F35 or Rafale? The UK and France talk.
Same ship with same engineering and support facilities. Got to be much cheaper, which means we could afford more! Rafale gets my vote, just put Blue Vixen in the nose and we might get something this century!
Reading all this makes me wish we hadn't let "our closest ally" get their hands on the Harrier!
Have just been in the US for a bit and would be the first to concede that on the whole, you still love us "Brits".
It is therefore a great pity that the US displays such protectionism towards it's "closest friend in the World".
The C17 was another example of a procurement "on US terms" - it seems we were taken to the cleaners on that aswell.
Have just been in the US for a bit and would be the first to concede that on the whole, you still love us "Brits".
It is therefore a great pity that the US displays such protectionism towards it's "closest friend in the World".
The C17 was another example of a procurement "on US terms" - it seems we were taken to the cleaners on that aswell.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That statement posted by Tarnish might help to end all the ill-informed nonsense that has been thrown-up on this thread!
As Lord Drayson said, based on experience, it's clear that all the talk about having sovereignty over the F35's technology is just pre-signature hot air which happens in any programme, and it probably only ever came-up because of the potential export of the aircraft to other countries.
So let's calm-down and stop getting excited about being "ripped-off" by the evil Americans who (astonishingly) have supplied so much of our equipment, provided intelligence and technology when necessary, and have been a fundamental part of our strategic strike posture since the 1950's. It's fascinating how people will jump onto some newspaper-led "Lets hate the Yanks" bandwagon despite looking at history. Poor us, we've been "fobbed-off" with some really poor aircraft like the Phantom, AV-8B, E-3, Hercules and the C-17, the latter aircraft being so awful that we're trying to get hold of some more! Come on, get real!
The F35 saga is about cost, pure and simple. One suspects that the government regretted getting into the programme almost as soon as it began, and as I keep saying, you just have to sit back and marvel at how the government gradually digs itself out of its self-imposed farce, and the latest statement from BAe fits-in perfectly. How long then, before a new Typhoon study concludes that (guess what?!) the Typhoon could be cheaply reconfigured for naval operations, and so we don't need to even buy the F35 when we already have another batch of Typhoons to buy. Quelle surprise!
In the final analysis, the F35 isn't going to offer us anything much over the Typhoon, other than a Vtol capability which might or might not even survive to the production stage. Even if it does, its an ability that we haven't really needed since the 1990's. Ultimately, the only vaguely logical reason for purchasing the F35 is one of risk-spreading, so that we're not equipping virtually all of our front line with the same design. But this is 2006, and I think we've grown far beyond a stage where we have to do that any longer. I think it safe to assume that the Typhoon would fulfil all of our requirements, and you have to also assume that the government is thinking much the same thing - finally!
As Lord Drayson said, based on experience, it's clear that all the talk about having sovereignty over the F35's technology is just pre-signature hot air which happens in any programme, and it probably only ever came-up because of the potential export of the aircraft to other countries.
So let's calm-down and stop getting excited about being "ripped-off" by the evil Americans who (astonishingly) have supplied so much of our equipment, provided intelligence and technology when necessary, and have been a fundamental part of our strategic strike posture since the 1950's. It's fascinating how people will jump onto some newspaper-led "Lets hate the Yanks" bandwagon despite looking at history. Poor us, we've been "fobbed-off" with some really poor aircraft like the Phantom, AV-8B, E-3, Hercules and the C-17, the latter aircraft being so awful that we're trying to get hold of some more! Come on, get real!
The F35 saga is about cost, pure and simple. One suspects that the government regretted getting into the programme almost as soon as it began, and as I keep saying, you just have to sit back and marvel at how the government gradually digs itself out of its self-imposed farce, and the latest statement from BAe fits-in perfectly. How long then, before a new Typhoon study concludes that (guess what?!) the Typhoon could be cheaply reconfigured for naval operations, and so we don't need to even buy the F35 when we already have another batch of Typhoons to buy. Quelle surprise!
In the final analysis, the F35 isn't going to offer us anything much over the Typhoon, other than a Vtol capability which might or might not even survive to the production stage. Even if it does, its an ability that we haven't really needed since the 1990's. Ultimately, the only vaguely logical reason for purchasing the F35 is one of risk-spreading, so that we're not equipping virtually all of our front line with the same design. But this is 2006, and I think we've grown far beyond a stage where we have to do that any longer. I think it safe to assume that the Typhoon would fulfil all of our requirements, and you have to also assume that the government is thinking much the same thing - finally!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I pretty much agree with Tim, it's funny how this tech transfer issue only cropped up in the last couple of years, and isn't applicable to TLAM, Trident, C17, C130J, etc., etc. One would almost think HMG is prepared to ditch JSF (and CVF) and blame the US.
Point of clarification:
F-35B is a STOVL jet.
There is no requirement/specification for it to be VTOL.
Sure it will be capable of VTO but not with a representative load
Tarnished
F-35B is a STOVL jet.
There is no requirement/specification for it to be VTOL.
Sure it will be capable of VTO but not with a representative load
Tarnished
GBP 10 million a copy? I'd guess that 10 billion for the program cost is what it should have been, which is about GBP70 million per unit (not a flyaway cost before anyone gets too excited).
The question "why not look at F-35C?" has been raised before and has made sense ever since it became clear that CVF had grown to Forrestal-class size. And aside from far greater range, better bring-back load, lower maintenance and better signatures I don't see any major disadvantages to the C, plus then a person could buy E-2Ds and solve the MASC problem.
BAE likes the F-35 because it has 20 per cent of the program. Half of that, though, is US based, which is perfectly ducky for Nashua, NH, but does little for the struggling black pudding refineries of Lancashire. And of course they'd like to do a Seaphoon (and that is hereby copyrighted BTW) study. Defence contractors like money and BAE's nightmare would be Rafale.
The question "why not look at F-35C?" has been raised before and has made sense ever since it became clear that CVF had grown to Forrestal-class size. And aside from far greater range, better bring-back load, lower maintenance and better signatures I don't see any major disadvantages to the C, plus then a person could buy E-2Ds and solve the MASC problem.
BAE likes the F-35 because it has 20 per cent of the program. Half of that, though, is US based, which is perfectly ducky for Nashua, NH, but does little for the struggling black pudding refineries of Lancashire. And of course they'd like to do a Seaphoon (and that is hereby copyrighted BTW) study. Defence contractors like money and BAE's nightmare would be Rafale.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marham
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why put Typhoon onto the Carriers? It's not designed for it and making a land based a/c into a carrier based a/c is no easy task. The idea of having on type, which covers all of your offensive and defensive requirements is a bad one IMHO. A major problem could, in theory, ground the entire fleet whilst under investigation. Not a option, we must procure another type in order to retain some redundancy.
Tim,
This thread has not been about people jumping on the 'anti yank' band wagon, the JSF deal sucks, plain an simple. Bush is treating his only real ally with contempt in regards to this issue and others (C17 to name just one).
Your a journo, not a servicemen and as a result, you do not have access to the in's & out's of what is really going on inside the wire. Stop suggesting that people on this forum are ill-informed and talking nonsense when infact, they probably know a great deal more than you do.
Tim,
This thread has not been about people jumping on the 'anti yank' band wagon, the JSF deal sucks, plain an simple. Bush is treating his only real ally with contempt in regards to this issue and others (C17 to name just one).
Your a journo, not a servicemen and as a result, you do not have access to the in's & out's of what is really going on inside the wire. Stop suggesting that people on this forum are ill-informed and talking nonsense when infact, they probably know a great deal more than you do.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Launch or no launch
Hi everybody,
I'll have a quick try for a first post.
My understanding is that only US build catapult, as France had to buy theirs for their/our CDG. So if you bin the F35, the hopes are very thin that they will give you anything to launch any sort of Rafale, Eurofighter etc.. So you're back years ago with short-legged VSTOL technology.
To me it looks like a good pressure action to big Daddy, looking like "if you're not nice to me, I'll sleep with our hated ugly neighbour!!" (Would be great fun by the way)
Up to you guys but I think you're in it for years.
God Save the Queen, don't let her be stars & striped
TVM
PS: Be careful with Rafale, it only speaks French
I'll have a quick try for a first post.
My understanding is that only US build catapult, as France had to buy theirs for their/our CDG. So if you bin the F35, the hopes are very thin that they will give you anything to launch any sort of Rafale, Eurofighter etc.. So you're back years ago with short-legged VSTOL technology.
To me it looks like a good pressure action to big Daddy, looking like "if you're not nice to me, I'll sleep with our hated ugly neighbour!!" (Would be great fun by the way)
Up to you guys but I think you're in it for years.
God Save the Queen, don't let her be stars & striped
TVM
PS: Be careful with Rafale, it only speaks French
Last edited by Roxane; 2nd Mar 2006 at 21:01.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brit 55:
I think your statement about the UK being the only "real" ally shows a remarkable lack of knowledge.
The larger proportion of Aussies in the Middle East are supporting US efforts, and we are in other areas supporting them more than the UK.
And the UK's treatment of us wrt Southern Iraq has not been to best........
Get off your high horse
I think your statement about the UK being the only "real" ally shows a remarkable lack of knowledge.
The larger proportion of Aussies in the Middle East are supporting US efforts, and we are in other areas supporting them more than the UK.
And the UK's treatment of us wrt Southern Iraq has not been to best........
Get off your high horse
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by Roxane.
My understanding is that only US build catapult
My understanding is that only US build catapult
I'm sure we used to build our own in the old days of HMS Eagle, Ark Royal etc.
just had a quick google.. I guess as we invented the steam catapult we sould be able to still build one. I found this:-
Catapults had been around since the 1930’s (when they were fitted to the carriers Glorious and Courageous) however these early devices were powered either by compressed air or cordite. It was Commander C C Mitchell RNVR who first suggested taking steam from the ship’s main boiler to power the catapult. Trails on HMS Perseus during 1950-1952 showed an aircraft weighing 30,000lbs could be launched with a speed of over 90 knots, which was a considerable increase over the air hydraulic catapults then in service. The steam catapult also proved to be considerably more reliable. By the time the RN's last fixed wing carrier was retired in 1978 (HMS Ark Royal), the steam catapult was regularly launching aircraft weighing over 60,000lbs at 110+ knots.
It is only now that the Americans are looking to replace Steam Catapults, on their next generation carriers, with electromagnetic catapults.
Last edited by Out Of Trim; 2nd Mar 2006 at 21:56.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A B&Q Catapult??
Sadly my friend, inventing things and being good and up to date at it is not exactly the same thing.
I know Brits have invented almost everything in this world, and surely you could be easily able to build a modern fighter, or catapults etc... by yourselves.
It is maybe just a fact that you simply cannot do it. Can/could, it's maybe more than a language subtility.
Keep thinking you could be great and independant, it will make the situation more bearable!
Sorry if a bit rough
but I re-read your post 4 times, it's just in the past with all the empires.
I know Brits have invented almost everything in this world, and surely you could be easily able to build a modern fighter, or catapults etc... by yourselves.
It is maybe just a fact that you simply cannot do it. Can/could, it's maybe more than a language subtility.
Keep thinking you could be great and independant, it will make the situation more bearable!
Sorry if a bit rough
but I re-read your post 4 times, it's just in the past with all the empires.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marham
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scran,
My comment of the UK being the US's only real ally is based history, not just since 9/11 or the Bali bombing. Countries have signed up to support the 'war on terror' however, their motives are, quite naturally, based on self defence, not an alliance with the US.
The point I'm making is that no other nation, other than the UK, stands up and openly supports the US at every avenue. I'm not suggesting that everyone should however, Britain played a large part in getting several countries to see the US way of thinking during Veritas and allow US overflights, India being a prime example (they would no speak directly to the US administration on this matter).
Now, with such unrelenting support being shown to the US by the UK, is it really too much to expect some positive feedback, in the form of some trust on the transfer of technology, from them? If the answer is no, then the UK should look elsewhere for a Harrier replacement.
My comment of the UK being the US's only real ally is based history, not just since 9/11 or the Bali bombing. Countries have signed up to support the 'war on terror' however, their motives are, quite naturally, based on self defence, not an alliance with the US.
The point I'm making is that no other nation, other than the UK, stands up and openly supports the US at every avenue. I'm not suggesting that everyone should however, Britain played a large part in getting several countries to see the US way of thinking during Veritas and allow US overflights, India being a prime example (they would no speak directly to the US administration on this matter).
Now, with such unrelenting support being shown to the US by the UK, is it really too much to expect some positive feedback, in the form of some trust on the transfer of technology, from them? If the answer is no, then the UK should look elsewhere for a Harrier replacement.
If they go that route (CV) then they will use electromagnetic CATs. The technology is already is use at places like Disneyland, so stop all the scaremongering. Do you not think the IPT have thought of this already?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK is in its relationship with the US like the speccy, weedy kid who follows the big school bully around the playground, telling him who to beat up and making sure all the first-years have handed over their lunch money. Or, if you prefer, like Jabba's little mate. The US may or may not appreciate this, but at the end of the day, nations don't have permanent alliances, they have permanent interests. As the US reorientates its strategic posture towards East and South Asia, the UK will become increasingly irrelevant to them.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brit, I should point-out that I'm not a "journo", to coin your phrase, I'm an aviation journalist, and have been for twenty years, so I think it a bit unfair to suggest that I don't have a view?! It would also be unfair to suggest that those on the "other side of the wire" are any more informed, as of course most servicemen will happily tell you that the very last people to hear about anything, is usually them!
We're going round in circles on this thread, repeating information which we've already discussed, so I don't see any point in doing likewise, but spare a thought for the recent missive from BAe, suggesting that a full design study be conducted to determine exactly how much it would cost to navalise the Typhoon. Quelle surprise - you could see that one coming for weeks!
We're going round in circles on this thread, repeating information which we've already discussed, so I don't see any point in doing likewise, but spare a thought for the recent missive from BAe, suggesting that a full design study be conducted to determine exactly how much it would cost to navalise the Typhoon. Quelle surprise - you could see that one coming for weeks!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journo, Aviation Journo... What's the difference?
Tim, I really do not think that most Servicemen would be overly happy to tell anyone that they are the last to find things out!!!
Tim, I really do not think that most Servicemen would be overly happy to tell anyone that they are the last to find things out!!!