JSF Delays
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I guess that means the Sea Harrier will have to soldier on even longer....
Ah, silly me. Of course the UK has already burnt those particular boats, hasn't it.
Ah, silly me. Of course the UK has already burnt those particular boats, hasn't it.
So the capability gap between Sea Harrier (see the thread) and F35 is likely to be longer than planned.......
Funny, that nice Mr Ingram said there would be no delays.
Funny, that nice Mr Ingram said there would be no delays.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Don't worry Type 45 will fill the gap!
Oh hang on , that's late too, and we're not getting enough but we won't be fighting anyone with an airforce. 'Cept, Iran, the Argies, North Korea etc.
And as USMC are planning on 2024 for OSD of Harrier what does that tell you about timescales!
Cynical chip fully engaged!
Don't worry Type 45 will fill the gap!
Oh hang on , that's late too, and we're not getting enough but we won't be fighting anyone with an airforce. 'Cept, Iran, the Argies, North Korea etc.
And as USMC are planning on 2024 for OSD of Harrier what does that tell you about timescales!
Cynical chip fully engaged!
As the earwig said...
Delaying STOVL would probably be a good thing for the program. Why do the most complicated version first? It will still be in time for CVF, the way things are going. And whether or not the Marines have a full load of aircraft is not going to decide the next war.
The Navy slip could lead to more Super Hornets, which the Navy seems quite happy with now. Potentially, too, it keeps open the possibility that Dave C - which just got a biugger wing which will further reduce accel/transonic performance - will be squeezed between a Block 3 Ultra Bug and the UCAS.
Underlying all this is that the Navy wants to spend money on big steel things that float.
Delaying STOVL would probably be a good thing for the program. Why do the most complicated version first? It will still be in time for CVF, the way things are going. And whether or not the Marines have a full load of aircraft is not going to decide the next war.
The Navy slip could lead to more Super Hornets, which the Navy seems quite happy with now. Potentially, too, it keeps open the possibility that Dave C - which just got a biugger wing which will further reduce accel/transonic performance - will be squeezed between a Block 3 Ultra Bug and the UCAS.
Underlying all this is that the Navy wants to spend money on big steel things that float.
Originally Posted by Letsby Avenue
Rafael anyone
Or perhaps you mean the French Rafale - an aircraft so long in gestation it rivals Typhoon.
Either way, Dave-Charlie, F18E probably rank as better bets. Bit disconcerting that Dave has lost even more of its pace though.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as its supersonic it's a step up! Personally I think the expenditure has been such that we will take Dave B even if it's delayed. Suspect Dave would be much better than some BAE bodge of marinising the Typhoon or buying French. Saw an interesting (relatively) quote recently about a marinised Super Gripen being thought of!
Whatever the option finally purchased I'm not holding my breath on a decision.
Whatever the option finally purchased I'm not holding my breath on a decision.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: W. Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supposedly they're much closer to reaching an agreement on the technology transfer. If there's no agreement by the end of the year then they'll call it off. Which means a redesign for CVF. Which means more delays. 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not navalised Gripen? It's the only 4th gen fighter in regular service and has the bonus for carrier ops of allegedly lower maintenance requirements than rivals. There is debate about how much strengthening it would require for carrier ops given that it has sturdier gear than rivals to cope with STOL ops from roadways and can use canard deflection to assist braking, but then how much improvement and changes would other 'gestating' a/c require? I am ignoring the Rafale simply because its standard weapons fit does not appear to be 'NATO standard' 
? I did pick up a sniff of some Gripen success during ADEX 05 against carrier-capable a/c (Finnish F/A-18). Anyone care to elaborate on that or confirm?
? I did pick up a sniff of some Gripen success during ADEX 05 against carrier-capable a/c (Finnish F/A-18). Anyone care to elaborate on that or confirm?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: W. Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit I am thoroughly confused about the French situation with CVF. First of all I'm told that now France are joining CVF, they are paying Ģ100m in recognition of the design work done by the Brits. But then Thalles (a French 'International' company) did the design work in the first place. So...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I donīt see where the confusion is. Thales was paid for its design work by the British government, why should the French government get access to the design for free?
Thales (a french company) subcontracted the design to BMT DSL (a UK company), but both were under contract to the UK MoD who therefore own the IPR. That's what the French government have paid £100M for.
However, whisper it quietly, but some of those French who have seen the CVF "design" in its current state are questionning whether they should have paid so much for what is essentially a feasibility design, which (currently) has very little arrangement depth and detail behind it..........
However, whisper it quietly, but some of those French who have seen the CVF "design" in its current state are questionning whether they should have paid so much for what is essentially a feasibility design, which (currently) has very little arrangement depth and detail behind it..........
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 24th Aug 2006 at 11:57.
