JSF - industrial implications
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90
Rolls has already acquired a 1Bn USD contract to supply the LiftSystem (as they have registered the name) for the STOVL variant. This is the fan, clutch, gearbox, shaft, roll posts and rear 3 bearing swivel duct. QuinetiQ have cornered the market on the flight control system thanks to VAAC. You are rightly concerned about the UK doing worthwhile hi-tech stuff - but the above is truly world class kit.
Rolls has already acquired a 1Bn USD contract to supply the LiftSystem (as they have registered the name) for the STOVL variant. This is the fan, clutch, gearbox, shaft, roll posts and rear 3 bearing swivel duct. QuinetiQ have cornered the market on the flight control system thanks to VAAC. You are rightly concerned about the UK doing worthwhile hi-tech stuff - but the above is truly world class kit.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for combining into a single service, just ask the Canadians how much they like it.
I remember when I visited (1983 ish) they were all very pissed-off and hated their new dark green uniforms!! Nice people though. Had a great time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
John
You're right of course re-RR. But as I implied in a post elesewhere on the same topic the RR bit, (however splendid for 'UK'), doesn't guarantee us the longer term hi-tech involvement in the overall programme. If, however, UK Gov were to come clean on Typhoon T-2 plus, then that might make a difference to retention of our know-how? But are you a Typhoon fan?
You're right of course re-RR. But as I implied in a post elesewhere on the same topic the RR bit, (however splendid for 'UK'), doesn't guarantee us the longer term hi-tech involvement in the overall programme. If, however, UK Gov were to come clean on Typhoon T-2 plus, then that might make a difference to retention of our know-how? But are you a Typhoon fan?
Last edited by smartman; 1st Jun 2004 at 23:00.
From the Guardian.....
"The services are heading towards storm-tossed waters about money. There is yet another cash crisis, and it is a big one. I wrote some months ago in these pages that the right way forward is to conduct a dramatic rebalancing of the forces, to fund the army properly by cutting big and unnecessary aircraft and warship programmes. We should keep saying again and again and again (because the public is reluctant to listen to anything about defence) that the £20bn Eurofighter programme is a complete waste of money. It has a political rationale, as a job-creation scheme and as an earnest of our European commitment, but absolutely no military one. It would make more sense to spend the money building Spitfires, which are at least pretty to look at. As it is, of course, the Eurofighter will go ahead because nobody has the bottle to stop it, while the British army endures another round of "salami-slicing". "
Hear Hear!!! comments please......
"The services are heading towards storm-tossed waters about money. There is yet another cash crisis, and it is a big one. I wrote some months ago in these pages that the right way forward is to conduct a dramatic rebalancing of the forces, to fund the army properly by cutting big and unnecessary aircraft and warship programmes. We should keep saying again and again and again (because the public is reluctant to listen to anything about defence) that the £20bn Eurofighter programme is a complete waste of money. It has a political rationale, as a job-creation scheme and as an earnest of our European commitment, but absolutely no military one. It would make more sense to spend the money building Spitfires, which are at least pretty to look at. As it is, of course, the Eurofighter will go ahead because nobody has the bottle to stop it, while the British army endures another round of "salami-slicing". "
Hear Hear!!! comments please......
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't pretend to have any answers, but perhaps we should be a bit more "French" in our approach.
Sadly, since BAe was formed in 1977 (over a quarter of a century ago) it has not done a whole new aeroplane. They have done a really good job in developing existing aircraft, new technologies for manufacturing and cockpit systems. But, I don't see how the company has the corporate knowhow today to do a whole new aircraft (like the French still can) and that goes for civil as well as military. Very sad. But I see the decline of our aircraft industry as no worse than the decline of several other capabilities in the UK. Even more very sad.
As to our part in Typhoon it has of course been the vehicle for some of the things I mentioned above. And that is good news. The bad (from my perspective) is that it is little more than the definitive F16. What we actually need (operating site flexibility, air to ground and even a tad more stealth) is totally missing and it will be many more years before even the air to ground stuff is available. The other two bits need a new concept. Again the fact that the spec is so unsuitable for today is the result of the AD ideas needed to deal with the Warsaw Pact (remember those simple days?) Boy oh boy are we not paying a penalty for giving a missile a few extra knots that nobody needs today.
Even the USAF with their decision to have 20% of their JSF buy as STOVL versions has at last woken up to the fact that greater operating site flexibility is important for at least a significant part of their overall capability. Talking to the guys on the ground in GWII who were offered air support in 1 hour plus it is not hard to see why they said it will be too late in 20 mins.
I know a lot of people talk with considerable conviction about the future, but the fact remains none of them has any personal experience of it. And it often shows!
Guest
Posts: n/a
John
So you're not a Typhoon fan then?
And I would've thought that in terms of - "operating site flexibility (whatever that means in reality), A/G capability, and a tad more stealth" - then Tranche2 plus (if that becomes a reality) would surely fit the bill? Not to mention modernity (LC costs in particular, software, radar, cockpit, FCS, etc), reach, persistence, blah-de-blah. And if you can still carry those expensive AD toys whilst doing all the other bits without added performance/fuel penalty, what the hell!
Life does has its ups and downs, but we do need to get on ------
So you're not a Typhoon fan then?
And I would've thought that in terms of - "operating site flexibility (whatever that means in reality), A/G capability, and a tad more stealth" - then Tranche2 plus (if that becomes a reality) would surely fit the bill? Not to mention modernity (LC costs in particular, software, radar, cockpit, FCS, etc), reach, persistence, blah-de-blah. And if you can still carry those expensive AD toys whilst doing all the other bits without added performance/fuel penalty, what the hell!
Life does has its ups and downs, but we do need to get on ------
Last edited by smartman; 1st Jun 2004 at 23:46.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smartman
I am not a fan (whatever that means in reality) of any aircraft.
Sorry you have lost me there - easily done as I don't know much about things other than aeroplanes.
I am not a fan (whatever that means in reality) of any aircraft.
Life does has its ups and downs, but we do need to get on ------
A few years ago the mantra in the MoD was 'Not one pound for air to ground'. That summed up the feelings about the role of Eurofighter, and explains in large measure the delays and costs of acquiring the air to mud capability we now need. BAe are not snow white by any means, but the costs and delays in Typhoon are as much to do with the MoDs requirements and the costs of European partnerships as they are to do with BAe's incompetence.
I also disagree with the view that BAe could not build a whole aircraft. We certainly could, but the question is would this or any other government pay for one.
I also disagree with the view that BAe could not build a whole aircraft. We certainly could, but the question is would this or any other government pay for one.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I don't think its entirely fair to place all the blame on BAE for the delays to Typhoon. This is largely down to the German govt re-writing the spec and trimming budget post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Maxburner,
Rollocks!
That was the US Generals quote when the F-15 was being steered past it's congressional hurdles.
Typhoon has ALWAYS been seen as a Jaguar replacement ever since AST403 and AST409 were split.
What has changed is the order of priorities. In the Cold War era the desperately urgent need for the RAF was to acquire an agile air to air platform to counter the percieved Mig 29 and Sukhoi SU-27 threat. As the only major Air Force anywhere without a decent agile air to air capability this was seen as a real gap.
The secondary requirement was the Air to Ground role to replace the Jag,. As we already had Tornado, Jaguar and Harrier in this role, the requirement was not quite so urgent.
Why do people feel the need to re write history?
Rollocks!
That was the US Generals quote when the F-15 was being steered past it's congressional hurdles.
Typhoon has ALWAYS been seen as a Jaguar replacement ever since AST403 and AST409 were split.
What has changed is the order of priorities. In the Cold War era the desperately urgent need for the RAF was to acquire an agile air to air platform to counter the percieved Mig 29 and Sukhoi SU-27 threat. As the only major Air Force anywhere without a decent agile air to air capability this was seen as a real gap.
The secondary requirement was the Air to Ground role to replace the Jag,. As we already had Tornado, Jaguar and Harrier in this role, the requirement was not quite so urgent.
Why do people feel the need to re write history?
Guest
Posts: n/a
proone
Probably a little fuzzy after last night, but I can't quite determine the thrust of your post. Maxburner's comment is broadly correct, and accurately reflects the Eurofighter WSDPS. Getting way off thread -------
Probably a little fuzzy after last night, but I can't quite determine the thrust of your post. Maxburner's comment is broadly correct, and accurately reflects the Eurofighter WSDPS. Getting way off thread -------
Last edited by smartman; 4th Jun 2004 at 09:38.
Thread Starter
Smarty,
As you might guess, my involvement in Typhoon over the years has been limited to occasionally talking to handfuls of individuals (from BAE, MoD, DPA, QinetiQ and its predecessors, and the Mob), usually on a pretty superficial level.
I have, however, never heard of EF being thought of as being anything other than a multi-role aeroplane (going way back to AST 403/409 days), albeit that the stress placed on the A-A role has changed over time. While the A-G role has always been secondary, it's always been there, and I think that's what Proone was saying.
It's a fact that the mantra attributed by Maxburner to the MoD ('Not one pound for air to ground') was actually, provably, attributably and commonly used with regard to the F-15. I've never heard that it was 'common usage' in the Typhoon programme.
As you might guess, my involvement in Typhoon over the years has been limited to occasionally talking to handfuls of individuals (from BAE, MoD, DPA, QinetiQ and its predecessors, and the Mob), usually on a pretty superficial level.
I have, however, never heard of EF being thought of as being anything other than a multi-role aeroplane (going way back to AST 403/409 days), albeit that the stress placed on the A-A role has changed over time. While the A-G role has always been secondary, it's always been there, and I think that's what Proone was saying.
It's a fact that the mantra attributed by Maxburner to the MoD ('Not one pound for air to ground') was actually, provably, attributably and commonly used with regard to the F-15. I've never heard that it was 'common usage' in the Typhoon programme.
Thread Starter
Dick Evans clearly thinks that A-G capability is new for Typhoon though, and a feature of a 'new variant'
Evidence to the Defence Committee, on Wednesday 5 May 2004
Witnesses: Sir Richard Evans, Chairman, BAE Systems
The UK Government, and we support them in this completely, wish to make changes to the international contract to which we are not a party. The principal change is to introduce a new variant of the aircraft and to introduce that variant at tranche two. There is some truth in the speculation in the press regarding our view on the pricing of those changes which are very different from the views of the Ministry of Defence, but I have absolutely no doubt that in due course a resolution to this will be found and the Eurofighter programme will continue and be a highly successful programme.
If you want to change the programme, change the deliveries and change the specification, you are actually buying something different from the one you ordered and that is actually what is happening and we support the MoD completely on this. We think we need a surface-to-ground aircraft capability, so we are entirely supportive. This is a hell of an expensive venture and it requires a very big amount of investment to be put in and this is not an investment that the other governments are willing, standing at the bar, to share.
Evidence to the Defence Committee, on Wednesday 5 May 2004
Witnesses: Sir Richard Evans, Chairman, BAE Systems
The UK Government, and we support them in this completely, wish to make changes to the international contract to which we are not a party. The principal change is to introduce a new variant of the aircraft and to introduce that variant at tranche two. There is some truth in the speculation in the press regarding our view on the pricing of those changes which are very different from the views of the Ministry of Defence, but I have absolutely no doubt that in due course a resolution to this will be found and the Eurofighter programme will continue and be a highly successful programme.
If you want to change the programme, change the deliveries and change the specification, you are actually buying something different from the one you ordered and that is actually what is happening and we support the MoD completely on this. We think we need a surface-to-ground aircraft capability, so we are entirely supportive. This is a hell of an expensive venture and it requires a very big amount of investment to be put in and this is not an investment that the other governments are willing, standing at the bar, to share.
pr00ne,
How rude! The mantra in question may have been attributable to a US general, but it was in common use in MoD. I worked there, and that's where I heard it.
The air to ground capability of Typhoon was always rudimentary when compared to Tornado, the emphasis was always on air to air. Tranche 2 redresses the balance.
How rude! The mantra in question may have been attributable to a US general, but it was in common use in MoD. I worked there, and that's where I heard it.
The air to ground capability of Typhoon was always rudimentary when compared to Tornado, the emphasis was always on air to air. Tranche 2 redresses the balance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko
I think we're all on the same wavelength - maybe we're just using different hymn sheets. Having helped draft the original contract within MoD, and then spent many years seeing it through within BAE, I recall that of the 4 Nations only UK had a secondary A/S requirement (except that IT had a need for A/S training weapons). Must be careful about WSDPS content, but UK's A/S requirement was, simplisticly, reflected only by lists of weapons and sortie profiles. Thereafter, the principle acknowledged by EF GmbH and NEFMA (then NETMA) was that, within the terms of the 4-Nation contract, any A/S development could only be undertaken as a 'fallout' from work on the all pervasive A/A role (which, in reality meant not a lot). Throughout the nineties, all discussion/negotiation within the programme adhered to this principle. Maxburner's line of 'not a £ for A/G' may therefore have been a throwaway that he used to emphasise this point - if I'm wrong then sorry MB.
And yes, it was always the case that for UK the beast would replace Jaguar.
I think we're all on the same wavelength - maybe we're just using different hymn sheets. Having helped draft the original contract within MoD, and then spent many years seeing it through within BAE, I recall that of the 4 Nations only UK had a secondary A/S requirement (except that IT had a need for A/S training weapons). Must be careful about WSDPS content, but UK's A/S requirement was, simplisticly, reflected only by lists of weapons and sortie profiles. Thereafter, the principle acknowledged by EF GmbH and NEFMA (then NETMA) was that, within the terms of the 4-Nation contract, any A/S development could only be undertaken as a 'fallout' from work on the all pervasive A/A role (which, in reality meant not a lot). Throughout the nineties, all discussion/negotiation within the programme adhered to this principle. Maxburner's line of 'not a £ for A/G' may therefore have been a throwaway that he used to emphasise this point - if I'm wrong then sorry MB.
And yes, it was always the case that for UK the beast would replace Jaguar.
