compromises and it therefore left the Typhoon Team) sub-optimal in the latter category. No evidence here, not connected with fighters atall but it's a reasonable bet.

The French are also desperate for an export order to make their R&D costs worthwhile and keep their factories busy.

Unit price of Rafale equals about $50M, equals about £30M. (100 x £30M equals £3Bn)

How about we do a swap? Our spare 100 Typhoons for 100 Carrier version Rafales. They would get a worthwhile ground based fighter and we would get a carrier aircraft for the cost of the Typhoons that we already have to pay for (and would continue to have to pay for even if we cancelled them) We could build their Typhoons and service them and enjoy economies of scale and keep BAE happy. They could build and Service our Rafales and keep Dasault happy. I think that's called 'Comparative Advantage' in economic terms.

Ah, I hear you say. 'Why would we swap 100 aircraft worth £4.2Bn for 100 aircraft worth £3Bn?' Well, how about if they made up the order with another 100 aircraft worth £1.2Bn? With what? What do the Frenchies make for £12M unit cost? Well how about 100 EC725s ( cougar helicopter, AS 725, military helicopters – Eurocopter (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=100) ) A seriously good aircraft that we desperately need (and, in many ways, much much better than the NH90 - which is actually causing EC a big export problem!). Massive range, good cargo carrying capability and all the toys. (and we would also save ourselves having to convert our remaining Pumas to Puma 2 standard)

So there we go. It's amazing what a few pints of Guiness will create. We get a Carrier aircraft, a bunch of very much needed helicopters (which are coming off the production line now in Marseille and maybe Westlands could actually assemble) and out of a sticky situation with BAE. They get a worthwhile ground based fighter. All at no additional cost to either party and a hole in the defence budget filled. Massive synergies too if the French also go ahead with our Carrier design (which they may be encouraged to do if we share the cost of the catapult R&D with them). Eurofighter partners also happy because its better than the UK pulling out of Tranche 3 completely and them losing the work out of their factories when they really need the jobs (and spares provision for the next 30 years).

I do like the F-35 though!

4472

1st Oct 2008, 20:42

Bradford & Bingley?

Tim McLelland

1st Oct 2008, 21:21

I take your point Engines, and you may well prove to be correct. As you know, my view is different but I'm quite happy to acknowledge that BAe's proclamations might not live-up to practical development! We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Tourist, you make yourself sound incredibly stupid when the only reasoned argument you can offer is to whine about whether someone happens to be a member of the Navy, the military, an engineering trade or whatever. The point that an awful lot of people never seem to grasp is that the JSF saga has to be looked at in a much wider sense. It's completely pointless to dwell upon what a Navy pundit might think appropriate or what a particular engineer might think is the best solution. The Government is obliged to look at a much wider picture, not least in terms of the political fallout and the amount of money being spent. Surely you must be able to grasp that it's really not about technical performance figures?

Magic Mushroom

1st Oct 2008, 21:31

I guess that'll be a no to all then.:rolleyes:

brickhistory

1st Oct 2008, 21:41

The Government is obliged to look at a much wider picture, not least in terms of the political fallout and the amount of money being spent.

True. Governments often stay in power when they lose the war, no matter what war. You can look it up in that history book you tout.

Surely you must be able to grasp that it's really not about technical performance figures?

So, it's about having what you can afford not what will win?

Say, how'd that Boulton-Paul Defiant work out for you? Funny how examples of 'wider' picture procurement are so often tossed aside once shooting starts.

Would you be willing to tell the widows of the casualties of why their loved one went to battle in a cobbled together jet? If you were a politician, could you stand the heat?

See the first line above.

Not to mention that your answer to the questions posed regarding your qualifications were all resounding 'no's.'

Tourist

1st Oct 2008, 21:50

Tim.

I take your points.

I must stop looking at the simple laws of physics and how that impacts on current aero-engineering.

I must stop believing that just because some of us know what we are talking about our views are somehow worth more than someone who flew "Afterburner" twice.

I need to get away from that parochial attitude and see the "wider picture"

One further question though.
What colour is the sky on your planet?

microlight AV8R

1st Oct 2008, 22:15

It's ok,you can all relax. TATA Industries has purchased the design and construction rights to the P1154. The new V/STOL multi-role aircraft will be produced by HAL, Bangalore. The design is being upgraded to use lighter modern materials in the structure to give enhanced performance, reduced weight and greater payload capacity. A TATA spokesman said "This aircraft is large enough to accomodate all the latest radar and weapons systems at an extremely competitive priceand could even be equipped with a working gun!" Rumours of TATA acquiring production rights for the TSR2 were said to be untrue although an enquiry about producing a modernised Belslow in competition with the A400M was met with a coy smile and "no comment".

Navaleye

1st Oct 2008, 22:45

I've resisted butting into this. Many if not all of the arguments stated here are true and well stated. The simple fact of the matter is that land based aircraft do not make good carrier aircraft. They never have and never will. I would sooner see a reciprocal arrangement with the French for the Rafale M than some hodgepodge of a lash-up with the Typhoon. It simply isnt stressed or strong enough for sustained carrier ops. The navy doesn't want them and doesn't need them. They cannot do a stealth Alpha strike in conjunction with the USN and that is what is needed. We need the F-35, Typhoon secomd best simply isn't good enough.

Question_Answer

1st Oct 2008, 22:57

As far as FJ operations from CVF, can we all agree that there is no single aircraft solution that has low risk, delivers "all" that is required up to its OSD and does not require continued £Bns to be pumped in to even reach ISD!

JSF - Dave B or C still questionable maturity and degrading performance (mass growth). Other posters/threads have already indicated that Dave C will not be feasible (cats and traps) on HMS QE without adding further delay to CVF.

F-18E/F - mature, issue with CVF integration as per Dave C

N_EF - barking - complete redesign required for both aircraft and carrier = risk (cost, performance and time!). I mean what would be the worst situation, say 70% redesign. BAES have a proven track record with this type of situation, i.e. MRA4 (80%+) and we all know how well that programme is going (7/8 years late according to NAO). Even the Chinese are baulking at the idea of marinising J-10s for their carrier programme, I bet they're not short of money!

Rafale - it works right, limited performance? Cats and traps issues as above.

Have the USMC got any low mileage AV8s that could complement and extend GR9 ops even further?
Could we buy the next CVN due for retirement or enter into a "time-share" arrangement with our US cousins?

In short the UK taxpayer (that includes me) has to accept that there is no cheap and easy way to deliver this, pending a proper defence review convincing that carrier strike effects can be delivered by other means (UCAV, TLAM, AH etc.) more cost-effectively.

Navaleye

1st Oct 2008, 23:57

I can't speak for anyone, but I was on the TR briefly in July and got to speak with some of the USN crew that had worked with the FN Rafales. They are good aircraft and impressed the USN. Not surprising since they trained them.

pmills575

2nd Oct 2008, 07:25

Exactly how do you conduct a "stealth attack" from a sodding great carrier with all it's attendant support vessels? Do it during the night I suppose, when the enemy is fast asleep. After all it's not as if the potential enemy has any way of seeing you is it, we've got stealth!

Tourist

2nd Oct 2008, 07:47

Yea, cos airfields are so much stealthier.......

Oh no, wait a minute, airfields are inherantly unstealthy, because spys can sit near them and watch stuff take off, just like we did in Argentina.

It is one of the advantages of a carrier, that you can launch with less chance of observation.:rolleyes:

Zoom

2nd Oct 2008, 09:27

you can launch with less chance of observation.

Not by much. The only point of a carrier is its mobility, which means that it can project airpower over great distances but slowly and at huge risk. Land-based aircraft such as the B-1, B-2, B-52, those Russian ones and any fighter/bomber with AAR support can launch from any of hundreds of airfields on this planet. Unfortunately for the navies of this world there are not many carriers about.

Navaleye

2nd Oct 2008, 09:29

Exactly how do you conduct a "stealth attack" from a sodding great carrier with all it's attendant support vessels?

If your carrier is hull down, way over the radar horizon, then very easily. :ugh:

Tim McLelland

2nd Oct 2008, 10:32

I get the feeling this thread's reach the end of its useful life if nobody else has anything intelligent to say. Thanks to Engineer and a few others who did have though - it was a good debate - for a while:rolleyes:

Tourist

2nd Oct 2008, 10:46

Ok Tim, we'll close the thread down just for you.

Gosh we'll all miss your "intelligent" debate.
Pity nobody "else" has your wisdom

:yuk:

Tim McLelland

2nd Oct 2008, 13:10

Keep on digging your hole Tourist - 'atta boy!;)

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Oct 2008, 16:21

Tim

Let me help you a little. You do seem to be having problems with certain ideas and concepts.

For a start, if Typhoon was navalised it would not mean extra Typhoon orders, it would however put paid to the UK JSF/F35 order. BAE Systems (who you STILL refer to as BAe) has very little to gain from this, but a huge amount to lose. It is not in their interests, or the wider economic and interests of the UK. UK industry will benefit hugely from JSF: not just BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and other major players like Martin Baker or Ultra Electronics, but smaller concerns all over the UK building various mechanical, electrical or electronic components or sub assemblies ranging from valves and actuators for the fuel system to contactors for the electrical systems and printed circuit board assemblies.

Secondly, your comment that "Thankfully, the final choice between JSF and Typhoon will not be made by naval aviators or the Navy" says sweet FA about the subjeect, but a lot about you. It struck me as one of the most stupid and arrogant things I've ever heard. Likewise, your rejection of arguments based on physics or those by people with experience of the landing aircraft on a ship, on the basis of something someone told you, makes you look like a self important fool.

Thirdly, you seem to ignore some key (but basic) issues.

Modifying Typhoon for carrier operation would mean strengthening or redesigning the landing gear so that it can deal with the stress of catapult launch and deck landing, and the rear fuselage so that it can take an arrestor hook and cope with the stresses of landing (with a very high landing speed compared with other naval aircraft). The weight penalties would reduce the weapon load and range. The need to design and analysis work would make this far more costly than you might think.

Additionally the need to catapults and arrestor gear would make the carriers more expensive to build, maintain and man (more personnel would be needed) compared with F35B. This is a fact the decision makers have to keep in mind.

As noted on similar threads, Typhoon has a high angle of attack as well as a high landing speed. The nose up attitude will mean that the pilot will not be able to see the carrier (or landing aids). I have heard talk of using a camera, attached to the nose wheel, connected to a cockpit in the screen. This idea has the words "bodge" and "Heath Robinson" all over it. The lack of a real world view, and the camera's restricted field of view (how compatible would it be with a system like GLIS (http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/glis/)?) would mean a real risk of pilot disorientation, particularly in poor weather, at night, or when the aircraft is in a degraded state. Therefore the risk of accidents would be higher. Deck landing accidents kill people, both pilots (and other aircrew) and flight deck personnel. You do realise this is what you are talking about, don't you?

On the subject of aircraft in a degraded state, what if the aircraft trying to land has been damaged? I have seen a picture of an A7 Corsair II that had done a wheels up barrier landing, suring the 1991 Gulf War, after ground fire meant that the landing gear could not be lowered. There are countless tales of damaged aircraft struggling back to the carrier, many of them from the Vietnam era Tonkin Gulf operations. Relatively minor damage to an aircraft depending on a nose wheel camera could mean that the camera system is put out of action by damage to electrical systems, or cockpit instrumentation. The aircraft would be unlandable due to minor damage. In other words survivability would be reduced.

None of this means it is impossible. It does mean that:

1. UK economic/industrial interests would be adversely affected.
2. The naval Typhoon would be more expensive, heavier, and have less range and weapon load than the land based counterpart.
3. The high landing speed and very limited view during landing would lead to more accidents and to lives being lost.
4. The fact that the pilot cannot see during landing without electronic aids would reduce the ability to recover damaged aircraft.

Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it?

Jackonicko

2nd Oct 2008, 17:33

Very good WEBF, and while I'd acknowledge your enthusiasm, I'd point out that you're no better informed than Tim Mc, who has been a respected aviation author for two decades.

We are committed to buying 232 Typhoons, and I believe that number is appropriate for a long term seven squadron fleet, as planned.

But if we're only getting four or five squadrons, delivering some of Tranche 3 as navalised aircraft would make use of aircraft that are bought and paid for and would avoid the need to pay cancellation penalties.

I remain absolutely convinced that only STOVL would give us the flexibility required (avoiding the aircraft purchased being permanently dedicated to carrier training and ops) and that Typhoon will never be as good a carrier aircraft as JSF.

But it could be good enough, and at least close to being as good as a Rafale (sorry - cancelling Tranche 3 Typhoon and buying Rafale is a non-starter).

As to the impact on JSF, Lockmart keep telling us that BAE's workshare is unrelated to UK uptake - that's what all the investment in being a Level 1 partner was all about, so we really don't need to buy the damned things to build bits of them.

You also over-state the difficulties of navalising Typhoon. I've seen one of the studies, and know the weight penalties involved, and they are not huge. Strengthening the landing gear is not that hard (there are two options, one using Tupolev style fairings!), and nor is the arrester hook. As to the view on approach, the solution I've seen involved the use of a simple pop-up periscope - and you can ask generations of MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-29 instructors how such devices work. Alternatively, a very modest increase in seat height with a more bulged canopy would do the trick.

I've spoken to large numbers of people involved in the Typhoon Marinisation studies (some of them former naval aviators) and I'm convinced that the concept could work (admittedly producing a heavier Typhoon than the land based aircraft), and clearly so does Ays Rauen, after his comments this week.

But this is all just so much distraction. We shouldn't be talking about what aircraft to fly from CVF, but should instead be cancelling CVF and its aircraft. Defence spending is being dramatically distorted by the CVF/JSF programme - which threatens to cost as much as Typhoon did - the difference being that much of the spending on Typhoon was committed when we had Cold War budgets to play with.

We face a stark choice - first rate armed forces with adequate SH/tankers/SEAD/recce, etc. without carriers, or third rate forces with a first rate submarine-based nuclear deterrent and two shiny first rate, top of the line aircraft carriers.

Do we want to be able to undertake ops like the two Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, or to be able to project cocktail parties across the world's oceans?

JFZ90

2nd Oct 2008, 18:15

Whilst I tend to agree with the prevailing view that navalising Typhoon is far from simple, littered with technical risk, and probably unattractive - I'd suggest its not necessarily simple to dismiss it as an option from ones armchair as:

a) the (huge) cost of Typhoon development was probably 40% engine, 40% avionics (mainly 'weapon system' related)
b) 'airframe' costs were actually therefore about 20%
c) hence, even though very significant changes would be needed to the structure and undercarriage etc. (as highlighted you can't navalise a land aircraft without siginificant redesign), this may only constitute say 25% of the 20% airframe cost - or 5% of total development.
d) I don't know what 5% of total typhoon development cost would be, but in relative terms to full JSF procurement it might not be that scary a number - especially if you could try and share it with fellow Harrier-Carrier punters Spain or Italy.
e) Whilst the performance degradation of navalising Typhoon would be significant, the basic engine/airframe is pretty good, so potentially no worse than a "plain-paper" carrier design.
f) Typhoons basic warfighting abilities / avionics are not at all bad, esp A-A, - whether its taken off from a carrier or land base, noting the performance issues at e).

Just a thought - I can't back the numbers up, they are just guesses, but probably not far off. Typhoon in itself is not necessarily a bad starting point for a carrier aircraft solution - for example it would be nowhere near as bad an idea as trying to turn a bomber into a fighter - who would do that (GR1->F3!)

That said, the stealth abilities of JSF are quite handy in a range of scenarios - it matters not whether an enemy knows where the carrier is and hence may expect attacks - being stealthy must still help survivability even if the enemy theroetically knows that you're coming!

Woff1965

2nd Oct 2008, 18:31

Just thought I would throw this into the mix

Download infamous RAND air power briefing (hint: the "baby seals/F-35" report) - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/download-infamous-rand-air-pow.html)

admittedly it is based on a number of assumptions but does raise some serious issues of Dave's actual capability and utility.

Not_a_boffin

2nd Oct 2008, 18:47

But this is all just so much distraction. We shouldn't be talking about what aircraft to fly from CVF, but should instead be cancelling CVF and its aircraft. Defence spending is being dramatically distorted by the CVF/JSF programme - which threatens to cost as much as Typhoon did - the difference being that much of the spending on Typhoon was committed when we had Cold War budgets to play with.

We face a stark choice - first rate armed forces with adequate SH/tankers/SEAD/recce, etc. without carriers, or third rate forces with a first rate submarine-based nuclear deterrent and two shiny first rate, top of the line aircraft carriers.

Do we want to be able to undertake ops like the two Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, or to be able to project cocktail parties across the world's oceans?

A tad disingenous Jacko and your last comment does you no credit at all.

Firstly £4Bn (for the ships) spread over the years 2008-2015 works out at about £500M per annum, which for a £9Bn pa procurement budget is (give or take 7%). Secondly, while your point regarding Typhoon fund commital may have some validity, what you are implying is that we signed up to this when there was shedloads of wedge in the EP and as we are now in the main procurement phase are spending significant amounts of a much reduced budget - Mr Pot & Mr Kettle spring to mind, although I'm happy to admit that we desperately need the aircraft.

F35 is another story. Again, £10Bn over the years 2012-2022 given current schedules is essentially 10% of the budget from which we should get a top of the line strike capability, which is also deployable from land or sea.

When you talk about dramatic distortions in spending, you might want to look at other little projects like DII and DII(F). Your point re SEAD is well made, but unless its wrapped up in whatever FOAS is called this week, you've just invented a new programme (I hear there's a new SEAD aircraft on the market btw, EF18G or something, might even be carrier compatible don't you know).

People also seem oblivious to the material changes that may be required to Typhoon to operate succesfully at sea without fizzing away. Not at all trivial. We might even wish to consider how something as "trivial" as removing the gun proved to be so expensive in terms of CofG and certification that it was dropped (very cunning plan!). Do we honestly think wholesale redesign of the u/c, rear fuselage and FCS will be signed off just like that?

Jackonicko

2nd Oct 2008, 21:30

Serious analysts are now estimating the UK JSF programme at more than £11 Bn, and £6-7Bn for the ships. But it makes little difference if it's £14 Bn or £18 Bn.

The simple fact is that this is money that would be better spent on more important priorities.

Top of that list is remedying the shortfall in battlefield helicopters identified by the NAO in 2005, by fully restoring the original Future Rotorcraft Capability programme - and then some.

Next on the list are the FSTA tankers - even before the current credit crunch, it was clear that the PFI would benefit no-one except a Government desparate to keep borrowing off the books, and the successful bidder's shareholders. They need to be purchased properly, and in large numbers.

I'd also want a proper replacement for the PR9 and for Nimrod R1 (£1 Bn each?), and greater investment in SEAD. And you could do all of that for the cost of CVF and JSF, and still have money left over to ease the pressure on budgets and get away from the endless options and duck-nibbling!

hulahoop7

3rd Oct 2008, 09:19

What are your thoughts on JSFs capabilities in the intelligence gathering area Jacko?

Not_a_boffin

3rd Oct 2008, 09:42

Wouldn't argue with the need to spend on SH - 845,846 & 848 SK4s are ancient as are Bensons Pumas. But that's what you get when FASH begets SABR which begets FRC (which again is struggling to get non-maritime aircraft to operate from ships). Whether you agree with the options for FSTA or not - at least it's signed up and on the way if in inadequate numbers (T45 anyone?).

Unfortunately, the wish list of PR9, R1 and SEAD falls squarely under what you are suggesting for CVF/JSF - as Homer Simpson said "why can't someone else do it?". Last time I looked the principal AA threat in the sandpits was MANPADS and if we were doing Granby or Telic again, "surely" we'd be doing it with all the bells and whistles the USN & USAF bring to bear.

I don't for one minute disagree that good organic ISTAR & SEAD assets are very useful and the existing UK capability punches well above its weight - (much like our CVS + JFH) but as you seem to be arguing for our naval aviation capability "it's unaffordable". The actual enemy is in Whitehall and all this endless squabbling and finger pointing as to "my kit's more necessary than your kit" does is obscure the real culprit - PopEye and his minions. Look at Perce - someone springs for a "small" bunch of MPVs including remanufacturing the good old FV432 and he's supposed to beggar off happy with £500M.

Postman Plod

3rd Oct 2008, 11:42

The Equivocator
Does this whole thread not strike anyone as bearing a striking similarity to the general maladies that our fast-jet centric air force demonstrates everyday?

The war-fighters are crying out for rotary assets, AT and effective and omnipresent ISTAR.

Someone posts a thread entitled JSF and A400M at risk and we get 95% focussed on turning the Typhoon money pit into a carrier aircraft.

I look forward to seeing more photos of CAS standing next to a Typhoon with a thick under carriage and a cctv camera on the nose. Brilliant. Meanwhile somewhere sh*t, sandy and hot, without an airshow crowd in sight, the operational RAF quietly gets on with it.

A honorable mention here to our sand covered brothers in the Harrier force! Hope PR09 is kind to you, but I expect not. Anyway what reward would you expect for doing such a sterling job on ops! If only you' done more airshows....

Or are we brighter than I give credit for and PPrune accepts that cancelling any rotary or AT project is just beyond comprehension in the current climate? No? Thought not....

Oh the irony....

The Equivocator ,

I personally think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think anyone is disputing the need for more AT, SH, ISTAR, etc etc. I think everyone knows its an immediate need in comparison to F35 and carriers - and I think that is why nobody is arguing about it on the forum - they know that ditching A400M would be barking - and those that have mentioned A400M have said as much.

However they're not so convinced that changing / ditching carriers and F35 are quite as barking hence the arguments made.

With regards to SEAD, I seem to recall someone suggesting the F3 would make a suitable SEAD platform and had been looked in to??

Jackonicko

3rd Oct 2008, 12:24

Hulahoop,

Formidable, if everything works as advertised, and if the UK gets everything that works.

But not sufficient justification to spend the thick end of £20 Bn on CVF and JCA.

Tim McLelland

3rd Oct 2008, 13:03

You summed-up the situation precisely in your earlier post Jackonicko - JSF would be a great asset in an ideal world with limited resources. Typhoon however, is good enough, it really is as simple as that.

It seems to be the problem with so many of these threads, that people chime-in with what they assume to be some dazzling response, when they've merely repeated points that have been raised earlier in the thread. This, sadly, was precisely what WEBF did when he added his rather snotty comments aimed at myself. Just to set the record straight, I'm not in the military and never have been. However, I'm entitled to a view just like any other member of the public, and if some people don't agree that's fine. I do however, think it extremely childish to constantly repeat this "are you in the military because if you're not, then you're stupid and I know better than you" mantra. It's pointless and wrong. Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make anyone any more qualified to make a judgement, indeed it could be argued that such people are less qualified, as they're not looking at things from a wide perspective.

WEBF might think it's arrogant to say that the JSF/Typhoon decision will not be made by the military but there we go - sorry but it's true, and it is indeed a good thing that the decision will not be left to the military. Decisions such as this one have to be made by politicians - it's not a simple choice based on a straightforward comparsion between the F-35's and the Typhoon's performance. The decision has to take into account a whole range of considerations, not least the huge cost, and the very difficult task of predicting where foreign policy might take us over the life-span of the new aircraft. I keep repeating (because it's true!) that this saga is not about simply picking whatever aircraft is "best" as there is no ideal solution. It's about choosing the right option to suit our needs and our resources.

Oh, and I do apologise if my traditional preference for the using the shorthand term "BAe" offends some people. I thought it would be self-evident that I was actually aware of the fact that BAe are now BAE Systems, but it seems some people can be a little too pedantic for their own good!:)

LowObservable

3rd Oct 2008, 13:34

Tourist,
As long as we get diverted into this argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) stuff we will never get anything done. Either here or in the wider world.

LowObservable

3rd Oct 2008, 13:41

brickhistory

3rd Oct 2008, 13:46

Please excuse the ignorant American's question, but is this

I do however, think it extremely childish to constantly repeat this "are you in the military because if you're not, then you're stupid and I know better than you" mantra. It's pointless and wrong.

and this

Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make anyone any more qualified to make a judgement, indeed it could be argued that such people are less qualified, as they're not looking at things from a wide perspective.

some of that famous British irony?

Tourist

3rd Oct 2008, 13:48

LowObservable.

I know what you are saying, but I do not believe that important decisions of procurement should be based upon "one man one vote" with each persons opinion being considered equal no matter what their background.

The idea that "Engines" and "Tim"'s opinion are of equal validity in this debate is lunacy of the greatest order, so it is important to establish the debators credibility. If this were a court, we would first establish the expert witnesses credibility before paying any attention to his words. In a hospital, you would not allow a person without medical training to make medical diagnoses, so why must we accept idiocy like:-
"Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make anyone any more qualified to make a judgement, indeed it could be argued that such people are less qualified, as they're not looking at things from a wide perspective"

I would accept his points if he was even an engineer, but it would appear he is not.

This "I know better than you how to do your job" cr@p from polititions is what got the Yanks in trouble in Vietnam, and all of us in trouble in Iraq.

Tim has no argument to attack other than "BAE says they can so it must be true."

Taco Bill

3rd Oct 2008, 14:09

It is obvious that I spend most of my time reading rather than contributing on pprune, but i can contain myself no longer:
Tim - for god's sake, there have been countless people, far more knowledgeable than you or I, giving you excellent, practically insurmountable arguments against marinising Typhoon and yet you still persist in offering it up as your preferred solution to the admittedly expensive JSF.

Sadly, it is the people like you who are responsible for making the decisions in the running goat f:mad: that is military procurement and that we, the end users, have had to endure all of our working lives.

Tourist: thank god for once you have talked sense!

Tim McLelland

3rd Oct 2008, 14:24

Not true I'm afraid. You make the assumption that the people who make the various statements are "knowledgeable" - but how do you reach that conclusion?

You also say that these people make "practically insurmountable arguments" against Typhoon, but where? You make the assumption that everything they say is correct, and you also fail to take into account that even if all the anti-navalisation points were correct (which they are not) then this would make the decision simple, which of course it would not, because, as I keep saying, the choice isn't one which can be based simply on a direct comparison.

You would think that Tourist would be sufficiently intelligent to know that procurement decisions of this nature are made by politicians, based on the advice of manufacturers, engineers, air crew, defence policy planners, Foreign Affairs ministers, Treasury ministers and so on. It has to be that way of course and the Great British Taxpayer would be outraged if it wasn't.

I'm quite astonished that some people seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp that the JSF programme has become a hideously expensive and protracted saga which Britain can ill-afford to remain involved with. To make matters worse, the US Govermnent then persists with this notion that they can invite a foreign partner to share development and production costs on a major programme but then keep their own technology to themselves when it suits them. It's little wonder that when the programme has been handled so badly, and the amount of money it will require still seems potentially limitless, the Government finally decides to take a cold, hard look at whether it's really worth sticking with it.

We have progressed way beyond the simple "what is the best aircraft" arguments. To suggest that the programme should be pursued or abandoned based on the advice of the military (particularly the Royal Navy) would be just ludicrous. Fundamentally, it is a question of deciding whether the Treasury can afford the sums of money which will be required, and has to be judged with the Typhoon orders in mind. The two factors cannot be separated. I really don't know how some of the guys on here cannot understand how this is not a "my plane is better than yours" fight - it's a political decision which will affect the Treasury and the MoD for years to come, and given the financial situation of our economy at present, the idea of sticking with JSF looks less likely every day. That's the way I see it, as do many others.

PS- I'm tempted to add (although I'm at risk of opening another proverbial can of worms, so let's not go-off at a tangent here!) that we've been in this situation before. It's TSR2 all over again. It doesn't matter how technologically-brilliant an aircraft might (or might not) be, it still has to be paid for!

Not_a_boffin

3rd Oct 2008, 18:20

Serious analysts are now estimating the UK JSF programme at more than £11 Bn, and £6-7Bn for the ships

Jacko - is there any chance of you (or your serious analyst mates) becoming my accountants please? How anyone can estimate a 50% increase in costs for two ships where there is now significant design maturity (steel already purchased and first cut this year), most major equipment already on contract and virtually no developmental systems (radars, electric motors, FICS etc all done on T45) is beyond me, particularly when set against a 10% forecast on a developmental aircraft programme! Leads me to believe thye're making it up as they go along.

Tim - you are correct that procurement decisions like these are not taken purely by the military, but you should recognise the make-up of the IAB. Last time I looked the S&T scrutineers (civvies - now part of SIT) would be in hysterics at the thought of the risk involved in "navalising" Typhoon. Those studies have been run in parallel ever since the inception of CVF and what was FCBA and every single time, the answer has come back - way too risky, whichever way you try to operate them. BAE are not stupid, if you were looking at a programme thats still not signed up and for which you were not the Prime, you'd have something in your back pocket to brief with as well. However, a thinkpiece designed for lobbying use is a long way way from a credible design and programme and I think thats what people are trying to get across to you.

Anyway, on we go - "Fight!Fight!Fight!"........

Modern Elmo

3rd Oct 2008, 18:25

the US Govermnent then persists with this notion that they can invite a foreign partner to share development and production costs on a major programme but then keep their own technology to themselves when it suits them.

What percent of built in test, flight control, and offensive and defensive avionics software is the UK paying for or developing? Please tell us.

Engines

3rd Oct 2008, 19:49

Gents,

One more try, and then I'm out.

Taking a dedicated air combat aircraft like Typhoon and turning it into a carrier aircraft would be difficult for a number of reasons. These include:

1. Reworking the flight controls (and probably surfaces and actuators and wings and canards and engine controls) to give level 1 handling and response down to 135 knots on the glideslope, as well as at the end of catapult launch, and on the bolter. Deltas are pretty horrible to the deck (ask Boeing). Complete new flight qualification tests, probably in the USA as we don't have the test facilities in the UK)

2. Relocating the gears (to give acceptable deck handling) and beefing them up (F-35C gears weigh well over twice those on the A for a reason)

3. New structure to take the hook loads, and new systems to retract and extend the hook, and also to relocate the hook to give acceptable post-engagement characteristics. Complete series of cat and trap tests (in the US)

4. New nose gear to take the catapult bar and all new structure and nose gear bay to take the new leg and twin wheels (probably would need to be an extending leg to allow launch)

5. New cockpit and windscreen to give the required over the nose view for CV approach

6. New systems to integrate JPALS approach system with the flight controls. Also new avionics to integrate properly with CVF operations.

7. Re-stressed airframe to take the impact loads of carrier landing and launch (including all pylons and external stores). Requalified airframe to take the completely new operating and loads spectrum. All new fatigue test specimen and tests.

8. Further work to remove materials susceptible to corrosion

I could, honestly, go on. The point is that the Typhoon has been deliberately (and very sensibly) optimized for its intended primary role. It's a great aircraft for that reason. But trying to take it and get it to the deck would mean undoing 15 years of detail design and starting nearly all over again.

One more thing - JSF a 'hideously expensive and protracted saga'? What would Typhoon be described as?

I very much agree that the answer will, in the end, be political. All major defence decisions are. However, there is no 'choice' between JSF and Typhoon for CVF - that's over.

Ok, done. Very happy to respond to any PMs on this.

Best regards to all as ever,

Engines

brickhistory

3rd Oct 2008, 19:57

But he whose name must not be mentioned is pathologically unable to let it go.

The logic of 'pulling out of one hideously expensive' project only to dive into another for a lesser end result simply cannot be argued.

Read history, I've been told.

GreenKnight121

4th Oct 2008, 00:18

Navaleye - The problem with a stealth alpha strike in conjunction with the US Navy is that the B has half the offensive load of the C, and 200 nm less combat radius. Question: how do the 680 "Department of the Navy" F-35s split between Bs and Cs? Answer: Nobody will tell you, and nobody has decided, because the Marines want Bs on board the CVNs and the big-deck Navy doesn't.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II Program (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm)
In April 2002 the Navy - concerned that it could not afford the number of tactical aircraft it planned to purchase - reduced the number of JSF aircraft for joint Navy and Marine Corps operations from 1,089 to 680 by reducing the number of backup aircraft needed. News reports in 2002 indicated that the proposed reduction would cut 259 jets from the Marine Corps buy, and 50 from the Navy purchase, resulting in a total F-35B buy of 350.1. 330 F-35C for the USN to replace their F/A-18Cs, and to work beside their F/A-18E/Fs.
AND
2. 350 F-35B for the USMC to replace all their AV-8Bs and F/A-18C/Ds.

And, the USMC wants their Bs on the LHA/LHDs, not the CVNs. The USN wants some USMC squadrons on the CVNs, but the USMC refuses to buy any "CV/paved runway" versions... they want all to be of the "amphib/austere field" version.

Tim McLelland

4th Oct 2008, 10:07

The obvius point there Engines, is that no matter how long and expensive the Typhoon programme might have been - it's here now. The F-35 isn't!;)

I don't doubt that all your comments about navalising Typhoon might well prove to be correct. If so, then the Government would be foolish to take that option. Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Brickhistory can go back to sticking pins in his little Tim McLelland doll... keeps him happy...

hoodie

4th Oct 2008, 15:13

What percent of built in test, flight control, and offensive and defensive avionics software is the UK paying for or developing? Please tell us.

Your question implies that you think it's zero, Elmo. It isn't - here's one example (http://www.qinetiq.com/home/case_studies/defence/flying_high_with_jsf.html).

Tourist

4th Oct 2008, 15:21

"The obvius point there Engines, is that no matter how long and expensive the Typhoon programme might have been - it's here now. The F-35 isn't!"

No Tim, it isn't here now. Not in any form that can operate off a carrier. To get it to that form would take a lot of work and money, if indeed it is possible at all.

If someone was to bet the makers of F-35 and Typhoon 10 Billion pounds to take off from and land on a carrier within a week, there is only one that would get a prize.

SirPercyWare-Armitag

4th Oct 2008, 15:26

Of course, the problem with this thread that too many clever, motivated people are arguing with other, using valid cases backed up by a wealth of evidence.

All forgetting that if the decision is made to scrap JSF and replace it with whatever, it will be made on the basis on saving money and not on relevant military capabilities.

:ugh:

off centre

4th Oct 2008, 16:33

Post #8:

I think this is where I get to grin and say "I told you so" - largely on the basis of all the times I posted comments about how the JSF programme would probably get dumped eventually and we'd end-up with navalised Typhoons. I don't know whether all the people who disagreed really did imagine that the F-35 really was a viable proposition (and that the navalised Typhoon wasn't), or whether they just hoped that it would be. Let's hope they do the right thing this time and dump the F-35. It would be no more than the Americans deserve and it would enable us to use our surplus (well, technically surplus) Typhoons which are better suited to the job in the first place.

Post #120:

I don't doubt that all your comments about navalising Typhoon might well prove to be correct. If so, then the Government would be foolish to take that option. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

'attaboy'

Modern Elmo

4th Oct 2008, 17:03

Hoodie with a woodie,

You're right. Good for Britain. Here's some info. about UK's workshare in the F-35. I suppose QinetiQ is a BAE subcontractor.

DESIGN

In order to minimise the structural weight and complexity of assembly, the wingbox section integrates the wing and fuselage section into one piece. To minimise radar signature, sweep angles are identical for the leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail (planform alignment). The fuselage and canopy have sloping sides. The seam of the canopy and the weapon bay doors are sawtoothed and the vertical tails are canted at an angle.

The Marine variant of JSF is very similar to the Air Force variant, but with a slightly shorter range because some of the space used for fuel is used for the lift fan of the STOVL propulsion system. The main differences between the naval variant and the other versions of JSF are associated with the carrier operations. The internal structure of the naval version is very strong to withstand the high loading of catapult assisted launches and tailhook arrested landings. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces for low speed approaches for carrier landing. Larger leading edge flaps and foldable wingtip sections provide a larger wing area, which provides an increased range and payload capacity.

The canopy (supplied by GKN Aerospace), radar and most of the avionics are common to the three variants.

COCKPIT

L-3 Display Systems is developing the Panoramic Cockpit Display System, which will include 20in x 8in active matrix liquid crystal displays and display management computer. The following will also supply F-35 avionics systems: BAE Systems Avionics - side stick and throttle controls; Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) - advanced helmet-mounted display; BAE Systems Platform Solutions - alternative design helmet-mounted display, based on the binocular helmet being developed for the Eurofighter Typhoon; Ball Aerospace - Communications, Navigation and Integration (CNI) integrated body antenna suite (one S-band, two UHF, two radar altimeter, three L-band antennas per aircraft); Harris Corporation - advanced avionics systems, infrastructure, image processing, digital map software, fibre optics, high speed communications links and part of the Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) system; Honeywell - radar altimeter, inertial navigation / global positioning system (INS/GPS) and air data transducers; Raytheon - 24-channel GPS with digital anti-jam receiver (DAR).

WEAPONS

Weapons are carried in two parallel bays located in front of the landing gear. Each weapons bay is fitted with two hardpoints for carrying a range of bombs and missiles. Weapons to be cleared for internal carriage include: JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), CBU-105 WCMD (Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser) for the Sensor-Fuzed Weapon, JSOW (Joint StandOff Weapon), Paveway II guided bombs, AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missile; for external carriage: JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), AIM-9X Sidewinder and Storm Shadow cruise missile.

In September 2002, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products was selected as the gun system integrator. The air force variant has an internally mounted gun. The Carrier and Marine variants can have an external gun pod fitted.

TARGETING

Lockheed Martin Missile & Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Sensors and Systems are jointly responsible for the JSF electro-optical system. A Lockheed Martin electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) will provide long-range detection and precision targeting, along with the Northrop Grumman DAS (Distributed Aperture System) thermal imaging system. EOTS will be based on the Sniper XL pod developed for the F-16, which incorporates a mid-wave third generation FLIR, dual mode laser, CCD TV, laser tracker and laser marker. BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, Scotland will provide the laser systems. DAS consists of multiple infrared cameras (supplied by Indigo Systems of Goleta, California) providing 360º coverage using advanced signal conditioning algorithms. As well as situational awareness, DAS provides navigation, missile warning and infrared search and track (IRST). EOTS is embedded under the aircraft’s nose, and DAS sensors are fitted at multiple locations on the aircraft.

RADAR

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems is developing the advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) AN/APG-81 multi-function radar. The AN/APG-81AESA will combine an integrated radio frequency subsystem with a multifunction array. The radar system will also incorporate the agile beam steering capabilities developed for the APG-77. Northrop Grumman delivered the first radar to Lockheed Martin in March 2005 for flight testing.

COUNTERMEASURES

BAE Systems Information & Electronic Warfare Systems (IEWS) will be responsible for the JSF integrated electronic warfare suite, which will be installed internally and have some subsystems from Northrop Grumman. BAE is developing a new digital radar warning receiver for the F-35.

SYSTEMS

The following will supply the F-35 avionics systems: BAE Systems Avionics - side stick and throttle controls; Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) - advanced helmet-mounted display; BAE Systems Platform Solutions - alternate design helmet-mounted display, based on the binocular helmet being developed for the Eurofighter Typhoon; Ball Aerospace - Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) integrated body antenna suite (one S-band, two UHF, two radar altimeter, three L-band antennas per aircraft); Harris Corporation - advanced avionics systems, infrastructure, image processing, digital map software, fibre optics, high-speed communications links and part of the Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) system; Honeywell - radar altimeter, inertial navigation / global positioning system (INS/GPS) and air data transducers; Raytheon - 24-channel GPS (Global Positioning System) with digital anti-jam receiver (DAR).

Other suppliers will include: ATK Composites - upper wing skins; Vought Aircraft Industries - lower wing skins; Smiths Aerospace - electronic control systems, electrical power system (with Hamilton Sundstrand), integrated canopy frame; Honeywell - landing system wheels and brakes, Onboard Oxygen-Generating System (OBOGS), engine components, power and thermal management system driven by integrated Auxiliary Power Unit (APU); Parker Aerospace - fuel system, hydraulics for lift fan, engine controls and accessories; Moog Inc - primary flight control Electrohydrostatic Actuation System (EHAS), leading edge flap drive system and wing-fold system; EDO Corporation - pneumatic weapon delivery system; Goodrich - lift-fan anti-icing system; Stork Aerospace - electrical wiring.

PROPULSION

Early production lots of all three variants will be powered by the Pratt and Whitney afterburning turbofan F-135 engine, a derivative of the F119 fitted on the F-22. Following production aircraft will be powered by either the F135 or the F-136 turbofan being developed by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. The F136 engine began ground testing in July 2004. Delivery of the first production engine is scheduled for 2011. Each engine will be fitted with two BAE Systems Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) systems. Hamilton Sundstrand is providing the gearbox.

...

Military Power Review - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - english version (http://www.militarypower.com.br/english-frame4-f35.htm)

Modern Elmo

4th Oct 2008, 17:11

And here's a clipping to give non-techie PPruners an idea of the conplexity of the aircraft's digital systems. Not what you'd call hot and sexy at the airshow stuff:

IEEE 1394b Playing Pivotal Role in F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
Business Wire, Sept 4, 2007

Tags: IEEE, Pivotal Corp.

..

- More than 70 1394b Devices Serve Flight Control, Communications, Propulsion Systems; Predictable Latency Key in Real Time Control -

DALLAS & FORT WORTH, Texas -- The successful deployment of the IEEE 1394 networking standard in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program demonstrates the standard's reliability and flexibility, the 1394 Trade Association said today.

1394b is playing a pivotal role in the F-35 Lightning II program, providing guaranteed quality of service with predictable latencies in real-time control applications. More than 70 1394 devices are delivering information about mission details, communication systems, weapon systems, engine controls, and flight controls. Lockheed Martin Corporation and its partner contractors selected the 1394b network standard after a trade study of other networking options including USB, Fibre Channel, and military standard 1553. ( 1553 data "bus" -- pre-Internet 16 bit data protocol. )

..

... The AA-1's (CTOL) first flight was last December, and the first three STOVLs are scheduled to fly in 2008. According to Lockheed Martin, the 1394b-equipped AA-1 has completed 19 successful flight tests to date.

1394b in Vehicle Systems Network

1394b has been implemented in the plane's Vehicle Systems Network based on its speed, bandwidth and long distance capabilities, and also because 1394b enables operational software downloads to network components without the need to remove any component after installation.

Main F-35 flight control and subsystem processing are completed in a trio of the Vehicle Management Computers (VMCs), which act as the master for each bus. There are triplex VMCs that are cross-channeled and data-linked together. Most of the 1394b buses are looped to provide additional redundancy, so if one cable fails, there is an alternate path for communication.

1394b delivers the high bandwidth and predictable latencies that allow the VMC to house all flight control algorithms and all utilities in a highly centralized structure. While there are still some distributed processing functions handled by legacy buses such as 1553, it is 1394b that's carrying the bulk of the processing load. The architecture also makes use of independent controllers for applications that require dedicated, high-bandwidth control loops. according to Lockheed Martin engineer Mike Wroble.

The VMC incorporates Flight Control Systems (FCS) and Utilities and Subsystems (U&S) processing that has been performed separately on legacy aircraft, according to Wroble. Components residing on the 1394b network serve the following systems:

* Vehicle Systems Processing, VMC and RIO (10 remote input/output units);

* Flight Control Systems with all flight control surfaces, including rudders, flaperons, horizontal tails, ailerons, air data probes, inertial electronics, inceptor control, crash-survivable memory units;

* Utilities and Subsystems such as weapons bay door drives, power system controllers, brake controllers, power thermal management system controllers;

* Propulsion Systems such as main engine FADEC (full authority digital engine controller), and prognostics health area managers;

* Mission Systems including standby flight display, display management computer, helmet display management computer, integrated core processor, lighting controller, communications/navigation/identification, and GPS;

* Flight Test Instrumentation, in the form of a high-speed data acquisition unit on each bus for capturing flight test data.

...

IEEE 1394b Playing Pivotal Role in F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Sept_4/ai_n19494812)

CirrusF

4th Oct 2008, 18:39

All forgetting that if the decision is made to scrap JSF and replace it with whatever, it will be made on the basis on saving money and not on relevant military capabilities.

That is more or less why the RN will end up with a single conventional carrier, carrying Rafale M as it primary aircraft, and an exact sister ship to the proposed French carrier. The JSF, or a marinated Typhoon, might have potential military advantages, but they have huge budgetary incertitudes. Rafale M is proven, excellent, and available now at a guaranteed cost.

Not_a_boffin

4th Oct 2008, 18:58

Is that the french carrier that has been postponed indefinitely due to perfidious albion going ahead and signing the contract?

CirrusF

4th Oct 2008, 19:48

Has it been cancelled? I don't follow these matters in detail but only a couple of weeks ago the French Defence Minister was on the radio here justifying the future carrier as forming the nucleus of a European naval strike force with "his" british "brother" (ships and yachts are all considered to be blokes in French).

Archimedes

4th Oct 2008, 20:23

Cirrus, the decision on whether to buy has been postponed until 2011 or 2012:

DCNS Chief Blames UK for Carrier Postponement - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3725780)

Forgive the pedantry, but I think you mean 'marinised' Typhoon, not marinated - dipping the Typhoon in a nice seasoning liquid before putting to sea might not quite be enough to make it carrier capable... ;)

CirrusF

4th Oct 2008, 20:54

Thanks for the link - but that has not been reported widely here in France.

I do know the difference between "marinised" and "marinated". The latter seems more appropriate for the Typhoon though. You'd have to be pretty marinated to argue that a marinised Typhoon could possibly be more cost-effective let-alone military-effective in likely future naval roles than an off-the-shelf Rafale M. Why spend billions of tax payers money trying to convert without guarantees of success an A2A-orientated multi-role land-based fighter to A2G-oriented multi-role naval fighter which is already proven in the Rafale? Just shows why French were right to pull out of Eurofighter.

Tim McLelland

4th Oct 2008, 22:22

Nice to see offcentre that you have the good sense to read all of the previous posts before adding your own. Pity that you were unable to understand the consistency between the two post of mine that you chose to repeat. Could I perhaps suggest that if you must waste people's time by making pointless attempts to score points (presumably in the absence of any reasoned argument) then at least provide yourself with some plausible excuse first;)

Tim McLelland

4th Oct 2008, 22:25

Cirrus, "Marinated Typhoon" sounds tasty, although it seems to be a little too rich for some people's tastes... Seriously though, I'd forget about the whole Rafale notion - it just ain't gonna happen.

Backwards PLT

5th Oct 2008, 05:42

I am generally a Typhoon supporter and have seen the Rafale in action on exercise (ok imho, but no great quantum leap) and I would rather the RAF operated Typhoon. But if I was asked to choose between them to be selected to operate off UK carriers then I would choose Rafale every day of the week - not because it is better in the air than Typhoon, but because it is designed to operate off carriers. This is important when planning to operate off carriers.

BAE systems state then it wouldn't be that difficult to convert Typhoon. Well that's alright then. When have they ever exaggerated/lied to get a contract? Sorry Tim, but get a clue.

Don't see either option ever happening, even in the current climate. JSF may not be the cheap all rounder that many hoped for, but it is currently the only realistic/sensible option for our carriers from military, commercial and political perspectives (in reverse order of importance).

Ivan Rogov

5th Oct 2008, 08:36

Marinated Typhoon?

Isn't the real question which flavour of JSF? :confused:

Tim McLelland

5th Oct 2008, 10:02

BAE systems state then it wouldn't be that difficult to convert Typhoon. Well that's alright then. When have they ever exaggerated/lied to get a contract? Sorry Tim, but get a clue.

Er... indeed, get a clue. If you bother to read the previous posts, I did say at least twice that I think we mostly accept that we've progressed beyond that stage now. The days of making rash promises in the hope that the Treasury will pick-up the bill have ended.

Tourist

5th Oct 2008, 10:12

Tim.

"I think we mostly accept that we've progressed beyond that stage now. The days of making rash promises in the hope that the Treasury will pick-up the bill have ended. "

When you say "we", to whom are you refering?
I doubt you will find a single person on this forum who will agree with your optimism re BAE's honesty.

Jetex Jim

5th Oct 2008, 10:28

Er... indeed, get a clue. If you bother to read the previous posts, I did say at least twice that I think we mostly accept that we've progressed beyond that stage now. The days of making rash promises in the hope that the Treasury will pick-up the bill have ended.

Come on Tim, let's hear why you think that.

Tim McLelland

5th Oct 2008, 13:50

Let's not :rolleyes:

LowObservable

5th Oct 2008, 21:59

GK121 - that source is old. You can't find anyone who will pin down the split numbers today.

LowObservable

5th Oct 2008, 22:21

This argument is showing signs of flying in more tightening circles than the Oozelum Bird, and we all know what happened to it.

Fact: The production JSF hasn't demonstrated STOVL yet, has encountered all sorts of problems along the way (major weight issues, engine failures in test - and late tests, too, when you really don't expect catastophic airplane-crashing things to happen - and thermal issues), and has no margin for missing targets.

Fact: The carrier program still has a Plan B - extending GR9s and a switch to cat-arrest.

Fact: There are two carrier-based fighters in production. Nobody likes Rafale, and with the greatest possible respect to the Rhino it is (a) not the world's hottest jet and (b) due to exit US Navy service in 2030. The F-35C is under development.

Fact: There has been a study of a SeaPhoon.

The question is how much and how long BAE Systems/Eurofighter would predict it would take to do it, and how much it would really take. Nobody really knows the answer to that question, although it certainly entails cost and risk that the Rafale or Rhino wouldn't.

Personally I would think it would be both risky and expensive. But then what are the alternatives? Of course, if we just demanded 2000 pounds of bombs, two missiles, and no internal gun, I suggest that we could do the job with an updated A-4...

GreenKnight121

6th Oct 2008, 05:33

The A-4 had 2 Colt Mk12 20mm cannon (100 rpg except A-4M 200 rpg) in the wing roots.

And the A-4H/N new-builds for Israel had 2 DEFA 30mm cannon (150 rpg) in the wing roots.

LO... do you have one where an authoritive source (not some journo quoting "anonymous sources/unnamed official/employee") says the split has changed?

LowObservable

9th Oct 2008, 17:07

What I don't have is an authoritative source that defines the split. As noted, the FAS thing is old. Current briefs always talk about "Department of the Navy" orders.

GreenKnight121

9th Oct 2008, 23:43

So basically, no one has made a formal statement that the previous plan has actually been changed.

That was the last official number set, and while there have been discussions about what changes might be made to the split, there has been no statement of a change actually being made?

In the absence of a change, the last numbers still hold. They don't "expire" and become irrelevant just because no one has re-confirmed them in a while.

LowObservable

11th Oct 2008, 01:38

GK,
No, I don't pull this stuff out of my ear. See:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

Page 28... the GAO (which may sometimes be out of date, often skeptical, but seldom actually wrong) says the split is undecided.

GreenKnight121

11th Oct 2008, 02:32

The GAO reports that the Navy is undecided on the split, but wants the Marines to buy some Dave-Cs... the USMC has established a formal requirement for 420 aircraft and continue to insist on all of them being Dave-Bs.

Thanks... you finally supplied an authoritative source that says there IS doubt as to the final split... which is what I had asked for, and you hadn't provided until now.

Many of us lack your detailed knowledge :hmm: of where such documents are to be found, or even if they exist. That's why we ask for sources... so we can learn facts, and not rumors.

Point to you... finally.

Modern Elmo

11th Oct 2008, 17:52

Skimming through that GAO report, I come across a sentences such as this:

"... We found that the JSF cost model is highly complex and the level of documentation is not sufficient for someone unfamiliar with the program to easily recreate it. Specifically, we found that the program office does not have formal documentation for the development, production, and operation and support cost models and could not provide detailed documentation such as quantitative analysis to support its assumptions...."

"Not enough formal documentation ... could not provide detailed documentation..." One possible translation of same: those bookkeeper gadfly busybody a-holes just want more and more paperwork. More and more paperwork requires a nontrivial increase in time and money spent on the program.

I've seen it myself, goofing off and strolling around the different floors of an eleven story building of a former employer. I counted more heads in Contracts Support Administration than actual engineers on the engineering floors.

The JSF Cost Estimate Is Not Well Documented

Cost estimates are well documented when they can be easily repeated or updated and can be traced to original sources through auditing. Rigorous documentation increases the credibility of an estimate and helps support an organization’s decision-making process. The documentation should explicitly identify the primary methods, calculations, results, rationales, assumptions, and sources of the data used to generate each cost element. All the steps involved in developing the estimate should be documented so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program can recreate the estimate with the same result.

We found that the JSF cost model is highly complex and the level of documentation is not sufficient for someone unfamiliar with the program to easily recreate it. Specifically, we found that the program office does not have formal documentation for the development, production, and operation and support cost models and could not provide detailed documentation such as quantitative analysis to support its assumptions. For the development cost estimate, the JSF program officials said they did not have a cost model that was continually updated with actual costs.

10 Earned value management is a method of tracking and measuring the value of work accomplished in a given period and comparing it with the planned value of work scheduled and the actual cost of work accomplished. Its use is required by federal regulations.
Page 22 GAO-08-388 Joint Strike Fighter

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf)

LowObservable

11th Oct 2008, 18:14

ME - What's interesting about that part of the report is that it concerns the aspect of the enterprise that the GAO's spreadsheet jockeys know most about. How much are we spending, and how much are we accomplishing for what we spend?

GK - Thanks, sometimes it is busy and rooting around the JSF directory for the source takes time. By the way, if the Marines get 420 jets the Navy gets 260... which is not a huge return on the Navy-specific development costs (including a vastly bigger wing).

Moreover, if you go back to history you'll see that LockMart's original preference (in CALF) was for a canard delta and that they switched to the quad-tail when the Navy came on board, because that was the only configuration that accommodated two widely different wing sizes (one big enough for the CV, the other small/light enough for a no-fold STOVL). And all that for less than 10 per cent of the planned build...

Modern Elmo

12th Oct 2008, 15:01

... The two X-32 prototypes featured a delta wing design, which was chosen to minimize production manufacturing costs. However, eight months into construction of the prototypes, the JSF's maneuverability and payload requirements were refined at the request of the Navy and Boeing's delta wing design fell short of the new targets. Engineers put together a new design with a conventional tail (narrowly beating out a Pelikan tail) with reduced weight and improved agility, but it was too late to change the prototypes. It was judged that they would be sufficient to demonstrate Boeing's technology.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32)

Engines

12th Oct 2008, 18:19

LO and Modern Elmo,

I was able to go to some very informative briefs given by the JSF's chief designer at Fort Worth, where he set out the whole design evolution process.

There was a major change when the design went from a canard to a more conventional design, but we were told that the change was driven by predicted performance and structural efficiency across the required three variants. Yes, the wing was part of it, but only a part.

The canard was a better layout for the STOVL, but always had challenges with the control power required for carrier landings. (This was, incidentally, the reason for the late change to the X-32 design - the aircraft ran out of pitch control during carrier landings).

My own view was that Lockheed always really wanted to build an aircraft that looked like a single engined F-22 , to stay inside their design 'comfort zone'. And that's what they ended up with.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

LowObservable

13th Oct 2008, 13:38

It's also true that the canard (CALF, early JAST) came out of Palmdale but that JSF came out of Fort Worth, where the view was that "the optimum location for a canard is on someone else's airplane". But I was told that it was the different wing/pitch control surface size which was the kicker. It gets very awkward with a high taper ratio if you want to keep the body design common.

c130 alm

13th Oct 2008, 15:07

So is the A400 delayed?

ORAC

13th Oct 2008, 17:27

So is the A400 delayed? Not at all. Slippages are on schedule. :cool:

Modern Elmo

13th Oct 2008, 19:25

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL1/Medium/EC96-43418-3.jpg

(1) Pro's and cons of "pure" delta wing versus non-delta?

(2) Pro's and cons of canards on either pure delta or non delta?

Seldomfitforpurpose

13th Oct 2008, 19:57

"So is the A400 delayed?"

If the latest rumours are to be believed then it will depend which type you are currently on as to whether this delay is likely to affect you :ok:

LowObservable

13th Oct 2008, 23:16

ME...
Depends what you're trying to do.

Canard/deltas are rather nice for agility and STOL (factors in Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale) while buying you the benefits of a delta wing (light, low drag, space to hang stuff that goes bang without too much interference drag).

Classic, cranked or double deltas are nice for low drag and high volume. What you tend to run out of is control authority because all you've got is the trailing edge... the leading edge is good for increasing lift to some extent (although the sweep tends to be too high - if you look at the XL it's got LE flaps outboard), but hard to use differentially for control. So the trailing edge... which doesn't have a lot of moment arm... has to provide for pitch and roll, and it gets a bit overloaded.

For instance, Boeing's delta JSF design, in its Navy version, was going to use vortex flaps above the leading edge to boost lift. But the more they looked at the Navy's bring-back requirement, the bigger control surfaces they needed, in order to rotate the wing to get high lift... and the actuator weights got out of hand.

XV277

13th Oct 2008, 23:24

So is it true that the MDD submission was canned because (a) it had a lot of foreign (i.e. BAE) design and (b) it was more likely to provide serious competition to Lockheed?

The X-32 being the more 'risky' option and the -35 the 'safe' version.

Caspian237

14th Oct 2008, 04:36

If the MoD cancels the F-35B buy I wonder if it can do a deal with the French? The UK can sell the French enough surplus Typhoons to equip several dedicated air defence squadrons and we can buy some French Rafales for our carriers.

Semper Amictus

14th Oct 2008, 12:44

Hmmm.

All this from a country that once tried to navalise a naval aircraft.

F-4K anyone ?

And how should one pronounce '-4K' ?

Exactly.

ORAC

14th Oct 2008, 15:23

Alice. Wonderland.

Hmmm. All this from a country that once tried to navalise a naval aircraft. F-4K anyone ?

Nowt wrong wit' FG1...as long as the nose wheel extension didn't stick down...

As the country that invented the angled deck, steam catapult, ski ramp and built the Buccaneer - an aircraft of beauty and strength, and the USMC seem somewhat enamoured of the Harrier the last 30-40 years....

Steel decks also came in handy in the pacific...

LowObservable

14th Oct 2008, 16:19

XV277,
Macs' big mistake was that they didn't think the customer was serious about not wanting a separate lift engine. It wasn't altogether logical given the fact that the overall complexity and number of flight-critical bits and pieces was certainly comparable to the LockMart solution, but the customer meant it.

Also, the Boeing design was different and risky, and offered a cheaper and simpler aircraft if it worked. LMT seemed low risk, in part because of its cousin relationship to the F-22.

Caspian,
Rafale is a very attractive jet for a small carrier, but my assessment is that you'd either have to buy into the French program (and help to fund an F4 program with some UK content) or start spending lots of money to Anglicize it. Your best bet would be to learn to love its quirks (like a Citroen 2CV or DS) including its magic jamming system and the What The Butler Saw machine in front of the pilot's nose.

Semper Amictus

14th Oct 2008, 23:51

<Nowt wrong wit' FG1...as long as the nose wheel extension didn't stick down...>

Certe loqueris . . . saepe vere !

No argument from this end about the Bucc. Wonderful machine.

Modern Elmo

15th Oct 2008, 02:35

There was a major change when the design went from a canard to a more conventional design, but we were told that the change was driven by predicted performance and structural efficiency across the required three variants. Yes, the wing was part of it, but only a part.

That's interesting. Could you tell us more? How did the canard affect performance?

So is it true that the MDD submission was canned because (a) it had a lot of foreign (i.e. BAE) design and (b) it was more likely to provide serious competition to Lockheed?

The X-35 was better than the X-32. No need for a conspiratorial view.

Macs' big mistake was that they didn't think the customer was serious about not wanting a separate lift engine.

Separate lift engine?

GreenKnight121

15th Oct 2008, 05:28

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/)

Since the designation X-32 had already been set aside for a CALF STOVL demonstrator and X-35 for an advanced fighter demonstrator, these were reallocated to two Joint Strike Fighter demonstrators to compete for a production contract. Manufacturers began considering design concepts in 1994 and the official request for proposals was released in 1996. The three design teams that expressed interest included:

McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman, and British Aerospace: a relatively conventional design except that it did away with standard horizontal and vertical tails in favor of a flat-angle butterfly control surface. The STOVL version employed a separate lift fan installed aft of the cockpit coupled with a clam-shell to divert the main engine exhaust to two rotating nozzles for vertical flight. In forward flight, the clam-shell was opened and the exhaust flowed through the aft nozzle. The conventional models replaced this lift engine with an additional fuel tank.
Boeing: a delta wing design with a V-tail, and a scoop jet intake under the nose. The STOVL version drove thrust from the engine forward to a pair of vectored lift nozzles under the aircraft's center of gravity. The nose intake scoop hinged forward to allow greater airflow.
Lockheed Martin: conventional design, resembling a single-engined version of the F-22 Raptor. The STOVL version featured a lift fan behind the cockpit, driven by a shaft off the main engine, plus a vectored exhaust and two exhaust ducts, extending from each side of the engine to exit in the bottom of the wings. Following evaluation in 1996, the McDonnell Douglas design was rejected as too complex, so Boeing and Lockheed were given contracts to build prototypes of their respective X-32 and X-35 submissions. These were not true prototypes participating in a competitive flyoff, as with the YF-22 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f22/) and YF-23, but technology demonstrators showing different approaches to producing a common aircraft for the three armed forces.

Nonetheless, the Lockheed X-35 design was judged superior in 2001, and the company is now proceeding with additional development leading to full production of an operational fighter to begin entering service in about 2010. For detailed information on each of the competitors, see the Boeing X-32 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x32/) and Lockheed Martin X-35 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x35/) entries as well as the F-35 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/).

Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-35 Lightning II (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_02.jpg

X-32
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/%7Egpollock/The%20Advent,%20Evolution,%20and%20New%20Horizons%20of%20Uni ted%20States%20Stealth%20Aircraft_files/image068.jpg

MDD/NG/BAe entry
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/developmental%20aircraft/BAE_001.jpg

MrDave

16th Oct 2008, 01:42

Maybe this is because I do not know that much about the user side of aircraft but i'm going to point out one thing that struck me but im sure it has been said before.

"Theres no fighters that have been made into carrierborne fighters" and "rafale and E/FA-18C/D/E and Dave are the only carrierborne fighters"

-Both Mig 29K and Sukhoi 27K/33 were designed as land based aircraft then converted for Naval use.

By using a ski-jump for Typhoon (such as is able to be built into the new carriers) it does not need to be stressed for catapult launches. I really dont know if Typhoon is/could be powerful enough to launch like this but im guessing its more likely to be do-able than not (possibly bigger wing area?)

. The big difficulty then is to get the aircraft back on deck and it probably isnt as big a job to get the airframe strengthened for the arrested landing than for arrested landing and catapult takeoff. Strengthened gear is heavy as well so even less payload , and I really dont know if it can be done. (Getting the aircraft to the point where the hook is to be used is a different story, though more wing area and a lower stalling speed wouldn't hurt)

OK big downside is that there needs to be air-to-air refuelling before the aircraft can have any sort of range with payload so it is a non starter but it is a different way to look at the problem other than saying cat launches wont work.

A400 is needed as soon as is possible and in my opinion it is too important to be cancelled, will be late but will prove to be pretty decent in the long run.

PPRuNeUser0211

16th Oct 2008, 09:40

MrDave...

Su-27 and Mig-29, whilst they do indeed get airborne from carriers, and doubtless are very feisty once they have, can also carry about as useful payload as a small flying fish in the process. Typhoon likewise would doubtless be able to get airborne from a carrier with a ski ramp, but a useful long range A-G payload sans catapult? Hmm.... as you say, only solution is to have AAR, which for UK PLC is going to mean buddy-buddy if you want a reliable form of carrier AAR, as the VC-10/Tristar/A-330 PFI are not always going to be avail. Buddy buddy means half the useful sortie rate, which is not ideal!

As for landing back on, it's not just as simple as re-jigging the gear to make it strong enough. Either you strengthen the whole airframe, or your fatigue life of the jet has just been hugely shortened.Even more so if you actually want to land back on with anything hanging under the wings.

LowObservable

16th Oct 2008, 14:05

Which raises the interesting question of how much one would have to mod the 'phoon in order to equal the stellar payoad/range performance of Dave B - 470 nm radius (high alt out, drop to LGB designation alt, high alt back) with 2 x 1000 lb bombs and two AMRAAMs? My guess (it's only that) is that the 'phoon could do that on internal fuel, and could readily do a STO at that weight.

So in one sense the response to the "nobody's ever modded a land-based fighter into a Navy fighter" is "well, Navy fighters aren't so hot either". In fact, if you look coldly at the Rhino, Dave B and their landbased contemporaries, you realize that the US Navy has allowed the performance gap between Navy and land-based fighters to widen to its greatest proportions since the days when the F4F Wildcat and the F2A Buffalo were the contemporaries of the Spitfire and Me109.

Another response is "nobody's tried since 1950". One thng we have learned since then is computer aided design, which actually makes it easier to build extra strength into the airframe without driving the weight through the roof or redesigning every part. We are also within spitting distance of routine carrier autoland.

Arrest is an issue... but if you look at the 'phoon it has a lower wing loading than the Rhino. The problem is that the delta likes to be more nose-up to get a higher CL and can't carry the Rhino's enormous flaps... but then, if a CEO can fly his Gulfstream into Jackson Hole on a filthy night using infrared, you'd think a steely-eyed fighter jock could do the same.

SeaPhoon? Risky, yes. Expensive, yes. More so than nine mission-critical doors and a 20-some MW clutch, driveshaft and bevel gears?

wz662

16th Oct 2008, 20:57

A recent browse of the jobs advertised on Budgie News's web site revealed a German firm looking for engineers to work on the 'Conceptual' design of the cargo floor and aerial delivery system for the A400M. Isn't it a bit late in the day to be working on a concept for what should be the heart of a Tactical Transport Aircraft.
What's the prototype got as a floor then?

moosemaster

17th Oct 2008, 05:52

Don't forgot, no prototype is ever intended to actually do the job. They are flying test-beds full of clever geekery to measure everything so that future frames can be perfected. I suspect the prototype has a floor that is not stressed for load carrying but is used solely for test equipment and will never see a landrover or pallet.

The floor really isn't the problem though. Unless the engines are sorted out, it doesn't matter what payload you've got on board :ugh::ugh:

John Farley

17th Oct 2008, 10:05

Interesting how the same words can mean different things to different people

I took 'Conceptual design of the cargo floor and aerial delivery system for the A400M' as relating to the detail design of the fittings associated with different loads, tie downs, delivery systems even powered loading systems ie the whole load handling package

wz662

18th Oct 2008, 20:18

I know for a fact that the A400M has already had at last two designs of cargo handling system (WZ662 is admiting to being involved with the project) and the prototypes have been built to accept one of them, hence my horror at the word conceptual in a job advert only posted this week. My fear is that things have changed yet again. :mad:

ORAC

23rd Oct 2008, 15:13

Defense-Aerospace.Com's Press Releases, 17 Oct 2008...

Norwegian Industry Wants Sweden's Gripen Jets- Report
(Source: Nordic News Digest; issued Oct. 16, 2008)

The best decision for the Norwegian industry would be the purchase of Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets and not US F-35 Lightning II, a common report by two industry organisations and a labour union showed on Wednesday.

The Norwegian Defence and Security Industries Association (FSi), trade union Landsorganisasjonen (LO) and Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO), with a total one million members, recommended in the report the authorities to invest in 48 new JAS 39 Gripen jets instead of in US F-35 Lightning II, know as Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), made by Lockheed Martin Corp. Gripen is manufactured by Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab AB.

Gripen is the best alternative from the industrial perspective, FSi administrative director Torbjorn Svensgard told Norwegian daily Dagsavisen today.

Gripen has already identified much more projects in Norway, to take part in, compared with JSF, and these projects are spread across the whole country. A JSF choice will have negative consequences for the expansion and further development of the Norwegian defence industry, according to the report.

If Norway chooses Gripen, this will enable large production, as well as research and development, and more work places, FSi said.

Although the report is important, the LO union has not taken a final position in the discussion yet, LO's leader Roar Flathen said.

Norway's government is due to make a decision about the fighters before Christmas.

LowObservable

23rd Oct 2008, 15:49

Once there was a silly old ram
Thought he'd butt a hole in a dam...

Wouldn't have expected this a couple years ago, would you?

moosemaster

24th Oct 2008, 07:08

wz662.

You must be a bit ahead of me in the information chain (also admits to A400M involvement, although thankfully not linked to designing the beast)

We must compare notes some time.:ok:

Truckkie

24th Oct 2008, 07:37

So are we looking good for the hotly rumoured 12/24 month delay to delivery of the A400M then?

Has Snoopy actually flown any of the 50 hour engine flight test schedule?

Does it have ESF/Fuel Tank inerting and the latest DAS for all 25 airframes?

Does it have a usable cargo floor?

Have we sorted out para and air despatch/re-supply yet?

41 months until the last remaining C130K's are retired and counting:{

airsound

24th Oct 2008, 13:36

Truckkie, you ask about A-400M
Does it have ESF/Fuel Tank inerting and the latest DAS for all 25 airframes?
If it's any help the DEC (Director of Equipment Capability) who covered the A-400M from Apr 2005 to Apr 2008, Brig Hamish McNinch, gave evidence on oath about this at the Hercules Inquest.

He confirmed that the RAF will have 25 A-400Ms (and 24 C-130Js and 6 C-17s), and the coroner asked him
Will all those aircraft be fitted with some form of fuel tank protection?
The Brigadier answered unequivocally, "yes".

However, earlier he had said that the funding had not yet been made available for the whole OBIGGS fit for the A-400M. They had instead funded fitting the pipework, with a view to using the 'Pro-Fit' system which he said can be fitted as required in a matter of hours.

The question of DAS did not come up directly in this part of the Inquest, but the scuttlebutt has it that fewer than half of the 25 aircraft have had funding approved for DAS.

airsound

TiffyFGR4

26th Oct 2008, 01:24

Only ‘cretins’ jeer forces, says John Hutton - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5014727.ece)

Hutton is surprisingly frank about the shortage of money, making it clear he plans to axe one or more big procurement projects.

He won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk. Some other big projects, however, such as the Eurofighter and the Astute submarine, are just too costly – both politically and financially – to abandon at this stage.

“There’s precious little point in cancelling a contract if it ends up costing more as a result. I’d rather have the kit than the liability,” Hutton says.

aw ditor

26th Oct 2008, 08:22

If you cancel JSF what are you going to put on the two bl--dy great Carriers?

mick2088

26th Oct 2008, 09:39

"[Hutton] won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk."

Can someone tell me what is an insider? Surely an insider with direct access to these programmes or procurement decisions at ministerial level would not "believe", they would know. Sounds to me like a journalist guessing by looking around at various programmes that could be cancelled/reduced (following on from previous Times' articles on cancellation/reductions of Eurofighter tranche three and the cancellation of Future Lynx) knowing that some cuts are inevitable somewhere.

Mick Smith

26th Oct 2008, 11:49

When did the Times ever predict the death of Tranche 3 and how would that save any money? It wouldnt. Try to forget JSF, you arent going to get it.

mick2088

26th Oct 2008, 13:23

Well you can start with an article from 2007 entitled MoD seeks a way out of Typhoon contract - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2441602.ece) which directly mentioned cancellation and reduction adding to other speculation like the cancellation of the Future Lynx.

As for saying the UK won't get the JSF, on what basis? The original Times article that this new one draws on actually mentioned consideration, pretty much like most of the major projects are undergoing at the moment. No JSFs for the UK? Tell that to the JSF Programme Office and the companies working on it and have been working on the thing so it can operate on board the CVFs. Because they still think they are.

Mick Smith

26th Oct 2008, 19:48

Well I guess I made a rod for my own back there by allowing your original mistake in talking loosely about the Times. The two JSF refs are from the Sunday Times which shares a website but is completely different from the Times, and that article in the Times - rather than the Sunday Times - was by a business correspondent who didnt bother mentioning that unless all the main countries agree to a reduction they are all bound to pay for every aircraft they originally ordered whether or not they want them. Oddly, given the lock-in was designed by us to keep them in the deal, while slapping them about the head repeatedly for daring to think twice, the Germans seem very reluctant to let us off the hook on that one.

Whether or not the guys on the ground know anything, JSF is for the chop. The defence chiefs persuaded Des to take a plan to chop it to Gordon and he turned it down flat because he didnt want any public defence cuts. Hutton has obviously taken the job on the basis that the whole business side of the MoD needs sorting and has clearly persuaded Gordon to bite the bullet. Hutton was very clear, one or more big procurement projects will have to go. That is finally someone in government or at the top of the MoD actually admitting that there is just a small cash problem.

Hutton is surprisingly frank about the shortage of money, making it clear he plans to axe one or more big procurement projects.

“We’ve got to make ends meet,” he says. He admits this means “some changes on the procurement side”.

He won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk. Some other big projects, however, such as the Eurofighter and the Astute submarine, are just too costly – both politically and financially – to abandon at this stage.

“There’s precious little point in cancelling a contract if it ends up costing more as a result. I’d rather have the kit than the liability,” Hutton says.

It can't be Typhoon because of the lock-in deal. It won't be the carriers themselves because that would mean major loss of face not to mention major loss of jobs in Gordon's constituency. It can't be the T45s, we are just too far down the line on those. Future Lynx is an option but that would put Westlands down the tubes, the Italians would pull out straight away and Labour constituencies in the south-west would be effected, and anyway we have a dire shortage of helicopters. It can't be Astute because we are too far down the line there and anyway we need the seven attack subs and the four nuclear subs to keep the UK submarine industry going. Given that Hutton is MP for Barrow, I dont really see messing that up as an option. You could argue that all the latest armoured vehicles the army has make FRES irrelevant but we still need new armoured reconnaissance vehicles, Scimitar is dead on its feet. The A400 is a distinct possibility - cancelling it will be cheap - but won't on its own save enough money.

JSF on the other had just got 25 per cent more expensive thanks to the financial crash, working out how much that extra cost will be is an interesting one given that the dollar price is going up month on month and no-one at Lockheed can tell you how much it will actually cost when it is finally built, and there's that little matter of those numbskulls on the hill who think we Brits are dangerous lefties who cant be trusted with the technical secrets of an aircraft we're supposed to be building together.

Then add in BAE Systems being asked to work out whether some of our Eurofighters can't be marinised and surprise, surprise coming up with the bullish answer: "Oh yes". I'm afraid it doesnt really matter what the sceptics on pprune think, or indeed how much more experience and know-how they have in landing on carriers than anyone making a decision. This is only going to go one way.

As I said, forget JSF, it's already gone.

GreenKnight121

26th Oct 2008, 20:20

Hutton has just been on 'The Politics Show' and when pushed asked with an unequivocal yes to the question would CVF be built.

In addition he gave the impression that at least part of the JSF order was safe stating that carriers without aircraft would be pointless. And here's the link to the politics show, interview on the BBC website:BBC NEWS | Programmes | Politics Show | Hutton: We could be there for decades (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7680732.stm).

Tourist

26th Oct 2008, 20:22

Interesting and well put points Mick, however buying carriers and nothing to put on them will also lose a lot of face, and this marinised Typhoon rubbish would also cost a fortune and probably fail.
F18 anyone?

mick2088

26th Oct 2008, 22:53

Well, I remain sceptical that the UK will abandon the JSF and won't hold my breath for such an announcement saying as much to emerge. Buying alternative Super Hornets, Rafales or navalising Typhoons is still going to cost money. A reduction in the numbers of the planned procurement of 138 F-35Bs sounds more realistic depending on what Lockheed Martin eventually charges complete with support costs, etc and how the current financial crisis pans out. As Hutton acknowledges, it would be pointless building the carriers with no aircraft to operate off them after the Harrier is retired.

As for tranche three Typhoon, it appears that contract will be split into two batches with one ordered in 2009 and the remainder at a later date, according to recent interviews in the specialist aviation media with Eurofighter's Aloysius Rauen.

hulahoop7

27th Oct 2008, 10:05

...but you'll note that he restricted his answer on the politics show. He said that the carriers would be equiped with 'capable aircraft' - and didn't specifically name JSF. There was also a lot of 'eyes left' when he was given those questions. A body language person might suggest that he was hitting a grey area at that point.

.. and the horrendous maths that some might be doing:

tranche 3 - circa £9bn
JSF - £9 - 12bn
Total £20bn

Marinised tranche 3 circa £14bn = £6bn saved.

Truckkie

27th Oct 2008, 10:08

So if the 25 A400Ms are cancelled what will fill the AT shortfall?

The remaining C130Ks will just about last until 2012, the C130Js are racking up fatigue life with outer wing replacements already talked about in 2012 for the fleet leaders.

Which platform will take over the DSF commitment - the C130J programme is only designed as a interim measure until the future SF (A400M?) platform!

Have we not realised that AT is a priority? Lessons learned from 7 of years operations?

We will always need AT, both strategic and tactical as force projectors and multipliers - cancelling A400M would be a stupid move that will leave UK PLC poorly placed for ongoing and future operations.

XV277

27th Oct 2008, 10:54

Hulahoop7,

Super Hornet is a capable aircraft......

moosemaster

27th Oct 2008, 11:22

Truckkie,

As far as I know, there's nothing to fill the role, hence the A400M was born in the first place.

I believe LM are looking into a fatter-albert, but that is even further away than the A400M is.

C17 is a good strat AT, but too big for the smaller partner nations who only ordered 1 or 2 aircraft. ~(South Africa, Belgium etc), also not suited to the majority of Euro tac work due to its size.

I agree it would be daft to cancel it, but then again, since when has anyone in power listened to the coalface.

If anyone can remember the start of the C17 project, that was nealry cancelled a few times, and only after massive investment did it work.

Hopefully the partners involved here will bite the bullet and finish what was started.

ORAC

27th Oct 2008, 12:21

That's before you take into account that a couple of months ago £1 got you $2. Now it's down to just over $1.52 and the forecast is below $1.40.

That's means the original £9B,reputedly now up to around £15B, will turn into £12B-£20B.

Tourist

27th Oct 2008, 12:24

Jetex Jim

27th Oct 2008, 12:33

Surely a lot, if not all, of that is offset by the fact that we are one of the manufacturers, and thus get paid in dollars also?
We are buying very few, and yet are getting a substantial part of the build.

Sounds good, if you could guarantee the BAE portion of the JSF build was done in UK. But BAE have extensive facilities in the USA, (Wiki):

BAE now sells more to the US Department of Defense (DOD) than the UK MOD.[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems#cite_note-81) The company has been allowed to buy important defence contractors in the US, however its status as a UK company requires that its US subsidiaries are governed by American executives under Special Security Arrangements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Security_Arrangement). BAE Systems faces less impediments in this sense than its European counterparts, as there is a high degree of integration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship_(US-UK)) between the US and UK defence establishments. BAE's purchase of Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Aerospace_Electronic_Systems) in November 2000 was described by John Hamre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hamre), CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies) and former Deputy Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Secretary_of_Defense), as "precedent setting" given the advanced and classified nature of many of that company's products.[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems#cite_note-82)

TiffyFGR4

31st Oct 2008, 15:46

Analysis: Reducing F-35 purchase could save UK up to USD5.8bn - Jane's Defence Business News (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/business/jdi/jdi081031_1_n.shtml)

LeCrazyFrog

31st Oct 2008, 16:21

Quite agree with Mick Smith's post: of all the options, considering there ARE going to be cuts, JSF is the most plausible: way too man unknowns, way too expensive, and the only program hich can be efficiently replaced. But with what?
- Forget about Typhoon. No matter how fantastically superior it is to everybody else. It is not possible to navalise it and it will not be: airframe strength, nosewheel under the intakes, no deck visibility due to the canards, high approach speed, low payload,etc.... Tried it with the Jaguar, binned it, tried it with the Mirage 2000, binned it, it required 80% of modifications on the acft.

Only sensible option is to grind the ski jump and put some F/A-18 (they will be damn old by 2015) or Rafales. I understand RN would rather chew their own hats rather than buying Rafales and re-learning to cat&trap 30 years after Ark Royal (the real one), however it makes sense...:ugh:

Tyres O'Flaherty

31st Oct 2008, 16:45

this is an interesting sentence;

A REDUCTION in the number of F-35s procured to as few as 85 aircraft would allow the RAF to maintain its current fast jet combat aircraft inventory levels WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING the capability and flexibility of the force.

Anyone explain to me how that would work ?

Or am I thick

Ronald Reagan

1st Nov 2008, 09:56

Guys I think the Hornet is a good aircraft. But what with Europe getting closer together and also the fact our carriers and those of the French Navy wil be very much the same as I understand it there should be only one logical aircraft:- The Rafale!
If we buy American there always seem to be so many strings attached to what we can and cannot do with the plane!
Plus the Royal Navy could have its own Rafale fleet the RAF can have its Typhoons end of story. No longer will RAF pilots have to spend time at sea. How many Rafales would we need? About 100 maybe? Atlast we will have a proper Navy with real planes and real carriers! We could even then buy Hawkeye from the Americans.

icarus sun

1st Nov 2008, 10:20

To save money the best thing would be to cancel the carriers. Keep typhoon and jsf. No more c17 ,buy B747 freighters/combi can carry 100 tons direct to most current operational areas.

LeCrazyFrog

1st Nov 2008, 10:48

I can see the old "ships-are-useless-because-with-our-mighty-planes-we-can-go-anywhere" rant coming on...

100 tons per aircraft i hear, so how many of those will you need to carry 40 JSF (20 odd tons each) plus a couple of AEW (I'm talking E2C, not the old bag), plus weapons, plus the engineers, plus supplies, plus beds and food for the whole lot....? I would say at least... one carrier...

Not to mention that before landing somewhere, you need the clearance, etc...Want an example? air force started working in a'stan 4 months after carriers were already launching strikes.

Truckkie

1st Nov 2008, 13:41

4 months after carrier ops..........

Not entirely true for all Air Force assets:ok:

And who says you need clearance?

indie cent

4th Nov 2008, 19:06

Flight Global has just published latest A400M slippages.

Cue the Big Top music: "Rit dit diddle diddle...etc"

EADS slows down A400M production due to engine flight-test delays (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/04/318372/eads-slows-down-a400m-production-due-to-engine-flight-test.html)

On a serious note, is our AT requirement not heavily or utterly relient on this platform? I hear the J needs rewinged in circa 2012 and is knocking up an eyewatering FI. The Tristar is having the guts ripped out of it's cockpit imminently. Are we at risk of a dreadful shortfall of airlift for the guys who so desperately need it in theatre?

hulahoop7

4th Nov 2008, 19:13

We MUST get more C17s. No question. Perhaps 10 all together?

Truckkie

4th Nov 2008, 20:14

On a serious note, is our AT requirement not heavily or utterly relient on this platform? I hear the J needs rewinged in circa 2012 and is knocking up an eyewatering FI. The Tristar is having the guts ripped out of it's cockpit imminently. Are we at risk of a dreadful shortfall of airlift for the guys who so desperately need it in theatre?

That's about right:-

12 very tired C130Ks reduce to 9 next year - just enough to maintain support to DSF and UK standbys. OSD 2012
C130Js racking up FI - first outer wing due replacing on fleet leaders in 2012. SF upgrade programme due to start 2010 through to 2012/13 - removing line airframes for modernisation.
Tristars OSD now 2014 - cockipit/avionic upgrades and fuel system overhaul permitting - cue Marshalls delays:mad:
VC10 - very, very tired.
C17 - brilliant but not enough airframes or crews - full fleet not operating until 2011/2012
A400M - original ISD 2010/2011 now slipping right at a vast rate of knots.
FSTA - 2009/10 - are you having a laugh?

2012 is being called the 'perfect storm' in the AT world when the airframe situation becomes critical.

Couple this with the move of Lyneham to Brize and the upheaval of the infastructure of the entire C130 fleet plus the continuing demands of operations and something called the Olympics!!

We will not have enough AT to support current ops, never mind anything else:mad:

StopStart

5th Nov 2008, 02:16

Whilst the Herc fleet is getting tired and is overused I still think a lot more could be done to ensure longevity of both fleets.

That said, for the type of ops we're involved in we should buying a bunch of these fellas:
http://www.finmeccanica.it/IT/Common/images/prodotti/aeronautica/C-27J.jpg

12T payload, 60 odd troops, bags of performance. So obvious it hurts :ugh:

BEagle

5th Nov 2008, 07:07

Unfortunately the folk at Cambridge airport...sorry, 'Marshall Airport Cambridge UK' :hmm: (aka Arfur Daley International) have yet to get Snoopy airborne with the TP400 running.....

See EADS slows down A400M production due to engine flight-test delays (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/04/318372/eads-slows-down-a400m-production-due-to-engine-flight-test-delays.html) for more information. about the latest A400M production delays.

No further news has been posted on the official Airbus Military website since 26 Jun 2008.......

Only trouble with buying the C-27 would be the number of crews needed to support a sensible number of aircraft - and your beancounters have emasculated the RAF training machine to such an extent that a surge increase in the number of trained pilots in the RAF is now impossible to achieve.........

Truckkie

5th Nov 2008, 07:40

C130M anyone??????

aviate1138

5th Nov 2008, 07:41

Slight thread creep but buy X-Plane [$39.00] and download this.........

And away we go.......

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture4-3.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture6-1.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture8-1.jpg

And this is about as far as anyone actually providing an interim solution to a pressing problem will act. :rolleyes:

ORAC

5th Nov 2008, 08:11

Janes: Funding may delay UK's first JSF purchase (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw081104_1_n.shtml)
By Tim Ripley
4 November 2008

UK procurement officials are considering options to push back the first purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, amid growing speculation that funding shortfalls are threatening UK participation in the programme.

Jane's has learnt that UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials have raised the possibility of not buying three low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft over the next two years at a cost of some GBP450 million (USD742 million) and delaying purchases until production-standard aircraft are available in the middle of the next decade. A decision not to acquire LRIP JSFs was recently taken by Italy, Lockheed Martin announced on 10 October.

The ministry's highest procurement planning group, the Investment Appraisals Board (IAD), is due to make recommendations on the LRIP JSF purchase at its January meeting. However, some ministry sources suggest a delay might be used as a mechanism to save UK participation in the US-led programme by pushing back the JSF spending 'bow wave' until well into the next decade, easing the ministry's 'funding gap' in the near term.

The UK MoD was not able to respond to Jane's ahead of publication.

jindabyne

5th Nov 2008, 08:21

Aah! The 'bow wave' and 'funding gap' - of course.'

BEagle

5th Nov 2008, 08:38

pushing back the JSF spending 'bow wave' until well into the next decade, easing the ministry's 'funding gap' in the near term.

I'm surprised they didn't say '2011-12'. That seems to be the magic time when everything else is supposed to happen - Nimrod MRA4, FSTA, A400M, Project CATARA, BELVEDERE......and the lunacy of MFTS.

Truckkie

5th Nov 2008, 10:40

As I said before Beags - 2012 will be the perfect storm!!!!!

mick2088

5th Nov 2008, 16:59

At least the JSF mock-up deployed onboard HMS Illustrious this weekend hasn't been cancelled!

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | History and Honour | 'Lusty' visits London for Remembrance events (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/lustyVisitsLondonForRemembranceEvents.htm)

StopStart

5th Nov 2008, 19:43

C130M anyone?????? stobbit! I laughed so hard a little bit of wee came out!

Ultimately there's no money for anything so me advocating C27J or Trukkie the C130M is all just utter pie in the sky anyway.

Seldomfitforpurpose

5th Nov 2008, 20:17

"At least the JSF mock-up deployed onboard HMS Illustrious this weekend hasn't been cancelled!"

I remember going to Farnborough many many years ago and seeing the FLA mock up...........................not much has changed I see :rolleyes:

ORAC

6th Nov 2008, 07:02

Germany sees A400M first flight delay of over 12 mths (http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSBAT00248520081105)

BERLIN, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Germany's Defence Ministry said on Wednesday it expects a delay of over 12 months to the first flight of European aerospace group EADS's A400M military transporter.

A spokesman for the ministry said until now it had expected a delay of around 12 months. "We have to expect that it will take longer," he said at a government news conference.

EADS plans to slow down production of the transporter as it battles a series of issues linked to the project and in September it postponed its first flight due to a row over engine development. No new date has been set.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Airbus to slow work on A400M (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23ae6dc8-aadc-11dd-897c-000077b07658.html)

Airbus has decided to slow work on its troubled A400M military transport aircraft programme in an effort to avoid a repetition of the debacle surrounding its A380 superjumbo project where the pace of production was kept up in spite of severe industrial problems.

“We are not suspending our production, just slowing it down,” Airbus said. “We will set out a new calendar when we have all the elements.”...........

chuks

6th Nov 2008, 10:03

I read somewhere, recently, that Airbus has figured out that they definitely should lose money on each A400M made. I wonder if this has something to do with de-prioritising it?

Tim McLelland

6th Nov 2008, 18:49

... and so another nail in the F-35's coffin is firmly bashed-in...

Analysis: Reducing F-35 purchase could save UK up to USD5.8bn - Jane's Air Forces News (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdi/jdi081031_1_n.shtml)

JFZ90

6th Nov 2008, 19:15

Apologies if this is hidden in the last 11 pages of discussion, but how many STOVL JSFs in total are on order today from UK and USMC?

Would a reduced UK buy affect the viability of the STOVL production programme? I.e. Is this just a, say -5/10% cut overall which makes the overall unit production cost more but is not particularly threatening, or is it a -30/40% cut which could make the overall economics more debateble?

ORAC

6th Nov 2008, 21:29

AW&ST (abridged):

....The USAF final report on the environmental impact of locating the JSF initial joint flight training site at Eglin AFB in Florida, released in October, concluded that there will be an unavoidable noise impact from the number and tpe of aircraft when Eglin transitions to the F-35.....

Annual airfield operations at Eglin would increase from 29,000 for F-15 training to almost 240,000 for the F-35 at Eglin and two satellite airfields...

a military-power takeoff is about twice as loud - 9dB higher - for an F-35 compared with an F-15. estimated sound exposure level 1000ft away is 121dB, for the F-35A and 112dB for the F-15C, on approach it is 108dB for the F-35A and 89dB for the F-15C........

LFFC

7th Nov 2008, 02:13

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01109/jet460_1109012c.jpg

The Telegraph - 6 Nov 08

The new RN plan to save money raises eyebrows during trials (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3393630/Replica-fighter-jet-that-travels-at-5mph.html)!

:ok:

Modern Elmo

8th Nov 2008, 19:01

US Army wants a four engine tiltrotor about the size of an A400, big enough to carry a Stryker vehicle inside -- and maybe hover too, please.

USAF wants an etreme STOL fixed wing transport of about the same size, takeoff and landing roll to be no more than 500 ft. and a steep climbout barrier clearance spec.

Service Squabble Holds Up JFTL Concept
Nov 6, 2008
By Bettina H. Chavanne

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. – Ongoing arguments between the U.S. Air Force and Army over the value of mounted vertical maneuver are putting the brakes on the Joint Future Theater Lift Concept (JFTL), delaying the initial capabilities document (ICD) for a year and endangering budget planning.
“Efforts are still ongoing to create a single ICD for JROC [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] approval,” according to Bruce Tenney, associate director for technology at the Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD). “The latest version is not likely to achieve resolution,” he said, calling progress on the JFTL ICD “abysmal.” Tenney said the argument is due to “fundamental differences between land components and the Air Force on the importance of austere, unimproved access” to the battlefield.
The focus is now on approving the ICD in spring 2009, with an analysis of alternatives following in time to inform the service’s Program Objective Memorandum 2012-2017 budget decision. “All future timelines are dependent on completion of approval of the JTFL ICD,” Tenney said.
Tenney, a proponent of vertical lift, said the airlift community does not see itself operating in the manner to which the Army is accustomed. “Why do we care about vertical? It’s all about access,” he said. “It’s the ability to put yourself where you want to be when you want to be there.”
Tenney spoke to an industry and military group last week at the Army Aviation Association of America’s (Quad A) 13th Helicopter Military Operations Technology Specialists’ Meeting, or Helmot.
...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/JFTL110608.xml&headline=Service%20Squabble%20Holds%20Up%20JFTL%20Concept (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/JFTL110608.xml&headline=Service%20Squabble%20Holds%20Up%20JFTL%20Concept)
Image: Bell Boeing

ORAC

17th Nov 2008, 15:17

Air Force Times: JSF breaks sound barrier for first time
Sunday Nov 16, 2008 8:56:33 EST

The F-35 Lightning II broke the sound barrier for the first time during a test flight Thursday over northern Texas. The jet, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, accelerated to Mach 1.05, or about 680 miles per hour, builder Lockheed Martin said in Nov. 14 press release.

“The F-35 transitioned from subsonic to supersonic just as our engineers and our computer modeling had predicted,” said Jon Beesley, Lockheed Martin’s chief F-35 test pilot. Beesley said it was also a significant achievement for a test aircraft to fly supersonic for the first time with the weight of a full 5,400-pound internal load of inert weapons.

Beesley guided the jet to 30,000 feet and accelerated to Mach 1.05. The F-35 accomplished four transitions through the sound barrier, spending eight minutes in supersonic flight.

Future testing will expand the flight envelope to the aircraft’s top speed of Mach 1.6. The milestone was achieved on the 69th flight of F-35 aircraft AA-1.

Archimedes

17th Nov 2008, 20:00

Meanwhile, Sir Kevin admits that no money has been located down the back of any MoD sofas:
MoD orders spending clampdown - FT (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45b69bfe-b417-11dd-8e35-0000779fd18c.html)

indie cent

25th Nov 2008, 17:20

Bump...

...and latest news on the unproven turbo-prop that we are rather dependent upon.

Airbus: A400M flight debut could slip until second half of 2009 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/25/319320/airbus-a400m-flight-debut-could-slip-until-second-half-of.html)

Seldomfitforpurpose

25th Nov 2008, 17:32

Latest very strong rumour is that training for the initial cadre will not take place till mid 2010 AT THE VERY EARLIEST :(

Been There...

25th Nov 2008, 17:57

Just what CATARA needs....

rodneyn

25th Nov 2008, 19:59

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the merits of extending the life of the C-130K fleet; [237383]
(2) what assessment he has made of the merits of purchasing one or more additional C-17s; [237384]
(3) what his latest estimate is of the in-service date of the A400M aircraft. [237385]
Mr. Quentin Davies: It is planned that the Hercules C-130K fleet, the out of service date of which remains 2012, will be replaced by the A400M, that has a planned
24 Nov 2008 : Column 903W
in service date of 2011. However, following the recent announcement of delays by Airbus Military in the A400M programme, we are considering a number of options as a contingency to mitigate any potential capability gaps that may arise. Options we are considering include an extension to the life of the C-130K fleet and leasing or procurement of additional C-17 capacity. We are monitoring the situation closely and are pressing Airbus Military for further information so we can make a detailed assessment of the impact on A400M production deliveries and the planned in-service date.

Lyneham Lad

25th Nov 2008, 20:59

Further info and background here UK eyes more C-17s to cover A400M delay (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/25/319321/uk-eyes-more-c-17s-to-cover-a400m-delay.html)

Extracts (Flight International):-

The UK Ministry of Defence could lease or buy additional Boeing C-17 strategic transports due to uncertainties surrounding the delivery schedule for its planned fleet of 25 Airbus Military A400Ms.

A withdrawal from the A400M project does not appear to be among the options under consideration by the MoD. While the programme's seven European partners could reduce or cancel their orders in exchange for providing compensation to Airbus Military, Davies reveals that a contract clause means "all nations collaborating on the programme are obliged to hold their partners harmless from any associated impact." However, speaking to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 25 November, chief of defence materiel Gen Sir Kevin O'Donoghue said: "All of us need the capability, but we can't wait forever."

Separately, Davies confirms that all the UK's A400Ms will be equipped with a fuel tank inerting system, "with the exception of one development aircraft that will either be retrofitted at a later date, or if this proves impossible, excluded from use in areas of significant operational threat". The MoD has not revealed the cost of adding the safety equipment to its A400M production order.

AARON O'DICKYDIDO

25th Nov 2008, 22:18

;)

Quote:
Separately, Davies confirms that all the UK's A400Ms will be equipped with a fuel tank inerting system, "with the exception of one development aircraft that will either be retrofitted at a later date, or if this proves impossible, excluded from use in areas of significant operational threat". The MoD has not revealed the cost of adding the safety equipment to its A400M production order.

I thought we were getting 2 development aircraft !

moosemaster

26th Nov 2008, 05:14

He's not saying we aren't getting 2, just that 1 of them will not have the system fitted as standard.

Pontius Navigator

29th Nov 2008, 08:49

According to the Torygraph today the A400 will slip at least 18 months and we no what that means. Seems the 4 engines shiped to UK are for test purposes only.

So 2013 or later?

It went on to say they are looking at using A380 in the passenger role.

LFFC

10th Jan 2009, 08:27

FT - 10 Jan 09 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/498f5514-dedc-11dd-9464-000077b07658.html)

Airbus, and its parent EADS, admitted last night its A400M military transport aircraft programme was in disarray and it had approached European governments to try to renegotiate aspects of the €20bn programme.
.
.
EADS said last night it wanted to review the timing and technical characteristics of the A400M, as it admitted it was still unable to set a date for its first flight.

EADS subsidiary, Airbus Military, said it proposed resuming production of the aircraft only once it had reached "adequate maturity" based on flight test results. The company admitted that it was still working with the consortium of engine manufacturers to firm up a date for the first flight. Delivery of the aircraft would then take place around three years after the first flight.

EADS said it would only be able to "reliably determine all financial implications once a committed industrial plan, including the availability of systems, is fully stabilised" and once it knew the position of its launch customers to its proposal.

The news throws into disarray the proposed delivery schedule of the €20bn programme, Europe's largest military project, which has run into serious problems with growing delays and rising losses. The French air force had originally been due to receive the first delivery in October 2009.
EADS was forced in November last year to take an additional €341m charge for the latest delays. It warned at the time it was still unable to produce a reliable delivery schedule and said it would face further charges for the loss-making, fixed-price contract.

It took an initial €1.37bn charge a year ago. EADS has blamed the delays on problems with the propulsion system for the aircraft, specifically the engine control software

Guzlin Adnams

10th Jan 2009, 11:02

Boeing must be thinking it's Christmas again, as will Lockheed Martin.
So more C17's anyone?:ok:

taffman

10th Jan 2009, 18:46

First delivery 2012 if all goes well :hmm:

GreenKnight121

11th Jan 2009, 00:48

FT.com / Companies / Aerospace & Defence - EADS to merge military transport into Airbus (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d83d172e-cbb3-11dd-ba02-000077b07658.html)
EADS to merge military transport into Airbus

By Kevin Done andSylvia Pfeifer in London
Published: December 16 2008 22:21 | Last updated: December 16 2008 22:21

EADS (http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=fr:EAD) is reorganising its military transport aircraft operations by integrating the Spain-based business into Airbus, its commercial aircraft division.

The restructuring is one of the most important industrial moves to rationalise EADS since the Franco-German group overcame its complex corporate governance challenges last year and abandoned the complicated system of having joint French and German chairmen and chief executives.

The group is also planning closer co-ordination of its space and defence and security divisions under the leadership of François Auque, chief executive of the EADS Astrium space business. The separate military transport aircraft division was established from the outset when EADS was created in 2000 through a merger of large parts of the French, German and Spanish aerospace and defence industries. The division was based in Spain partly to satisfy national sensibilities among the three shareholder nations, where French and German interests have dominated and have often been in conflict. The Spanish state still holds a 5.5 per cent stake in EADS.

The separate organisations led to complicated reporting structures and responsibilities, however, as the EADS group worked to develop military derivatives of Airbus commercial aircraft and in particular to develop the A400M military transport aircraft.

The A400M programme has run into serious problems with growing delays and rising losses and the reorganisation announced yesterday has been made more urgent by the need to regain control of the project.

EADS was forced last month to take an additional €341m ($471m) charge for the latest delays. It warned it was still unable to produce a reliable delivery schedule and said it would face further charges for the loss-making, fixed price contract. It took an initial €1.37bn charge a year ago.

EADS has blamed the delays on problems with the propulsion system for the aircraft, specifically the engine control software. First delivery to the French air force was originally scheduled for October 2009 and the first flight was due to have taken place in the summer of this year, but there is currently no date for the start of the flight test programme.

Until yesterday overall programme responsibility for the A400M lay with the military transport aircraft division in Spain along with responsibility for production including the final assembly plant in Seville. Development of the aircraft has been undertaken by Airbus in Toulouse. As a result of yesterday’s shake-up, the Spain-based division will be integrated into Airbus under the name of Airbus Military.

Carlos Suarez, hitherto head of the division, will remain a member of the EADS executive committee and become a member of the Airbus executive committee reporting to Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive. The reorganisation strengthens the position of Mr Enders at the head of Airbus and underlines his claim to become the next chief executive of EADS.

Copyright (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright) The Financial Times Limited 2008

John Blakeley

11th Jan 2009, 09:04

I am not sure if this has been picked up before - if so apologies. This is an extract from an article by Richard Gardner in January's "Aerospace International" the Royal Aeronautical Society's journal.

Aerospace International has learned from a government Parliamentary reply that it does not intend to fit out any A400Ms as air tankers, even though the RAF will in future only have nine dedicated A330 tankers in its FSTA fleet. More alarming, however, is the confirmation that the RAF's A400Ms will not be fitted with flight refuelling probes. In view of the need for the RAF to retain a quick-reaction global capability, this decision seems quite extraordinary as it could add an unnecessary restriction to operations. For example, if required to carry a maximum weight payload over a long distance, as quickly and safely as possible, the A400Ms will not be able to top up their tanks after take-off, or en route. And, if required, to make an extended overwater flight, such as over the South Atlantic, they will no longer benefit from the comfort factor of knowing that if there is a weather or technical problem they can rely on an air refuelling to stay airborne long enough to make a safe landfall. Diversion to a mainland airport may not always be an option. Is this another case of 'capability hibernation'? When questions are asked as to why the new A330 tankers or Sentinel radar aircraft won't have probes either, the official reply is that they simply aren't needed. There will be provision for probes on the A400M which could, of course, be added later, but modification, operational clearance and crew training takes time which might be in short supply in a real emergency, so why not fit this relatively inexpensive item at the outset? The added value and operational flexibility that comes from IFR capability was unchallenged not so long ago, yet future tanking capability is going to be on a greatly reduced scale, despite some new platform aircraft arriving. Is UK defence underfunding now so dire it has become a case of selecting defensive aids or probes, but not both? Even though the UK will most likely be the major user of the A400M in global operations the RAF's 25 aircraft may be the only ones not to have the use of IFR probes as a standard fit. One must hope that at least a few probes will be purchased to meet unexpected future contingencies as there are no longer any spare Vulcan probes in MoD's storage shed!

JB

XV277

11th Jan 2009, 11:57

[I]Aerospace International has learned from a government Parliamentary reply that it does not intend to fit out any A400Ms as air tankers, even though the RAF will in future only have nine dedicated A330 tankers in its FSTA fleet.

Anyone in the know comment on the rumour that this is because the terms of the FSTA contract require that the A330s are the ONLY tankers available in the RAF?

tucumseh

11th Jan 2009, 13:20

Just this once

Couldn’t agree more. Your experience when you spoke up is common. I recall our 2 Star saying in the late 90s “I’ve just spoken to (1 Star) and he tells me RMPA is on target”. A Sqn Ldr replied “Oh, so he didn’t mention the 4 year slip?” The 2* was begonged, the 1* promoted and the Sqn Ldr shipped out. Mind you, perhaps the 2* thought 4 years was nothing, given he also thought his Chinook Mk3 was fine and dandy, having ignored the warnings on that as well. Funnily enough, 4 years became 10 on both programmes, so at least he was consistent.

I twitch when I see something like this written……..

One must hope that at least a few probes will be purchased to meet unexpected future contingencies as there are no longer any spare Vulcan probes in MoD's storage shed!

The BCs read this stuff and think buying a few spares equates to capability, as if all one has to do is bolt them on and, hey presto, you have IFR. I know the author clearly understands the issues, and it is just for effect, but most in MoD don’t understand.

Green Flash

11th Jan 2009, 13:29

Re extra C-17 capacity to cover the 400 delay, will UK have access to the 2 NAMA frames?

LFFC

11th Jan 2009, 14:26

RAF transport aircraft delay (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article5488920.ece)- Times Online, 11 Jan 09

The A400M, a four-engine turbo-prop, has been plagued by delays and cost overruns since its inception, but Friday’s announcement is a serious blow. EADS said it would not now deliver the first aircraft until three years after the maiden flight. No date has yet been set for this, but sources at Airbus say it should take place in September.

So even if the RAF gets the first production aircraft, it won't arrive until Sep 2012.

taffman

11th Jan 2009, 17:07

Will the RAF please stand in line with the others. Next!

Art Field

11th Jan 2009, 17:51

The lack of a initial provision of a probe for the A400M means that there is a strong chance that the Nimrod fiasco could recur again with desperate panic measures required to fit IFR equipment in the event of a sudden need. Whether that sudden need will arise is at least a fair chance as history has shown. Furthermore the Nimrod is undoubtedly restricted by the lack of IFR as will be the A330, losing flexibility in deployments and economy of fuel. The expense of providing refuelling capability is small in comparison with the overall programme cost but surely large in future operational effect.

BEagle

11th Jan 2009, 21:18

When the VC10K entered service, people were surprised at its lack of AT capability. It seemed daft that it could only 17-18 people in the back of the K2/3.....

It was then explained to us that, had the VC10K been a true AT/AAR aircraft, a number of C1s would have been sacrificed to defence cuts. So by keeping the 'K as a single role supposedly 'North Sea' tanker, 'they' were able to hang on to all the Cs.

John Blakeley

12th Jan 2009, 08:43

Equivocator,

As an engineer I am not qualified to comment on the operational necessity or otherwise of an AAR capability on the A400M; although I did see at first hand the vital role of the C130 fit for the Falklands War.

Are you able to confirm that the probes are being purchased for the A400M, and if so are MOD at least going to do the clearance trials to authorise the operational, installation and airworthiness clearances needed - or will the RAF be prepared to rely on the other nations' trials to provide an operational clearance and modification approval? No disrespect or spin intended but I venture to suggest that if this is not the case then as a very large organisation, with, I assume, an offshore Design Authority, EADS would not be able to react to a UK national UOR fit as quickly as Marshalls did on the C130 unless most of the preparatory work (and hence spend) has already been done. Alternatively, will there be a full "sister" DA capability in the UK - presumably with BAES?

Happy to be corrected.

JB

Art Field

12th Jan 2009, 09:51

Equivocator

I can imagine a scenario in the Middle or Far East where speedy deployment is required to protect our interests. It is a very unstable area and ground facilities can easily be denied. If the IFR is to be built in then surely it should be tested, maybe thought should be given to developing a retractable probe for large aircraft so that the crew is not kept awake by the probe noise (only joking but serious suggestion).

Do not take the Mail on Sunday.

Buzz Control

12th Jan 2009, 09:58

An entry to service date has been revised by Airbus Military and now includes a further two year delay. Further details here: A400M service-entry hit by further two-year delay (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/12/320918/a400m-service-entry-hit-by-further-two-year-delay.html) :\

South Bound

12th Jan 2009, 14:05

Interesting debate about the probes, but IMO we should worry ourselves more about other key capabilities first. Enough sets of DAS to start with, flight deck armour etc etc, all the role equipment we need to deploy the things would be nice.

IIRC, the common standard aircraft can be fitted with probes for refuelling. Assuming we have not paid extra to have the capability removed (such things have happened...), it should not be a huge faff to retro fit an AAR (receiver) capability. That of course depends upon availabiity of kit and then a trials programme that should only need to focus on the differences between the multi-national airworthiness regs and our own (as per the rest of the ac capabilities). There was no customer requirement for a refuelling capability, hence one has not been bought. If that subsequently changes (engine performance leading to reduced range, perchance?), then changing our minds should not be tricky, expensive, but not tricky.

When you buy to a budget, you can't have all the toys, you have to pick the most important ones. Roll on another couple of C-17s.

StopStart

12th Jan 2009, 14:41

I don't know that more C17s would fill the specific gaps our AT fleet faces. It's more Hercs we need - let's twist some ANG arms and get some of their Js off them. That would buy us at least at some breathing space; 2012 is coming fast and with CATARA :rolleyes:, the end of the K, J wing boxes, no A400M all happening around then, we find ourselves heading towards one rather magnificent brick wall at a phenomenal speed....

South Bound

12th Jan 2009, 15:13

Agreed, it is the Tac AT that is going to be the problem. Would love to be working in 2 Gp now working this out!

(Anyone know if CATARA is dead? - heard that it had been re-badged 'Future Brize'...)

Jig Peter

12th Jan 2009, 16:19

Whatever the "here & now" needs are, and possible future needs, there's a real nightmare scenario that nobody so far has raised .
The new US administration will (probably already is) be looking very hard at costs in every direction, and with so much "fiat money" (not the Italian Fiat) being poured into economies, even cautious Germany, there are certainly rocky times to come and ALL budgets will suffer. Add to this the (strong?) possibility that by the time kit like the F-35, nice big carriers and the A400M can be service-ready, troops will be out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
And then how do the various nations' military justify this, that or the other programme?
Pity the bright young engineers at MTU ("stripling Dipl. Ings "?) couldn't do a FADEC (Europrop is very silent on what they used to control the engine on the test rigs and seems content to let Airbus Military take the public flak), but Airbus is right to say out loud that the A400M's in-service date will be even later: they can't know when the engine will be reliable enough for flight tests on the A400M to begin, nor how long after first flight the test programme will take.
We must all hope that the engine does make a second flight from Marshall's soon, or we'll begin to wonder if the borescoping after the first flight turned up any nasties ...
Be all that as it may, and apart from all the wise (and less wise) words that have preceded this post, and also apart from the shock-horror noises that draconic cuts will provoke, isn't it a very strong possibility that sheer economic constraints will mean that not one of the programmes mentioned will survive?
Happy New Year(s) to all ...
:E

StopStart

13th Jan 2009, 16:13

Is this news or old news? Yesterday's Hansard:

12 Jan 2009 : Column 10

Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): In view of the attacks on the supply route, is the Secretary of State considering acquiring new C-17 or C-130 aircraft, and if he is, will they be funded from the contingency reserve?

Mr. Hutton: We are looking at all those issues. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the C-17s; we recently acquired additional C-17s, and we are looking at the possibility of acquiring more, yes.

Lyneham Lad

13th Jan 2009, 16:22

Flight International - EADS to push A330 as 'bridging solution' after A400M delays
(http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/13/321008/eads-to-push-a330-as-bridging-solution-after-a400m.html)

EADS has proposed Airbus A330s to A400M customers requiring interim lift in the wake of further delays to the military transport programme, chief executive Louis Gallois has revealed.

Gallois says that the "bridging solution" suggested by EADS involves a mix of A330s and "other airplanes", which he declines to specify. He notes that A330s, which could be deployed as logistical transports, are already due for delivery to the UK through its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme.

Speaking on 12 January, UK defence secretary John Hutton insisted that the UK could not accept a three- to four-year delay to deliveries of its 25 A400Ms, which are needed to replace its aged Lockheed martin C-130K tactical transports. Responding on 13 January, Gallois admitted that he understood Hutton's frustration and shared it. He said that "intensive discussions" are under way with Europe's OCCAR procurement agency and the programme's launch nations, with the UK "fully involved".

Gallois attributes the programme's severe delays to a "complete underestimation of the nature of the programme" on the part not just of EADS, but of suppliers and customers. The A400M (below) had been viewed as a "flying truck" or "normal Airbus", but proved "more complex", he adds.

EADS is now seeking a renegotiated contract that recognises "the military nature of the programme" and the risk involved. Gallois describes the transport as a "military airplane with full military capability", and adds that its complexity outstrips that of the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter.

Gallois also claims that no military aircraft had ever been developed in less than 10 years, whereas the A400M had been scheduled for delivery within six-and-a-half years of project launch. Unlike the A350, the A400M had required EADS to "start from scratch" with every item.

The EADS chief executive insists that he is "not looking for excuses" and accepts that EADS has "a big share of the responsibility for the underestimation", although it is "not alone" in this.

While acknowledging the need for "a clear, visible time schedule", Gallois was unable to commit to a date for the transport's first flight, saying only that it would happen one month after delivery of the full-authority digital engine control software for its TP400-D6 turboprop engine by Europrop International. He also refused to specify the changes to "technical characteristics" that EADS is proposing to A400M customers, but ruled out any downgrading of the aircraft.

So the project has now reached the classic 'allocation of blame' stage :ugh:

Who is designing the FADEC software - the same people responsible for JPA?