JSF
Guest
Posts: n/a
JSF
Just to change the topics a little - anyone read the latest US GAO report (25 Mar) on the project ?(F22 also included). A $20 billion overun on JSF development since 1996 seems to have attracted little international interest - not to mention problems with weight growth, avionoc supplier difficulties, and programme delays.
I'll wager an original oil that Typhoon is streets ahead come 2012-ish --------------- and old lines about BWOS, Eurofighter tales of old, et al (sorry) are not admissable.
I'll wager an original oil that Typhoon is streets ahead come 2012-ish --------------- and old lines about BWOS, Eurofighter tales of old, et al (sorry) are not admissable.
Last edited by smartman; 1st Apr 2004 at 05:10.
No bet.
£2 Bn has already been spent by you and I just to make work for BAE Systems and RR and to buy a place in the queue for JSF. Not to buy aircraft, just to buy into the programme.
And what is JSF? An admittedly stealthy fighter bomber that can carry a pair of AIM-120s and a pair of JDAM sized weapons (yes you can hang more on it externally, but then it's not stealthy at all). And how stealthy will the exported aircraft be?
And it's an aircraft which absolutely relies on the 'air power infrastructure' and 'offboard sensors' which the USAF can rely on (JSTARS, RJ, AWACS, F-22s, etc.) but which few other air arms can take for granted. It's the low cost element in a high-low mix with the F-22 and if you don't have the F-22 it starts to look somewhat shabby.
And it's being sold by people whose pitch is not: "This is a great airplane", nor is it: "This is a cost-effective way of delivering capability" nor even "This is a programme which will bring x or y benefits to your industry" but who instead say "buy this and you're a US ally, and in the war against terror you're either for us or against us". There are no offsets, no workshare arrangements, only the right to bid for programme work against US companies and their tame senators and congressmen.
And it's an aircraft which is suffering programmes difficulties just like those which Eurofighter has had - perhaps even worse, and yet LM isn't taking the heat that Eurofighter GmbH and BAE Systems have had to take.
Massively overweight, and relying on leveraging key avionics systems and integration from the even more troubled F-22, the JSF is in trouble. The aircraft's EMD phase has already been 'extended' (not delayed, oh no, no, no, no, noooooooo) by a year, though magically, somehow this isn't going to delay IOC...... and the unit cost is escalating at a horrifying rate.
If only we didn't have to operate the thing from carriers we could bin it and buy more Typhoons, or, perhaps better still some 'Block 70' F-16s or Gripens.
£2 Bn has already been spent by you and I just to make work for BAE Systems and RR and to buy a place in the queue for JSF. Not to buy aircraft, just to buy into the programme.
And what is JSF? An admittedly stealthy fighter bomber that can carry a pair of AIM-120s and a pair of JDAM sized weapons (yes you can hang more on it externally, but then it's not stealthy at all). And how stealthy will the exported aircraft be?
And it's an aircraft which absolutely relies on the 'air power infrastructure' and 'offboard sensors' which the USAF can rely on (JSTARS, RJ, AWACS, F-22s, etc.) but which few other air arms can take for granted. It's the low cost element in a high-low mix with the F-22 and if you don't have the F-22 it starts to look somewhat shabby.
And it's being sold by people whose pitch is not: "This is a great airplane", nor is it: "This is a cost-effective way of delivering capability" nor even "This is a programme which will bring x or y benefits to your industry" but who instead say "buy this and you're a US ally, and in the war against terror you're either for us or against us". There are no offsets, no workshare arrangements, only the right to bid for programme work against US companies and their tame senators and congressmen.
And it's an aircraft which is suffering programmes difficulties just like those which Eurofighter has had - perhaps even worse, and yet LM isn't taking the heat that Eurofighter GmbH and BAE Systems have had to take.
Massively overweight, and relying on leveraging key avionics systems and integration from the even more troubled F-22, the JSF is in trouble. The aircraft's EMD phase has already been 'extended' (not delayed, oh no, no, no, no, noooooooo) by a year, though magically, somehow this isn't going to delay IOC...... and the unit cost is escalating at a horrifying rate.
If only we didn't have to operate the thing from carriers we could bin it and buy more Typhoons, or, perhaps better still some 'Block 70' F-16s or Gripens.
"I'll wager an original oil that Typhoon is streets ahead come 2012-ish --------------- and old lines about BWOS, Eurofighter tales of old, et al (sorry) are not admissable."
A truly appropriate post for today, 1st April. Well done, smartman!!
F-22....that would be very nice!
A truly appropriate post for today, 1st April. Well done, smartman!!
F-22....that would be very nice!
Gentleman Aviator
Wonderful misprint (?) in a thoughtful leader in today's Torygraph. Talking about the Joint Flight Striker ... or could it be an April Fool .......
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE "If only we didn't have to operate the thing from carriers we could bin it and buy more Typhoons, or, perhaps better still some 'Block 70' F-16s or Gripens."
Considering the unit cost, you could only have half as many Typhoons, which are not primarily designed as ground attack aircraft. The RN are looking at 80 odd JSF, and are hence key player in the decision. When we talk about world wide power projection the crabs are entirely reliant on host nation support, obviously the RN are not. Therefore in todays world of expeditionary warfare it is essential that the FAA recieves the tools for the job.
What good would the RAF be today if we had a Falklands type conflict? The RAF contribution, standby a couple of harriers on one of our carriers, was the heavy bombing from the Vulcan which the RAF can't do today. The only non ship based aircraft which could get close to the theatre of ops would be an MPA/AWACS, and we can do that ourselves with baggers from the CVS. Note I said 'Falklands type', meaning anywhere in the world outside the range of land based host nation support.
F
Considering the unit cost, you could only have half as many Typhoons, which are not primarily designed as ground attack aircraft. The RN are looking at 80 odd JSF, and are hence key player in the decision. When we talk about world wide power projection the crabs are entirely reliant on host nation support, obviously the RN are not. Therefore in todays world of expeditionary warfare it is essential that the FAA recieves the tools for the job.
What good would the RAF be today if we had a Falklands type conflict? The RAF contribution, standby a couple of harriers on one of our carriers, was the heavy bombing from the Vulcan which the RAF can't do today. The only non ship based aircraft which could get close to the theatre of ops would be an MPA/AWACS, and we can do that ourselves with baggers from the CVS. Note I said 'Falklands type', meaning anywhere in the world outside the range of land based host nation support.
F
Champagne anyone...?
Where would that be then? Looking on my Big Chap's Map of The Empire I'll be b@ggered if I can find anywhere out of range of "host nation" support.
The Namibians don't have a claim on Tristan Da Cunha do they...?
As for JSF, sorru, no idea.
PS. I do think the loss of organic naval fixed wing is short sightedly crass in the extreme - I just take issue with your sledgehammer reasoning.
Love and kisses
SS.
The Namibians don't have a claim on Tristan Da Cunha do they...?
As for JSF, sorru, no idea.
PS. I do think the loss of organic naval fixed wing is short sightedly crass in the extreme - I just take issue with your sledgehammer reasoning.
Love and kisses
SS.
There are places where host nation support can't be taken for granted. But you also have to be looking at ops where there is a credible air threat and where coalition AD support (USN, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. etc.) would also be unavailable.
If Britain flagged up an invite for Argentina to take the Malvinas (say by withdrawing our forces) you would need carriers to take them back, if you wanted to do so unilaterally.
But we cannot afford to maintain every capability and carriers are hugely expensive and seldom absolutely necessary.
And even when they are, it's arguable whether an air wing of JSFs are sufficient to provide a good enough AD umbrella against 2010+ threats.
If Britain flagged up an invite for Argentina to take the Malvinas (say by withdrawing our forces) you would need carriers to take them back, if you wanted to do so unilaterally.
But we cannot afford to maintain every capability and carriers are hugely expensive and seldom absolutely necessary.
And even when they are, it's arguable whether an air wing of JSFs are sufficient to provide a good enough AD umbrella against 2010+ threats.
Jacko
Do you have insurance on your vehicle?
I do on mine, its hugely expensive (no, really it is) and seldom absolutely necessary.
I don't like paying for it and thankfully haven't had to use it in a long time but when I do I will be damn glad I have it.
Do you have insurance on your vehicle?
I do on mine, its hugely expensive (no, really it is) and seldom absolutely necessary.
I don't like paying for it and thankfully haven't had to use it in a long time but when I do I will be damn glad I have it.
Yes, I have insurance on all my vehicles. It's a legal requirement. I have fully comprehensive motor insurance on two cars, but have not taken out additional typhoon/hurricane insurance, because we haven't had such extreme weather in the UK for many years, and it's frankly unaffordable. Nor have I taken out extra cover against acts of war. On our third family car, we just have third party fire and theft insurance - fully comprehensive would be much too expensive bearing in mind the value of the car and the likelihood of needing the full cover. I'm used to looking at the balanmce of risk ......
With regard to defence I want adequate resources to do the jobs we do have to keep doing, and 'insurance' like adequate SEAD, proper comms, decent EW, etc. Carrier aviation would be nice to have, given unlimited resources, but that's not what we have at the mo.
With regard to defence I want adequate resources to do the jobs we do have to keep doing, and 'insurance' like adequate SEAD, proper comms, decent EW, etc. Carrier aviation would be nice to have, given unlimited resources, but that's not what we have at the mo.
Easy to justify not needing carrier aviation when its not immediately needed. Not so easy a position to defend when you need it and ain't got it. Being prepared isn't only for times of war. Peace does on occaision break out for albeit brief periods of time.
Holy mackeral, 3 cars!
I guess you threw out Kyoto also.
Just yankin your lariot..
Holy mackeral, 3 cars!
I guess you threw out Kyoto also.
Just yankin your lariot..
Last edited by West Coast; 1st Apr 2004 at 23:24.
Over 1000 posts and I bought this Personal Title to try and tell my mother the embarrassing news that I am a closet Jazz fan.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when can't we afford carrier air?
The US economy allows 12 supercarriers, along with marine air, on £8 trillion dollars GDP... We are looking at two medium sized carriers with a small airwing on £1 trillion GDP.
Do the maths, we can easily afford it.
In today's world carriers are by far our best option, along with the necessary air wing. It's a shame that previous governments have neglected the obvious need, though it looks as though this one only pays lip service given our GDP expenditure...
Sub launched TLAMs are a diplomatic rather than purely a warfighting solution.
The US economy allows 12 supercarriers, along with marine air, on £8 trillion dollars GDP... We are looking at two medium sized carriers with a small airwing on £1 trillion GDP.
Do the maths, we can easily afford it.
In today's world carriers are by far our best option, along with the necessary air wing. It's a shame that previous governments have neglected the obvious need, though it looks as though this one only pays lip service given our GDP expenditure...
Sub launched TLAMs are a diplomatic rather than purely a warfighting solution.
Westie,
Kyoto? They're all economical eco-friendly cars....
By US standards.
We have a boring, boring, boring 1.8 sensible hatchback saloon then Mrs Jacko has her souped and tweaked sporty little Tigra (still only 1.6 litre) and I have an old but hot 2.2 litre Audi - probably fewer litres than Mrs Westies SUV between all three cars....
Kyoto? They're all economical eco-friendly cars....
By US standards.
We have a boring, boring, boring 1.8 sensible hatchback saloon then Mrs Jacko has her souped and tweaked sporty little Tigra (still only 1.6 litre) and I have an old but hot 2.2 litre Audi - probably fewer litres than Mrs Westies SUV between all three cars....
Dunno, she drives a little 4 banger now that she has to drive a ways to work. Not sure of that metric crap as far as displacement. I drive a medium truck (sorry, lorry) now that the airports also a ways away. You may have me on total litres there you dinosaur killer. Unless you count in my wave runner, and then I think I got you.
