JSF: Drayson Bats For Britain
Cokecan
"they are concerned that if we fully understand the systems in the JSF then that knowledge will seep into anglo-french systems and from there into franco-X systems that will then get through to china"
Spot on. I'd also guess the US are nervous about what's happening to QinetiQ. They publish tech stuff arising from MoD contracts on their website, while the MoD deny the contracts exist!
"they are concerned that if we fully understand the systems in the JSF then that knowledge will seep into anglo-french systems and from there into franco-X systems that will then get through to china"
Spot on. I'd also guess the US are nervous about what's happening to QinetiQ. They publish tech stuff arising from MoD contracts on their website, while the MoD deny the contracts exist!
"After the election, a consortium of newspapers studied the ballots. These newspapers are almost all liberal. Their report does not support your allegation"
Interesting that the report has a section "Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)" so if all the votes were not re-examined, who (actually) won. The report further states:
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
And finally:
According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.
And G Dubya wins a ballot that even hardline regimes would call 'Illegal', and there is no way a large number of people will believe any other way..
Interesting that the report has a section "Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)" so if all the votes were not re-examined, who (actually) won. The report further states:
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
And finally:
According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.
And G Dubya wins a ballot that even hardline regimes would call 'Illegal', and there is no way a large number of people will believe any other way..
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well, that´s now 4 out of the 8 international partners.....
BRUSSELS, March 20 -- The Netherlands wanted a greater say in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the aircraft set to replace the current F16s in 2015, Dutch daily De Volkskrant reported on Monday. According to the newspaper, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Cees Van der Knaap has insisted that the United States allows Dutch pilots to participate in the testing of the JSF so that the Dutch requirements can be incorporated into the final version. Van der Knaap also felt that the Americans must share more technological information with the other countries that are helping to fund the development of the new fighter plane.
The state secretary has insisted on this in a letter to the US Senate, De Volkskrant quoted sources close to the defence department as reporting.
Whether the Netherlands will actually procure the JSF should become clear in November, when the partner countries will sign an agreement on the numbers as well as safeguards for production and future maintenance.......
BRUSSELS, March 20 -- The Netherlands wanted a greater say in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the aircraft set to replace the current F16s in 2015, Dutch daily De Volkskrant reported on Monday. According to the newspaper, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Cees Van der Knaap has insisted that the United States allows Dutch pilots to participate in the testing of the JSF so that the Dutch requirements can be incorporated into the final version. Van der Knaap also felt that the Americans must share more technological information with the other countries that are helping to fund the development of the new fighter plane.
The state secretary has insisted on this in a letter to the US Senate, De Volkskrant quoted sources close to the defence department as reporting.
Whether the Netherlands will actually procure the JSF should become clear in November, when the partner countries will sign an agreement on the numbers as well as safeguards for production and future maintenance.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?
Is it possible HMG is simply looking for a way to dump JSF (and consequently CVF) and blame the Spams for it?
Is it possible HMG is simply looking for a way to dump JSF (and consequently CVF) and blame the Spams for it?
"Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?"
It's obviously inevitable that you won't have (or need) the ability to independently support, sustain, operate, modify or upgrade a handful of leased aircraft.
It's deemed acceptable that a strategic missile system will require the support of the manufacturer to support and sustain, and you don't need to be able to incorporate ad hoc upgrades or mods to meet urgent operational requirements.
A tactical aircraft, procured in large numbers, is an entirely different ball game.
I don't see any evidence at all that HMG is looking for a way to dump JSF, let alone the CVF which was a plank of its SDR.
It's obviously inevitable that you won't have (or need) the ability to independently support, sustain, operate, modify or upgrade a handful of leased aircraft.
It's deemed acceptable that a strategic missile system will require the support of the manufacturer to support and sustain, and you don't need to be able to incorporate ad hoc upgrades or mods to meet urgent operational requirements.
A tactical aircraft, procured in large numbers, is an entirely different ball game.
I don't see any evidence at all that HMG is looking for a way to dump JSF, let alone the CVF which was a plank of its SDR.
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
Laser-Hound
I don't know what you had in mind with your etc, but with respect to the three programs you mentioned I would suggest we had no real cards to play. We wanted something and 'they' had it. The JSF is a very different matter as our actions could seriously hurt that programme.
Kit bag may have a valid general point but in this particular case I don't think it applies.
While I was away thinking Jacko dealt with many other relevant points
JF
I don't know what you had in mind with your etc, but with respect to the three programs you mentioned I would suggest we had no real cards to play. We wanted something and 'they' had it. The JSF is a very different matter as our actions could seriously hurt that programme.
Kit bag may have a valid general point but in this particular case I don't think it applies.
While I was away thinking Jacko dealt with many other relevant points
JF
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, to revisit a Gatbash years ago, could you recap for us how much of the VAAC(?) system you worked on in the UK is in the JSF?
Or, alternatively, remind me to lay off the crazypills.
Or, alternatively, remind me to lay off the crazypills.
“Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?”
I think it important to realise that this is very much a personal crusade for Lord Drayson. He put his marker down in his Defence Industrial Strategy. Because he understands the detail, he is getting into areas that his predecessors have delegated to CDP. The problems arising from not being in control of the build standard of our equipment, be it an aeroplane or whatever, are well known. (SA80 is the all time classic example). There are some notable examples of projects hitting trouble because we have not acquired (or properly controlled and managed) these rights; but many, many more where laid down procedures have been followed, we have the rights, and the equipment is fully supportable in the UK. But, as usual, the successful projects are never mentioned, and it’s certainly never mentioned that there are extant procedures. Easier to spin it as a new initiative.
I’d like to think he realises that adhering to these procedures on Day 1 of any project is the basis of good project management. If you don’t, it’s catch-up for ever more and, by definition, you don’t have the funds to do it. All he is doing is clamping down hard on IPTs who are remiss and trying to ensure best established practice is followed. And word is he’s climbing all over them. And he's picked a high profile project to make his point.
However, the fact that the sponsoring branch for aforementioned procedures have, for many years, been proposing cancellation, supported by many who think the subject (incl. safety!!) a waste of money, indicates (to me) that he doesn’t quite have all bases covered. If he wins, whoever is charged with implementation will have to re-invent the wheel and will face much resistance. His approach is top-down, but it will take a long tiime to get to the bottom. Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that 99% of DPA haven't the foggiest what I'm rambling on about.
I think it important to realise that this is very much a personal crusade for Lord Drayson. He put his marker down in his Defence Industrial Strategy. Because he understands the detail, he is getting into areas that his predecessors have delegated to CDP. The problems arising from not being in control of the build standard of our equipment, be it an aeroplane or whatever, are well known. (SA80 is the all time classic example). There are some notable examples of projects hitting trouble because we have not acquired (or properly controlled and managed) these rights; but many, many more where laid down procedures have been followed, we have the rights, and the equipment is fully supportable in the UK. But, as usual, the successful projects are never mentioned, and it’s certainly never mentioned that there are extant procedures. Easier to spin it as a new initiative.
I’d like to think he realises that adhering to these procedures on Day 1 of any project is the basis of good project management. If you don’t, it’s catch-up for ever more and, by definition, you don’t have the funds to do it. All he is doing is clamping down hard on IPTs who are remiss and trying to ensure best established practice is followed. And word is he’s climbing all over them. And he's picked a high profile project to make his point.
However, the fact that the sponsoring branch for aforementioned procedures have, for many years, been proposing cancellation, supported by many who think the subject (incl. safety!!) a waste of money, indicates (to me) that he doesn’t quite have all bases covered. If he wins, whoever is charged with implementation will have to re-invent the wheel and will face much resistance. His approach is top-down, but it will take a long tiime to get to the bottom. Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that 99% of DPA haven't the foggiest what I'm rambling on about.
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
Steamchicken
I understand that the 'unified' flight control software as developed by RAE/DERA/QinetiQ in the VAAC aircraft is now the basis for the FCS in all three versions of the JSF. Tarnished will correct me if I am out of date.
I understand that the 'unified' flight control software as developed by RAE/DERA/QinetiQ in the VAAC aircraft is now the basis for the FCS in all three versions of the JSF. Tarnished will correct me if I am out of date.
JF/Steamchicken
Unified flight control strategy is applicable to the F-35B (STOVL) model only. The CTOL and CV versions employ "traditional" flight control strategies. The argument over the wisdom of "unified" is reignited every time a new pilot joins the team. Harrier pilots are generally reluctant to embrace it, non-Harrier pilots seem to take to it more readily.
For the uninitiated, unified controls effectively turn the hovering task into a close formation station keeping task. Station keeping with a fixed point on the ground instead of another aircraft and at close to zero knots instead of 350 kts. This means that from a fixed hover at 100 ft say, in F-35B to descend forward pressure on the stick will reduce thrust, and to move forward the throttle is advanced from a central detent.
All very clever stuff happening in black box ones/zeros land, but I think that gets the basics across. Piece of cake in the sim when I was introduced to it.
Tarnished
Unified flight control strategy is applicable to the F-35B (STOVL) model only. The CTOL and CV versions employ "traditional" flight control strategies. The argument over the wisdom of "unified" is reignited every time a new pilot joins the team. Harrier pilots are generally reluctant to embrace it, non-Harrier pilots seem to take to it more readily.
For the uninitiated, unified controls effectively turn the hovering task into a close formation station keeping task. Station keeping with a fixed point on the ground instead of another aircraft and at close to zero knots instead of 350 kts. This means that from a fixed hover at 100 ft say, in F-35B to descend forward pressure on the stick will reduce thrust, and to move forward the throttle is advanced from a central detent.
All very clever stuff happening in black box ones/zeros land, but I think that gets the basics across. Piece of cake in the sim when I was introduced to it.
Tarnished
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Can some one please explain to me again why 'operational sovereignty' is such a concern with JSF but not with Trident, TLAM, C17, etc?”
With Trident and TLAM, the target is pre programmed, C-17 doesn't fire weapons.
Second is whether we can bolt on (reporgramme the jet for) our own new weapons. Trident and TLAM are weapons, C-17 doesn't have any.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One sell-out, coming right up
Here's what's going to happen. You all know this already. Sometime in June (or maybe a bit later, for drama) the US will yawn, roll over and hand a note to the UK. The note will say all the right things - right up to the point of making a single, solid guarantee that actually satisfies the UK demands. It will, however, promise to sort everything out when the time comes. Oh sure.
Because, of course, it's much to early to expect all of this very complicated tech stuff to be sorted out. So, you guys just go have some more shortbread pie (or whatever it is you eat) and tell the Queen that everthang's gonna be fine.
Expect a bit about how you UKers are really, really important and are much more special then those other yurpean qweers - you'll get the really good stuff, for sure. Don't worry fella.
Victory will be declared! Another mighty triumph for m'lord.
The UK will never, ever leave this programme. The leap of emotion, intellect and self-confidence required is beyond anyone in the decision making process. We are locked in. STOVL may well get canned - we'll buy CVs instead. Whatever.
Back in the US, where the real decisions are made, elements in Congress are cutting up rough - and the UK fuss is coming in handy to beat the Pentagon with, so Lord Drayson gets a polite audience. By today they don't even remember his name (and as for the other guy, well what the hell kind of parents call their kid 'Jock' anyway, god damn those Limeys are weird).
Mr England and Co. have already given the British team two fingers. Our 60-something aircraft (150 you say?? Come and see the fairies at the bottom of my garden) are now a total irrelevance and the Pentagon never wanted the second engine in the first place.
The UK served its purpose back at the one crucial point where internationalising the programme was part of the go/no-go decision. That was when we had negotiating power - and that's when the people who signed the original documents were asleep at the wheel. We will continue to pay the price for that, £2 billion and counting.
Meanwhile BAE is lining up to dispose of its Airbus share to EADS, to buy L3 - another company that (like BAE) innovates, integrates, aspirates, but doesn't do or make anything.
The entire aerospace future of the UK is being sold down the river (did nobody hear the warning bells when Salmsbury was flogged off).
Serfdom beckons for the 51st State.
Congratulations, Level 1 partner.
Because, of course, it's much to early to expect all of this very complicated tech stuff to be sorted out. So, you guys just go have some more shortbread pie (or whatever it is you eat) and tell the Queen that everthang's gonna be fine.
Expect a bit about how you UKers are really, really important and are much more special then those other yurpean qweers - you'll get the really good stuff, for sure. Don't worry fella.
Victory will be declared! Another mighty triumph for m'lord.
The UK will never, ever leave this programme. The leap of emotion, intellect and self-confidence required is beyond anyone in the decision making process. We are locked in. STOVL may well get canned - we'll buy CVs instead. Whatever.
Back in the US, where the real decisions are made, elements in Congress are cutting up rough - and the UK fuss is coming in handy to beat the Pentagon with, so Lord Drayson gets a polite audience. By today they don't even remember his name (and as for the other guy, well what the hell kind of parents call their kid 'Jock' anyway, god damn those Limeys are weird).
Mr England and Co. have already given the British team two fingers. Our 60-something aircraft (150 you say?? Come and see the fairies at the bottom of my garden) are now a total irrelevance and the Pentagon never wanted the second engine in the first place.
The UK served its purpose back at the one crucial point where internationalising the programme was part of the go/no-go decision. That was when we had negotiating power - and that's when the people who signed the original documents were asleep at the wheel. We will continue to pay the price for that, £2 billion and counting.
Meanwhile BAE is lining up to dispose of its Airbus share to EADS, to buy L3 - another company that (like BAE) innovates, integrates, aspirates, but doesn't do or make anything.
The entire aerospace future of the UK is being sold down the river (did nobody hear the warning bells when Salmsbury was flogged off).
Serfdom beckons for the 51st State.
Congratulations, Level 1 partner.
John, Tarnished: Thanks. That was roughly what I recalled, but it's good to have genuinely authoritative information.
It is indeed a great pity we didn't stamp a great big Union Flag all over it.
It is indeed a great pity we didn't stamp a great big Union Flag all over it.
WEBF, that is one SCARY website!!!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
US seeks to end dispute with UK on fighter jets
The Bush administration is considering ways to provide Britain with technology related to the Joint Strike Fighter after Britain threatened to pull out of the $257bn programme.
The UK defence procurement minister told Congress earlier this month the UK would withdraw from the JSF programme unless the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin – which is building the F-35 next-generation stealth fighter – agreed to share technology Britain says is necessary to ensure "operational sovereignty".
A senior Pentagon official said the US was "disposed to really working out this issue". An official at the State department, which is responsible for licensing military exports, said Washington wanted to be "as supportive as possible of the UK's defence requirements within the framework of existing law".
A top former administration official said the State department was considering several options, including a presidential waiver. The State department declined to comment on that possibility.......
The Bush administration is considering ways to provide Britain with technology related to the Joint Strike Fighter after Britain threatened to pull out of the $257bn programme.
The UK defence procurement minister told Congress earlier this month the UK would withdraw from the JSF programme unless the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin – which is building the F-35 next-generation stealth fighter – agreed to share technology Britain says is necessary to ensure "operational sovereignty".
A senior Pentagon official said the US was "disposed to really working out this issue". An official at the State department, which is responsible for licensing military exports, said Washington wanted to be "as supportive as possible of the UK's defence requirements within the framework of existing law".
A top former administration official said the State department was considering several options, including a presidential waiver. The State department declined to comment on that possibility.......