F35 or Rafale? The UK and France talk.

[airborne_artist]

Discussed in the House of Commons yesterday - Hansard report

[Tim McLelland]

Originally Posted by ORAC

needs to be spent here, not in the USA
We have a history of being let down in these matters by the USA. Skybolt, F-111 etc, and it´s no coincidence that, whilst others were buying F16s, F18s etc, we were spending more to build Jaguars and Tornadoes.

Actually we don't have any such history. We chose to abandon the F-111 because the government lost its nerve when the costs began to spiral. Ultimately, the F-111 would have been a good deal, and the airframes were eventually sold to Australia where many of them are still active.

Likewise, Skybolt eventually started showing some signs of success just as we pulled out of the programme. Even though the US decided to abandon it, we were offered the whole programme but chose not to take-up the option.

It was indeed no coincidence that we were busy building Jaguars MRCA's and the like, while the US was starting to churn-out F-15's and more, but that was because our government embarked upon a rose-coloured relationship with France and Europe, only to find that France ultimately screwed us on the Jaguar, and the Tornado programme could only cater for the needs of just three countries. By any standards, the lesson to be drawn from these programmes was that we could have simply purchased "off the shelf" from the US, and saved a fortune.

[GeeRam]

Of the cuff thoughts time.....

It's a shame BAe/Saab didn't instead look at a possible navalised version of the Gripen some years ago instead, or did they?
Rafale-ish size (admittidly single donk, but so was the F8 Crusader and of course SHAR) but maybe not with the forward vision problems as a marine Typhoon...?????

Be interested in the experts thoughts about pros and cons of that idea..?

[ORAC]

Skybolt? Cancelled because the USA no longer needed it, and to hell with the contract. The offer to let the UK take over the programme? Unaffordable.

F111? Offered at a ridiculously low price and against firm guarantees to ensure the cancellation of the TSR2 as competition. Immediately the TSR2 was cancelled the firm guarantees evaporated. Contract cancelled within a year.

[Pureteenlard]

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Of the cuff thoughts time.....
It's a shame BAe/Saab didn't instead look at a possible navalised version of the Gripen some years ago instead, or did they?

If I recall correctly, the old Viggen was designed to land on sort stretches of road using a 'no flare' technique like a carrier deck landng. If the Gripen was designed for similar punishment wouldn't a navalised version be easier to create since the airframe would aleady be strong enough for the deck landings?

A quick web search found ( http://www.vectorsite.net/avgrpn.html )
and to quote;
"Unlike the Viggen, the Gripen does not have a thrust reverser. The canard foreplanes can be tilted almost 90 degrees to act as airbrakes on landing. There are carbon brakes on all the wheels of the tricycle landing gear to reduce landing roll. Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, however. The landing gear has an antiskid system. The two-wheel nose gear retracts backward, while the single-wheel main gear retract at a forward angle."

Me, I'd want a hook!

[Tim McLelland]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Skybolt? Cancelled because the USA no longer needed it, and to hell with the contract. The offer to let the UK take over the programme? Unaffordable.
F111? Offered at a ridiculously low price and against firm guarantees to ensure the cancellation of the TSR2 as competition. Immediately the TSR2 was cancelled the firm guarantees evaporated. Contract cancelled within a year.

If you say so orac

[Brit55]

jindabyne,

good point, well presented.

This thread seems to have bottomed out some what with tit for tat comments however, I've not seen much support for JSF...

What if the RAF offered to defend the RN fleet with complete ubiquioty using Tranche 3 of Typhoon??? I'm sure the F3 got the vote last time with that argument.

[Tourist]

Brit, how is a non carrier aircraft going to defend the fleet?

[WhiteOvies]

NOT a continuation of Sea Jet thread

From the link posted by A_A:

Mr. Ingram: Indeed, I think that the Sea Harriers are being decommissioned today, and we should mark that event because they have provided great service. We have explored the reasons for this decision time and again in the House and I do not want to repeat them.

Political dodging on answering a straight question for (possibly) good reason but he's a month early. Nice to know he's got his finger on the pulse!

More importantly - marinisation of aircraft is a bit more costly and complicated than people think e.g. AH and HMS Ocean. Something designed for, or proved, in a maritime environment would be the most logical choice. Resistant to Rafale from personal prejudice of France and worries over future capability. BAe have a sizeable stake in Gripen but real life and sim are different. (Tonkas have a hook too, I wouldn't want to see them at sea ).
Super Hornet would be handy but would/could they be built under license at Warton?
Lets not jump the gun here, both CVF and JSF are a way off yet, anyone want to predict UK Defence in 10ish years time? Rolls still have a substantial influence as the ONLY supplier of the lift fan for the STOVL version so its not game over for UK industry just yet.

[Brit55]

Tourist,

I was referring to the argument, many moons ago, made by our Air Officers when pursuing funds for the F3. It is said that they put forward a case that the funds required for replacing the ageing carriers and RN F4s would infact be better spent on several Sqns of shiny new F3s (radars to follow).

The story goes that when asked how the RAF could possibly defend the RN worldwide, the Air Officers replied by producing a rather large map of the world complete with range circles which demonstrated that the F3 could infact patrol the over the seven seas with ubiquioty. They did however fail to mention that the had moved Australia 2000miles North. Poetic License...

[davedek]

Originally Posted by Styron

It would also mean British forces would not have the right codes to arm the planes if they wanted to use them for missions not approved by the Pentagon.

That is just... I'm lost for words. Now I'm usually pro anglo-american relations, but (IF it is true, a big if) this true then it would theoretically give the Pentagon command over our aircraft!! Which is totally absurd!!

[brickhistory]

I usually do not respond in UK-only issue threads, and and generally ignore the anti-US comments and insults (although some are very witty and I appreciate the wit!) prevelant in pprune (but then it is a UK-centric org so I enter at my own risk).

I like being an American, enjoy my country and don't mind most of what the government does, but as I posted earlier, this is a dirty thing my govt is trying to pull on our primary JSF partner.

You paid your money in good faith, got in on the ground floor, and carried your weight in the JSF program, thus you are/should be treated as a partner. I am sorry that this is even being considered. If it comes to pass, I hope HMG takes it requirements elsewhere and buys other jets.

I have contacted my congressmen and senators, of course that will be like p#ssing in the wind...

[Safety_Helmut]

Help ?

What is all this about codes to arm the aircraft ? Surely, this has grown out of a story about not having access to software source code than requiring a PIN to launch a weapon.

Can anyone shed some more light on it ?

Safety_Helmut

[antipodean alligator]

GO GET 'EM POMMIES!

Lead on Mother Country.....Stick it to 'em and ditch the JSL (Lemon).
I just pray that when you do, our lot actually take notice because right now they are feeding our pollies mountains of pro-JSF bolleaux which is going to result in us having 5 PLTOFF's per airframe entering PINs 24/7 to try and break in to the MC to enable BDU-33 releases.
At least if you buy Rafale we will have an answer in the Rafale vs EFT debate!
Anyway, it's about time the RN remembered that it is primarily there for driving BOWATS......They should never have been allowed to have a fighter that was superior to those of the RAF.

[pr00ne]

Brit55,

You are getting your time periods well and truly muddled up. You are confusing the argument put forward in the mid sixties when it was decided that the UK no longer needed fixed wing carrier air power as air defence of the fleet could be provided by shore based air power. The famous example of the time was a map of the Far East theatre where air cover was provided from Singapore, Australia and various islands to prove that organic fixed wing air cover was unnecessary. The F3 had not even being dreamt of then.

The F3 (or more accurately F2 at the time) on the other hand was a decade later when a significant cost saving was made by proposing an Air Defence variant of the Tornado IDS as the next generation RAF AD aircraft. Its lack of agility being justified by it never having to meet hostile fighters as it would concentrate on taking out massed Regiment sized backfire raids 400 miles out over the North Sea at night, at low level in the middle of a snow storm and under heavy ECM.

davedek and Safety_Helmut

No need to get your knickers in a twist. It is indeed a woefully inaccurate statement. The argument is NOTHING to do with arming the F-35s, nor has it anything to do with the Pentagon “approving” missions.
It is all about IPR and software codes, therefore it is a purely economical argument concerning upgrade and major overhaul of the F-35 by BAE Systems. Basically they want to be able to do it but Lockheed-Martin retain the IPR and insist that only they can do it. It’s just the same for the C-130J, AMRAAM and Trident.

[switch_on_lofty]

Buy the F-35C instead

Because the CVF has been designed for catapult, why not bin the stovl B version, and get the better (range, payload and cheaper) carrier-based "C" version? ignoring the debate about tech transfer for a second.
As for A Aligators thought about driving SHIPS, what enhances the use of said assets? Aircraft, and cool maritime ones at that. Ones that don't need host nation support/overflight rights etc. Look at many recent ops, carriers can get closer than land based aircraft.
I've gone off (carried on?) a tangent slightly there I know.
Switch_on_lofty
*First post*

[Flatus Veteranus]

For Gawd's Sake - here we go again!. IMHO the current row with the Yanks gives us an ideal pretext to bin the whole damned project, carriers included. Indeed carriers in partcular!

If anyone really thinks that any government is going to involve us again (after Iraq) in some war outside Europe, they have to be mad. And Perlease do not quote the Malvinas again. We have spent billions buidling a bloody great runway down there with all the knobs and bells, and if we can't hold off the Argies next time round without spending billions more on carriers, we deserve to be out of business. Anyway, would we have the political will to mount a CORPORATE II ? No way!

We seem to have gained access to Afghanistan bases easily enough (though God knows what we think we can achieve there). And what could Rafale do over Afghanistan launching from a carrier in the Arabian Sea? SFA! Indeed what could Rafale do against a hard target only 100 nm from its mother in a temperate climate? Enough to justify all these billions spent on the carriers and on eating humble (French) pie? And would the taxpayer stand for buying pretty little Frog aircraft when they are already having to fork out billions for Typhoons which, they are told, are surplus to requirements? Let us all get back to planet Earth. Either Typhoon can be navalised or we bin the whole carrier fiasco.

Once more, what we need is a large aircraft, with a decent range/payload performance able to deliver PGW from altitude's above the the reach of AAA and tactical SAMs. It would not be expected to penetrate contested airspace, which would have been sanitised before it was committed.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by Flatus Veteranus

Once more, what we need is a large aircraft, with a decent range/payload performance able to deliver PGW from altitude's above the the reach of AAA and tactical SAMs. It would not be expected to penetrate contested airspace, which would have been sanitised before it was committed.

Better get hold of a good cache of 'Buff's' from out of AMARC before they all get guillotined........

Got to be cheaper than JSF.......

We can have Bomber Command back again.......

Or,

New build 'Tin-Triangles' anyone.........

[Tarnished]

Reportedly from Janes today:

BAE Systems chief calls for study into JSF alternative
Guy Anderson Editor

BAE Systems Chief Executive Mike Turner has called for the UK to launch a study into the feasibility of using naval variants of the Eurofighter Typhoon as an alternative to the JSF, adding that he believes it is "quite possible".
Issues concerning the UK's access to technology relating to JSF remain unresolved, although Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson said he is "optimistic" that there will be a "satisfactory" conclusion by the end of 2006.


THE UK should fund a study into the feasibility of a naval variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft as a potential alternative to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), BAE Systems Chief Executive Mike Turner said.

Speaking before the UK parliamentary Defence Committee, Turner said that it was "quite possible" to "navalise" the Typhoon, but stressed that "it is not what we would recommend".

The "Joint Strike Fighter is the right aircraft", he added.

Turner said that the possibility of a naval variant of the Typhoon had been "considered" by BAE Systems, but he also said: "We need a study into the feasibility of navalising Typhoon. While we know that it is possible, we believe the MoD [Ministry of Defence] needs to fund a study into costs and what it would involve."

Turner's comments during the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) inquiry - held in London on 28 February - came as the technology transfer demands and issues of sovereignty relating to the programme remain unresolved, and questions remain as to whether the UK will commit to the next phase.

In January this year it was revealed that the UK MoD will not sign the Production, Sustainment and Follow On Development (PSFD) memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the JSF with the US "without achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty" over its technology.

Furthermore, General Sir Timothy Granville-Chapman, vice-chief of the defence staff, told the UK in the Business of Defence conference in London on 7 February that it was "inconceivable that the IAB [the MoD Investment Approvals Board] will approve an aircraft where we cannot be utterly clear that we know enough about its technological make-up to be assured of all matters about safety, or that we should be able to operationalise it to run intensive and varied operation from the carrier, or that we can be able to modify or update our needs throughout its life."

Speaking after Turner at the DIS inquiry, UK Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson moved to reassure the committee, saying: "I expected this to be resolved satisfactorily for us by the end of the year. I am optimistic and that is not naïve optimism. It is based on experience."

The UK will make a decision before the end of the year as to whether it will sign the PSFD MoU with the US, a move which will commit the country to procuring a certain number of aircraft (currently estimated to be 150 units at a cost of GBP10 million [USD17.4 million]). To date, the UK's contribution to the programme has remained fixed at USD2 billion for the current system development and demonstration phase.

France - which announced in January that it had formally agreed to invest GBP100 million into the UK's CVF project with a view to adapting the design for its own new-generation carrier (PA2) - is looking to equip its version of the vessel with an aviation force of Rafale-Ms.

The UK, armed forces minister Adam Ingram said in October, has "no plans" to consider the aircraft, despite speculation to the contrary.


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

© 2006 Jane's Information Group



I wonder what they think they will get for their 10 million GBP a copy??

[Brit55]

An excellent post Tarnished, thankyou.