F35 or Rafale? The UK and France talk.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Actually I'm not your friend; I don't know you from Adam.
However, It can't be that hard to build a catapult to do the job. End Of!
However, It can't be that hard to build a catapult to do the job. End Of!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh oh!!!
Ok, ok, touched a sensitive issue then 
Ok we may not know each other and as I said you could buy your own.
Then add the cost to develop, test, validate it to the rest of the program, and you'll be back with the usual cost issue.
Nothing is difficult, if you've got money to do it.
Ask BAe to build an F-35 equivalent and they will. But it may be a bit more difficult to afford, compare to having a small percentage of the USAF Air Power and getting the numbers effect.
Happy if you want to end this discussion, but still think it's worth a talk.
Bye bye
Ok we may not know each other and as I said you could buy your own.
Then add the cost to develop, test, validate it to the rest of the program, and you'll be back with the usual cost issue.
Nothing is difficult, if you've got money to do it.
Ask BAe to build an F-35 equivalent and they will. But it may be a bit more difficult to afford, compare to having a small percentage of the USAF Air Power and getting the numbers effect.
Happy if you want to end this discussion, but still think it's worth a talk.
Bye bye
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about going round in circles... as we've discussed at length many times before, the new carriers have a built-in capability for catapult installation so there's no question that the capability can simply be added for the appropriate fee. The point is that the capability was mentioned supposedly a mere "luxury add-on" although many of us suspected it probably had something to do with the possible purchase of Hawkeyes somewhere down the line. But as time has progressed, it's become clear that it probably has more to do with a latent desite to utilise Typhoons rather that F35's.
I don't know what the notion of Britain building an F35 is all about - if we want an F35 fleet then we'll get one, and all the nonsense about sharing technology will be forgotten as it always has been since the 1950's. The problem is cost, especially when weighed against the almost inevitable purchase of more Typhoons which (unless there's a change in the order of battle) will be redundant. Even a monkey can work-out what the obvious solution is...
I don't know what the notion of Britain building an F35 is all about - if we want an F35 fleet then we'll get one, and all the nonsense about sharing technology will be forgotten as it always has been since the 1950's. The problem is cost, especially when weighed against the almost inevitable purchase of more Typhoons which (unless there's a change in the order of battle) will be redundant. Even a monkey can work-out what the obvious solution is...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure if Typhoon will ever make it to sea Tim, I'm sure the Sea Harrier ladies would love to fly it however, It's lack of forward vis on approach to a carrier would be a slight snag.
"I don't know what the notion of Britain building an F35 is all about - if we want an F35 fleet then we'll get one, and all the nonsense about sharing technology will be forgotten as it always has been since the 1950's."
What the technology issue is all about is cock all to do with building the damned things, it's much more to do with supporting them in service.
This isn't a Buccaneer or a Jag, nor even a Tornado. The technology we're seeking would probably be required to conduct Majors, and would certainly be required if you wanted to do a quick and dirty installation of some new piece of kit (ECM, a recce pod, new weapons) to meet a UOR.
And, indeed, to do a normal, slow-time, full-up weapons integration.
And the JSF team's track record in being helpful about integrating UK weapons onto JSF has, thus far, hardly been confidence inspiring. External ASRAAM? Meteor? Internal EPW IV? etc.
We're already looking at an aircraft whose unique selling point is its ability to do 'first day of war' type missions in an LO configuration (all internal weapons carriage) but which cannot carry any of the UK's 'first day of war' weapons internally. We are looking at an aircraft which cannot carry a meaningful loadout of the AD weapons we were aiming to standardise on. At an aircraft which cannot carry ASRAAM except by sacrificing one of its precious internal weapons bays. Because if it were cleared for external ASRAAM and Meteor we might sell such weapons to some JSF customers, taking business away from AIM-9X and AMRAAM.
The US attitude, articulated and repeated ad nauseam by senior LM folk at Singapore was that "This is very advanced technology. The US Government has invested very large amounts of money and will remain the decider of what does and doesn't happen." There seems no appetite to compromise, and no recognition whatsoever that Britain might be 'cut some slack' and treated as being a particularly close ally. The underlying message was clearly that we need to shut up or f*ck off.
JSF is good for BAE, industrially. Building it is no problem with or without technology transfer. They will build the rear end of every JSF built, as long as they can provide best value. But that is entirely unrelated to the UK uptake of aircraft. It's what our £1 Bn Tier One status bought us.
What the technology issue is all about is cock all to do with building the damned things, it's much more to do with supporting them in service.
This isn't a Buccaneer or a Jag, nor even a Tornado. The technology we're seeking would probably be required to conduct Majors, and would certainly be required if you wanted to do a quick and dirty installation of some new piece of kit (ECM, a recce pod, new weapons) to meet a UOR.
And, indeed, to do a normal, slow-time, full-up weapons integration.
And the JSF team's track record in being helpful about integrating UK weapons onto JSF has, thus far, hardly been confidence inspiring. External ASRAAM? Meteor? Internal EPW IV? etc.
We're already looking at an aircraft whose unique selling point is its ability to do 'first day of war' type missions in an LO configuration (all internal weapons carriage) but which cannot carry any of the UK's 'first day of war' weapons internally. We are looking at an aircraft which cannot carry a meaningful loadout of the AD weapons we were aiming to standardise on. At an aircraft which cannot carry ASRAAM except by sacrificing one of its precious internal weapons bays. Because if it were cleared for external ASRAAM and Meteor we might sell such weapons to some JSF customers, taking business away from AIM-9X and AMRAAM.
The US attitude, articulated and repeated ad nauseam by senior LM folk at Singapore was that "This is very advanced technology. The US Government has invested very large amounts of money and will remain the decider of what does and doesn't happen." There seems no appetite to compromise, and no recognition whatsoever that Britain might be 'cut some slack' and treated as being a particularly close ally. The underlying message was clearly that we need to shut up or f*ck off.
JSF is good for BAE, industrially. Building it is no problem with or without technology transfer. They will build the rear end of every JSF built, as long as they can provide best value. But that is entirely unrelated to the UK uptake of aircraft. It's what our £1 Bn Tier One status bought us.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brit55 says:
You may not be aware that Australia allied itself with the US in Korea and Vietnam. Australia'a historical relationship, at least in the modern context, is at least as strong as that of the UK.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never underestimate the power of the Aussie BBQ!!!
I agree with griffinblack, Todays Australia certainly backs most US policy however, they don't come close to what the UK has done alongside the US, which is why I would like to suggest that Bush can take JSF and ram it up his unarticulate, narrow minded, uneducated, pretentious arse!!
Any blame for spelling mistakes lies entirely with the Chardonnay...
I agree with griffinblack, Todays Australia certainly backs most US policy however, they don't come close to what the UK has done alongside the US, which is why I would like to suggest that Bush can take JSF and ram it up his unarticulate, narrow minded, uneducated, pretentious arse!!
Any blame for spelling mistakes lies entirely with the Chardonnay...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, your comments seem to confirm my belief that the F35 would ultimately be a waste of money. It will offer us absolutely nothing over and above the Typhoon's cabablities, other than a vtol capability that we haven't needed for over a decade. As I keep saying, one can only assume that the MoD accountants will inevitably conclude that when we're already virtually obliged to buy more Typhoons, we may as well "navalise" them and dump the F35.
If we don't do something with the final batch of Typhoons, what will we do with them? We can't really afford to cancel them, and based on the current orders of battle, we'd have surplus aircraft. Unless they were placed in storage, it seems only logical that they would be better used for naval operations, and allow the cost of the F35 programme to be abandoned.
Griffin, I think you're rather underestimating just how close British and American air arms actually are, and have been for half a century. It's not just about supporting each other or taking part in campaigns, the relationship is much deeper and complicated than that.
If we don't do something with the final batch of Typhoons, what will we do with them? We can't really afford to cancel them, and based on the current orders of battle, we'd have surplus aircraft. Unless they were placed in storage, it seems only logical that they would be better used for naval operations, and allow the cost of the F35 programme to be abandoned.
Griffin, I think you're rather underestimating just how close British and American air arms actually are, and have been for half a century. It's not just about supporting each other or taking part in campaigns, the relationship is much deeper and complicated than that.
Tim,
There may well be some surplus Typhoons because the 232 aircraft figure was predicated on supporting an active fleet of 137 aircraft through to the planned OSD. That 137 aircraft fleet was in turn based on a seven squadron force, plus and OCU and an OEU.
It now seems unlikely that there will be seven squadrons, with the elimination of Leeming, though there may still be six.
There won't be that many spare jets. Perhaps backing out of JSF would allow us to buy a few more - or a few Gripens.
There may well be some surplus Typhoons because the 232 aircraft figure was predicated on supporting an active fleet of 137 aircraft through to the planned OSD. That 137 aircraft fleet was in turn based on a seven squadron force, plus and OCU and an OEU.
It now seems unlikely that there will be seven squadrons, with the elimination of Leeming, though there may still be six.
There won't be that many spare jets. Perhaps backing out of JSF would allow us to buy a few more - or a few Gripens.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: a flat field
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim
You state the lack of need for VSTOL over the past decade,may I suggest that you look a little harder. CVS ops plus other recents dets have firmly established why STVOL is necessary for the UK. Ask the USMC why they feel STOVL is important and you ll get muchthe same reason.
One gets tired of all the speculation over will we/ wont we ref JSF. One thing is quite clear...if the UK government wishes us there on day one then stealth is the way to go, something that other options wont give us. If it doesnt then other options could be considered.
Lets just wait until the decision is made later this year and cut out the speculation and much of the ill informed information that appears on here.
You state the lack of need for VSTOL over the past decade,may I suggest that you look a little harder. CVS ops plus other recents dets have firmly established why STVOL is necessary for the UK. Ask the USMC why they feel STOVL is important and you ll get muchthe same reason.
One gets tired of all the speculation over will we/ wont we ref JSF. One thing is quite clear...if the UK government wishes us there on day one then stealth is the way to go, something that other options wont give us. If it doesnt then other options could be considered.
Lets just wait until the decision is made later this year and cut out the speculation and much of the ill informed information that appears on here.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herbie, one thing which is pretty clear to everyone, is that vtol (or stovl, which is merely a euphamism for the vast majority of situations when vtol aircraft are too damned heavy to operate vertically!) capability is not something which is necessary for the UK any longer. The Harrier was an important part in Cold War scenarios but post-Falklands, vtol is now a "luxury" rather than a necessity. No point in asking the USMC what they think as, guess what, Britain is not the USMC!
Could you possibly identify even one occasion when vtol has been necessary in an operational environment? Certainly, the Harrier's unique abilities have been put to good use, but never as a necessity. It's been more of a case of deploying to theatres and situations where the Harrier could be used to best effect, but that's a long way from concluding that vtol is in any way vital to our needs. Patently, the F35's vtol ability has everything to do with ship-borne operations and nothing else, as far as the Uk is concerned. But when we'll have carriers which can be reconfigured to operate "conventional" aircraft...
Incidentally, I don't quite understand your suggestion that we "cut out speculation" - I thought that was what this thread was about?!
Could you possibly identify even one occasion when vtol has been necessary in an operational environment? Certainly, the Harrier's unique abilities have been put to good use, but never as a necessity. It's been more of a case of deploying to theatres and situations where the Harrier could be used to best effect, but that's a long way from concluding that vtol is in any way vital to our needs. Patently, the F35's vtol ability has everything to do with ship-borne operations and nothing else, as far as the Uk is concerned. But when we'll have carriers which can be reconfigured to operate "conventional" aircraft...
Incidentally, I don't quite understand your suggestion that we "cut out speculation" - I thought that was what this thread was about?!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: a flat field
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim
Yes I can but will not do so on here as it is not appropriate forum to do so. What you also fail to grasp is the unique link that the USMC and UK have when it comes to STVOL operations and future requirements. The STOVL requirement IS NOT purely about ship borne operations. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the STOL concept. Sure, the way the Harrier has been operated changed over the post cold war period, but I think you will find STOL operations important for the future, especially when access to overseas bases is becomming less and less.
The speculative statement was not aimed at you Tim, just some of the idiotic statements made earlier which clearly shows a lack of understanding of where the UK is going. If people cant offer opinion on fact, they certaintly shouldnt offer opinion on speculation.
Yes I can but will not do so on here as it is not appropriate forum to do so. What you also fail to grasp is the unique link that the USMC and UK have when it comes to STVOL operations and future requirements. The STOVL requirement IS NOT purely about ship borne operations. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the STOL concept. Sure, the way the Harrier has been operated changed over the post cold war period, but I think you will find STOL operations important for the future, especially when access to overseas bases is becomming less and less.
The speculative statement was not aimed at you Tim, just some of the idiotic statements made earlier which clearly shows a lack of understanding of where the UK is going. If people cant offer opinion on fact, they certaintly shouldnt offer opinion on speculation.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tim McLelland
. . ., guess what, Britain is not the USMC! . . .
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Tombstone it's not a "fact" at all.
Afghanistan is a classic case in point; If you ask the people who have been deployed out there, they'll tell you that the Harrier's abilities are very useful, but vtol operations? Er... where? when?
I hestitate to repeat (because you'll probably misunderstand me again!) that operations such as this are ultimately undertaken based on the abilities we have, and if we didn't have the equipment to do the job, our blessed government woud undoubtedly commit us to something else that we could handle. All well and good, but that doesn't make vtol either essential or necessary, does it?
Contrary to your comments, a lot of people agree with me that the Harrier's capabilities really aren't necessary in any way, and to start using sweeping statements about "experts" or "lack of understanding" doesn't actually contribute anything, does it?
Afghanistan is a classic case in point; If you ask the people who have been deployed out there, they'll tell you that the Harrier's abilities are very useful, but vtol operations? Er... where? when?
I hestitate to repeat (because you'll probably misunderstand me again!) that operations such as this are ultimately undertaken based on the abilities we have, and if we didn't have the equipment to do the job, our blessed government woud undoubtedly commit us to something else that we could handle. All well and good, but that doesn't make vtol either essential or necessary, does it?
Contrary to your comments, a lot of people agree with me that the Harrier's capabilities really aren't necessary in any way, and to start using sweeping statements about "experts" or "lack of understanding" doesn't actually contribute anything, does it?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
perhaps your patronising approach to conversation would be better suited to an audience of chimps.
I'm sure that your 'a lot of people' are fellow spotters (nothing wrong with spotters) who are experts at recognising a/c however, not experts at air power projection.
The RAF has gone out of it's way to keep the Harrier, it would have been much cheaper to keep the Jag however, the GR7s capabilities are still valid today. Incidentally, the Harrier was not built to VTOL with a realistic warload, STOVL was and still is the game plan and it's still holding it's own today.
Pureteenlard,
spot on mate, the USMC really does move as one when fighting, demonstrating superb fire power integration, something we Brits are yet to catch up on IMHO.
perhaps your patronising approach to conversation would be better suited to an audience of chimps.
I'm sure that your 'a lot of people' are fellow spotters (nothing wrong with spotters) who are experts at recognising a/c however, not experts at air power projection.
The RAF has gone out of it's way to keep the Harrier, it would have been much cheaper to keep the Jag however, the GR7s capabilities are still valid today. Incidentally, the Harrier was not built to VTOL with a realistic warload, STOVL was and still is the game plan and it's still holding it's own today.
Pureteenlard,
spot on mate, the USMC really does move as one when fighting, demonstrating superb fire power integration, something we Brits are yet to catch up on IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it would be better if britain's armed forces were more like the USMC?
Seems to be flavour of the month in enough areas.sw
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tombstone - The RAF has kept the Harrier because it has nothing to replace it and there isn't anything readily available . The Jaguar hasn't ever offered the load carrying capability of the Harrier in 'hot and high' environments.
It's also worth pointing out that the Jaguar is a late 1960's design which reached the end of it's development potential. The Harrier II is at least a late 1970's design and has had more scope for upgrades. As for the validity of the
STOVL concept - it's a nice thing but in reality it opens up problems with complexity and a greater chance of engine damage which can be critical.
Whilst the opportunities for overseas 'airfields' might be deminishing - reality is that effective denial of airfields is something of the past and I cannot foresee a possibility where a conventional aircraft couldn't operate
from some form of runway or indeed road successfully.
It's also worth pointing out that the Jaguar is a late 1960's design which reached the end of it's development potential. The Harrier II is at least a late 1970's design and has had more scope for upgrades. As for the validity of the
STOVL concept - it's a nice thing but in reality it opens up problems with complexity and a greater chance of engine damage which can be critical.
Whilst the opportunities for overseas 'airfields' might be deminishing - reality is that effective denial of airfields is something of the past and I cannot foresee a possibility where a conventional aircraft couldn't operate
from some form of runway or indeed road successfully.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where this thread is going... But back to the point - The ST in Bookers column again raises the issue of ditching the JSF in favour of the Rafale (something my initial thread raised in mid January!). You're gonna get it like it or not
Stand by for some crap Eurofor missions off the coast of Africa for the next twenty odd years...(run by the French of course!)
Stand by for some crap Eurofor missions off the coast of Africa for the next twenty odd years...(run by the French of course!)