JSF - 6 Months on...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
JSF - 6 Months on...
We were discussing 6 months a go the problem of the USA not being willing to release the software codes and other data on the JSF to the UK.
The Commons Defence Committee opined that, if no agreement was reached, the aircraft should not be ordered. Government officials duly talked to the USA and Bush signed a nice letter saying it was a good idea. The DoD agreed to hold discussions to sort it out.
We are now at the end of the discussion period, the Memorandum of Understanding needs to be signed - and the Senate/DoD have not moved an inch except for vague assurances. There have been many US correspondents who have said we are bluffing, it is the only choice in town. The other partners, Australia, the Netherlands etc, are signing up, we will as well.
So, it is put up or shut up time. The Defence Committee have put their cards on the table. A decision is needed before the end of the year - just 3 weeks away, including the Xmas holidays. So, what do we do?
BBC: MPs warn over US fighter jet deal
The UK should not agree to a US deal to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter unless the US releases details allowing independent operation, MPs have warned. The defence committee said an assurance was needed from the US "by the end of the year" that all the technical information would be given to the UK.
The $276.5bn (£140bn) Anglo-US project will supply the armed forces of the US, Britain and several other countries. Earlier this year, the government expressed concerns about the deal.........It still remains unclear whether the US will agree to transfer the technology required to give the UK operational sovereignty of the aircraft. The committee said if there is no deal by the end of the year, the government should focus on developing a "plan B" to acquire alternative aircraft.......
ITV.com .........Ministers have previously threatened that the UK could pull out of plans to buy up to 150 of the military planes for the RAF and Navy unless the US agreed to transfer secrets about its software that Britain argues are needed in order to operate and maintain them independently.
Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush had reportedly solved the impasse in May, when they announced an agreement in principle that the UK would be given access to the classified details on conditions of strict secrecy. However, the committee warned that it was still "uncertain" whether the US was prepared to supply the required information.
The MPs said: "If the required assurances are not obtained by the end of the year, we recommend that the Ministry of Defence switch the majority of its effort and funding on the programme into developing a fallback 'plan B', so that an alternative aircraft is available in case the UK has to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter programme. "We must not get into a situation where there are no aircraft to operate from the two new aircraft carriers when they enter service."
The Commons Defence Committee opined that, if no agreement was reached, the aircraft should not be ordered. Government officials duly talked to the USA and Bush signed a nice letter saying it was a good idea. The DoD agreed to hold discussions to sort it out.
We are now at the end of the discussion period, the Memorandum of Understanding needs to be signed - and the Senate/DoD have not moved an inch except for vague assurances. There have been many US correspondents who have said we are bluffing, it is the only choice in town. The other partners, Australia, the Netherlands etc, are signing up, we will as well.
So, it is put up or shut up time. The Defence Committee have put their cards on the table. A decision is needed before the end of the year - just 3 weeks away, including the Xmas holidays. So, what do we do?
BBC: MPs warn over US fighter jet deal
The UK should not agree to a US deal to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter unless the US releases details allowing independent operation, MPs have warned. The defence committee said an assurance was needed from the US "by the end of the year" that all the technical information would be given to the UK.
The $276.5bn (£140bn) Anglo-US project will supply the armed forces of the US, Britain and several other countries. Earlier this year, the government expressed concerns about the deal.........It still remains unclear whether the US will agree to transfer the technology required to give the UK operational sovereignty of the aircraft. The committee said if there is no deal by the end of the year, the government should focus on developing a "plan B" to acquire alternative aircraft.......
ITV.com .........Ministers have previously threatened that the UK could pull out of plans to buy up to 150 of the military planes for the RAF and Navy unless the US agreed to transfer secrets about its software that Britain argues are needed in order to operate and maintain them independently.
Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush had reportedly solved the impasse in May, when they announced an agreement in principle that the UK would be given access to the classified details on conditions of strict secrecy. However, the committee warned that it was still "uncertain" whether the US was prepared to supply the required information.
The MPs said: "If the required assurances are not obtained by the end of the year, we recommend that the Ministry of Defence switch the majority of its effort and funding on the programme into developing a fallback 'plan B', so that an alternative aircraft is available in case the UK has to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter programme. "We must not get into a situation where there are no aircraft to operate from the two new aircraft carriers when they enter service."
Last edited by ORAC; 8th Dec 2006 at 09:16.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coincidence?
Well this could give MoD all the excuse it needs to sh1t-can JCA/CVF and free up funds for the Trident upgrade. Incidentally, why is it so important we have access to JSF technology but not to Trident?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Incidentally, why is it so important we have access to JSF technology but not to Trident?
Basically, we want to retain the ability, where we have it, to mainain, update and operate our own assets. With JSF that means doing software updates and adding weapons and sensors of out own. We have no equivalent expertise in ICBMs, and it is unlikely to need any update other than that provided by the USA.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the Navy losing their flat tops, but only after we have gone through further expensive feasibility studies to navalise Dave. Got to agree with LJR- hovering is an unnecessary luxury.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: W. Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than the simple reason that no non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful (Seafire had some major flaws) carrier-based variant.
Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)
Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)
"No non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful carrier-based variant."
Yeah, right. Look at failures like the Hawker Nimrod, the de Havilland Sea Hornet, the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), the T-45, the F/A-18, the Su-33K, and the MiG-29K.
"Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)"
Yeah, right. Your second generalisation is almost as incisive as your first. Typhoon N will clearly be compromised (there's a 300-500 kg weight penalty, depending on the options exercised), but the commonality benefits are considerable, and it will be supportable, sustainable, operable and upgradeable without US say-so.
Yeah, right. Look at failures like the Hawker Nimrod, the de Havilland Sea Hornet, the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110), the T-45, the F/A-18, the Su-33K, and the MiG-29K.
"Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)"
Yeah, right. Your second generalisation is almost as incisive as your first. Typhoon N will clearly be compromised (there's a 300-500 kg weight penalty, depending on the options exercised), but the commonality benefits are considerable, and it will be supportable, sustainable, operable and upgradeable without US say-so.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Odiham
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than the simple reason that no non-STOVL land-based design has EVER been developed into a successful (Seafire had some major flaws) carrier-based variant.
Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)
Oh and the various Heath-Robinson concepts already wheeled out to get typhoon to be CV-compatible (periscopes anyone????)
Nevermind eh?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well just as the start of this thread indicates, we've been here and said all this before. I stick with my original comments, in fact the notion of navalising the final batch of Typhoons looks even more attractive now than it did months ago!
We have more Typhoons ordered than we actually need (well, more than our stated needs)
We don't need a vstol aircraft
The new carriers have catapult retrofit capability built-in
BAe have already said that navalising the Typhoon isn't as difficult as imagined
And now it's looking like BAe might not even be able to slow Typhoon deliveries to the RAF - seen as the Saudis look like abandoning their order. Hmm, all those Typhoons looking for a good home... You can see the inevitability of this saga growing day by day! Still, never say die - the MoD might still pull defeat from the jaws of victory and insist on throwing vast sums of money at an aircraft we don't even need.
We have more Typhoons ordered than we actually need (well, more than our stated needs) We don't need a vstol aircraft The new carriers have catapult retrofit capability built-in BAe have already said that navalising the Typhoon isn't as difficult as imaginedAnd now it's looking like BAe might not even be able to slow Typhoon deliveries to the RAF - seen as the Saudis look like abandoning their order. Hmm, all those Typhoons looking for a good home... You can see the inevitability of this saga growing day by day! Still, never say die - the MoD might still pull defeat from the jaws of victory and insist on throwing vast sums of money at an aircraft we don't even need.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this late date, I am amazed to find those who are unaware that the F-18 and Rafale were designed from the start as carrier aircraft!
Wokawoka:
Wasn't the whole reason France pulled out of the EFA/Typhoon project because they wanted a carrier capable version and the rest said "later, if we do it at all"... so they built the Rafale instead, specifically to get a carrier-capable aircraft? Wasn't it designed from the start as a carrier aircraft??
Jackonicko; (why am I not surprised)
F-18... maybe you are referring to its origins as the YF-17 for the USAF light fighter competition won by the F-16, but don't you remember the complete, nose-to-tail redesign (with the -17's builder, Northrop, becoming a sub-contracter of McDonnell-Douglas because N. had no carrier aircraft experience), with a totally new landing gear, fuselage, & wing structure specifically for the carrier environment?
Will the UK Treasury pay for a whole new airframe & wings for "Seaphoon"?
The F-18L, you ask? Oh yes, an attempt to de-navalize the Hornet to make it cheaper for non-carrier nations, wasn't it?
And from a US point of view, don't even mention the T-45 "navalization" of the Hawk... years late, well over-budget, a completely new wing, and restrictions on operating weight (due to structural concerns) when flown from a carrier as compared to land, and this from a trainer! What if we had been trying to navalize one of the combat-capable versions, eh? Would you still call that a "success"?
And as for Su-33K, and the MiG-29K, both designed for grass-strip operations, and still with payload restrictions when operating from a carrier, not really what you want from an aircraft that is supposed to do strike, like a Seaphoon would need to... that is why the Russians use the Su-25 Frogfoot from their carriers too... to get something that can carry attack payloads!
If you really want to claim one of the Russian birds as a "land-to-carrier" success, that is the real one... but it was a "dirt-field, rough-service" design from the start... not something that could be said about Typhoon, so I can see why you would leave that one out!
I suppose we could sell you some of our upgraded A-10Cs to give you a Carrier Strike Force if you go the Seaphoon route!
Which brings us to the other examples you use... de Havilland Sea Hornet, the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110)... all aircraft from a day when:
1. take-off & landing speeds were MUCH slower, and therefore MUCH less stressful...
2. aircraft were "over-engineered"... rather than subject to draconian weight-saving measures that leave little excess margin of strength
3. modification of existing aircraft & designs was MUCH cheaper as a portion of acquisition costs than it is now!
Note: This part was a misunderstanding of Jackonicko's post on my part... see my response post below. I am keeping this here so others will understand the following posts!
Nimrod??? Just when has Nimrod ever operated from a carrier?? Just like you, to try to distract from the issue at hand (modification of land-based aircraft to carrier-based ones) by trying to broaden the discussion to include something that merely operates over water while still flying from land bases!!!
Navalization (adapting to operate from shipboard) is a completely different subject from Marinization (adapting to operate over sea water)!
Wokawoka:
Wasn't the whole reason France pulled out of the EFA/Typhoon project because they wanted a carrier capable version and the rest said "later, if we do it at all"... so they built the Rafale instead, specifically to get a carrier-capable aircraft? Wasn't it designed from the start as a carrier aircraft??
Jackonicko; (why am I not surprised)
F-18... maybe you are referring to its origins as the YF-17 for the USAF light fighter competition won by the F-16, but don't you remember the complete, nose-to-tail redesign (with the -17's builder, Northrop, becoming a sub-contracter of McDonnell-Douglas because N. had no carrier aircraft experience), with a totally new landing gear, fuselage, & wing structure specifically for the carrier environment?
Will the UK Treasury pay for a whole new airframe & wings for "Seaphoon"?
The F-18L, you ask? Oh yes, an attempt to de-navalize the Hornet to make it cheaper for non-carrier nations, wasn't it?
And from a US point of view, don't even mention the T-45 "navalization" of the Hawk... years late, well over-budget, a completely new wing, and restrictions on operating weight (due to structural concerns) when flown from a carrier as compared to land, and this from a trainer! What if we had been trying to navalize one of the combat-capable versions, eh? Would you still call that a "success"?
And as for Su-33K, and the MiG-29K, both designed for grass-strip operations, and still with payload restrictions when operating from a carrier, not really what you want from an aircraft that is supposed to do strike, like a Seaphoon would need to... that is why the Russians use the Su-25 Frogfoot from their carriers too... to get something that can carry attack payloads!
If you really want to claim one of the Russian birds as a "land-to-carrier" success, that is the real one... but it was a "dirt-field, rough-service" design from the start... not something that could be said about Typhoon, so I can see why you would leave that one out!
I suppose we could sell you some of our upgraded A-10Cs to give you a Carrier Strike Force if you go the Seaphoon route!
Which brings us to the other examples you use... de Havilland Sea Hornet, the Sea Venom, the FJ-3 Fury, the Sea Vixen (DH110)... all aircraft from a day when:
1. take-off & landing speeds were MUCH slower, and therefore MUCH less stressful...
2. aircraft were "over-engineered"... rather than subject to draconian weight-saving measures that leave little excess margin of strength
3. modification of existing aircraft & designs was MUCH cheaper as a portion of acquisition costs than it is now!
Note: This part was a misunderstanding of Jackonicko's post on my part... see my response post below. I am keeping this here so others will understand the following posts!
Nimrod??? Just when has Nimrod ever operated from a carrier?? Just like you, to try to distract from the issue at hand (modification of land-based aircraft to carrier-based ones) by trying to broaden the discussion to include something that merely operates over water while still flying from land bases!!!
Navalization (adapting to operate from shipboard) is a completely different subject from Marinization (adapting to operate over sea water)!
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 9th Dec 2006 at 08:33.
"Nimrod??? Just when has Nimrod ever operated from a carrier??"
Try a Google search - or go to Duxford!
Hint: We're not talking about the Comet derivative full of doughnut scoffing teenage signallers!
Try a Google search - or go to Duxford!
Hint: We're not talking about the Comet derivative full of doughnut scoffing teenage signallers!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAWKER Nimrod
Greennight121, You really need to bone up on your aviation history! The BAE Nimrod is the second aircraft to bear that name. Part of the reason for it being so named was in recognition of the success of the successful Hawker Nimrod biplane which helped you chaps learn that carrier ops were a possibility! Having spent many hours at the controls of the later version I can say that only the prospect of a warm bed and a cold beer prevented me from making an approach to one of your pitching steel decks :-)!
Well done Beags - beat me by 4 Min
Well done Beags - beat me by 4 Min
Last edited by olddog; 9th Dec 2006 at 08:20. Reason: additi0nal content
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Near
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought there were discussions about possibly obtaining some Rafale-M's as part of a deal as the French Navy has ordered (I think) one of the carriers we're building. Whats happened to this option?
I also remember reading a quote from an senior RAAF bloke, saying that altho the F-35 was a great "bomb tuck", aside from its bvr capabilities, it wouldn't be good in air-to-air as "it would be aerodynamically unable to mix it in aerial combat with Migs or Sukhois....". I don't think he was a fan.
Any Seaharriers left over....?
I also remember reading a quote from an senior RAAF bloke, saying that altho the F-35 was a great "bomb tuck", aside from its bvr capabilities, it wouldn't be good in air-to-air as "it would be aerodynamically unable to mix it in aerial combat with Migs or Sukhois....". I don't think he was a fan.
Any Seaharriers left over....?