UK JSF. Why?
Thread Starter
UK JSF. Why?
What is the rationale behind the UK buying JSF?
What relevant capabilities does it bring to the table that are not already available using other platforms. I'm not convinced that the carrier argument is fully valid. (We are getting JSF so we need carriers, OR we are getting carriers so we'd better get some JSF).
Britain is not the major world player that it once was (should still be?) or thinks it is. CVF and JSF is a MASSIVE amount of money, surely better spent on helos and transports.
It may be OK for the Dutch/Israelis etc who need to replace their knackered old F-16As (MLU or otherwise), but the RAF is getting a fairly decent fast jet in Typhoon, and along with Tornado upgrade, UCAVs etc should be reasonably equipped for the future. I just think JSF/CVF is yet another "shiny toy" that is going to be another big money pit.
What relevant capabilities does it bring to the table that are not already available using other platforms. I'm not convinced that the carrier argument is fully valid. (We are getting JSF so we need carriers, OR we are getting carriers so we'd better get some JSF).
Britain is not the major world player that it once was (should still be?) or thinks it is. CVF and JSF is a MASSIVE amount of money, surely better spent on helos and transports.
It may be OK for the Dutch/Israelis etc who need to replace their knackered old F-16As (MLU or otherwise), but the RAF is getting a fairly decent fast jet in Typhoon, and along with Tornado upgrade, UCAVs etc should be reasonably equipped for the future. I just think JSF/CVF is yet another "shiny toy" that is going to be another big money pit.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well for starters, it's not 20+ years old (AV8B/GR5+), has a radar (GR7/9 do not), and comes in CATOBAR and STOVL varieties that the Typhoon cannot and almost certainly never will.
I'll leave the technical reasons to the many experts around here.
I'll leave the technical reasons to the many experts around here.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, good old CDD (Clue Deficiency Disorder).
You may be able to treat some of the symptoms with this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm
If the symptoms get any worse, try a couple of doses of this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/man-ac-jsf-010117a.htm
But ultimately the long term prognosis doesn’t look very good.
You may be able to treat some of the symptoms with this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm
If the symptoms get any worse, try a couple of doses of this:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/man-ac-jsf-010117a.htm
But ultimately the long term prognosis doesn’t look very good.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South England
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find the Israelis and Dutch F16s are far more advanced and unknackered than you think. They certainly have the advantage of being a proven legacy multi-role ac that work, as opposed to some jets I could think of.
If you looked into JSF(post above!) you would find that it is a different league to our current legacy platforms.
If you looked into JSF(post above!) you would find that it is a different league to our current legacy platforms.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
havequick.
Thank goodness you posted!
I was just thinking we needed another thread about carriers so that the same old arguments for and against can be dusted off again from the usual suspects with no side giving an inch till it all grinds to an acrimonious halt.
Cheers!
Thank goodness you posted!
I was just thinking we needed another thread about carriers so that the same old arguments for and against can be dusted off again from the usual suspects with no side giving an inch till it all grinds to an acrimonious halt.
Cheers!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
before it gets into carriers, lets be clear that the major influence behind the JSF is/was the RAF Harrier Mafia intent on replacing the RAF Harrier force. Which was designed and procured well before the advent of the RN "through-deck" carrier force and the SHAR.
For the raison d'etre and origins of the Harrier see here.
For the raison d'etre and origins of the Harrier see here.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't a better question why buy the STOVL version JSF? When with brand new, large tonnage carriers on the way - if the JSF is a must have - it would be far cheaper to just buy the capatapult capable version. (or a Rafael, or marianate the Typhoon)
It's all curiously reminiscent of the Spey F4 debacle, where someone was able to generate an argument to justify re-engining the F4, on the grounds that the carriers Ark Royal and Eagle were a bit short of deck length for safe go around performance with the standard GE engines. No matter that plain vanilla USN F4 had flown on/off the Ark.
The answer to the JSF/STOVL question, is the same as the answer to the Spey engined Phantom one - to generate jobs in the UK - and to heck with whats best for the Navy and Air Force.
In the end, of course the Spey F4 were slower than the standard fit. None of the promised Spey engined Phantom exports were sold and they cost more than twice as much per copy, which by the time the entire fleet of RN and RAF F4s were re-engined would have paid for -just the extra cost over the standard model that is- two brand new carriers - and as an added bonus probably have prevented the Falklands War.
It's all curiously reminiscent of the Spey F4 debacle, where someone was able to generate an argument to justify re-engining the F4, on the grounds that the carriers Ark Royal and Eagle were a bit short of deck length for safe go around performance with the standard GE engines. No matter that plain vanilla USN F4 had flown on/off the Ark.
The answer to the JSF/STOVL question, is the same as the answer to the Spey engined Phantom one - to generate jobs in the UK - and to heck with whats best for the Navy and Air Force.
In the end, of course the Spey F4 were slower than the standard fit. None of the promised Spey engined Phantom exports were sold and they cost more than twice as much per copy, which by the time the entire fleet of RN and RAF F4s were re-engined would have paid for -just the extra cost over the standard model that is- two brand new carriers - and as an added bonus probably have prevented the Falklands War.
Last edited by Jetex Jim; 30th Mar 2008 at 17:58.
Britain is not the major world player that it once was (should still be?) or thinks it is. CVF and JSF is a MASSIVE amount of money, surely better spent on helos and transports.
As long as we only fight wars in landlocked (or nearly landlocked) places where the opposition has neither an air force or a navy.
I refer the reader to the Sea Jet and Future Carrier threads.
The calamity that comes is never the one we had prepared for - Mark Twain.
As long as we only fight wars in landlocked (or nearly landlocked) places where the opposition has neither an air force or a navy.
I refer the reader to the Sea Jet and Future Carrier threads.
The calamity that comes is never the one we had prepared for - Mark Twain.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Apr 2008 at 16:04.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being tarred with whatever brush is doing the rounds from the other 20 CVF threads, I agree with the thread opener to a fair degree.
To operate carriers you have to be able to protect them - and that isn't just a case of having 2 fighters on CAP and a helo hoping he's in the right sector to contain the submarine threat. Carriers NEED supporting frigates/destroyers/SSN/MPA, and unless we're talking about invading Luxembourg they survive a damn sight longer if they're outside enemy landbased air threats, and inside friendly air cover.
I think we should have carriers, but only if we can afford to provide the rest of the TG and have a good array of aircraft onboard* - otherwise what purpose is served by having a single unit that will constitute a devastating loss if anything leaks through? We don't 'project power' worldwide any more - we do still need to be able to protect the sealanes to the UK, we're an island and still need to ship material in and out, and we need to be able to perform anti druggy/anti terorist stuff... we buy shiny toys at the expense of the workhorses of our defence capability.
No 'anti Navy' stance intended here, in an ideal world we'd have a suitable balance of forces - it's a fallacy to say that we have to plan for all eventualities, unless we can afford to cover them all.... if we don't have the money to conduct all the ops, cover all the roles we ought to, then we have got to concentrate on the areas that most directly impinge on national security - and that isn't 'being able to refight 1982 properly'. Unfortunately we've had a succession of governments who have funded a national, coastal defence capability, then started wars a third of the globe away.
Dave
*Which is a nice way of saying 'we can't afford it' of course.
To operate carriers you have to be able to protect them - and that isn't just a case of having 2 fighters on CAP and a helo hoping he's in the right sector to contain the submarine threat. Carriers NEED supporting frigates/destroyers/SSN/MPA, and unless we're talking about invading Luxembourg they survive a damn sight longer if they're outside enemy landbased air threats, and inside friendly air cover.
I think we should have carriers, but only if we can afford to provide the rest of the TG and have a good array of aircraft onboard* - otherwise what purpose is served by having a single unit that will constitute a devastating loss if anything leaks through? We don't 'project power' worldwide any more - we do still need to be able to protect the sealanes to the UK, we're an island and still need to ship material in and out, and we need to be able to perform anti druggy/anti terorist stuff... we buy shiny toys at the expense of the workhorses of our defence capability.
No 'anti Navy' stance intended here, in an ideal world we'd have a suitable balance of forces - it's a fallacy to say that we have to plan for all eventualities, unless we can afford to cover them all.... if we don't have the money to conduct all the ops, cover all the roles we ought to, then we have got to concentrate on the areas that most directly impinge on national security - and that isn't 'being able to refight 1982 properly'. Unfortunately we've had a succession of governments who have funded a national, coastal defence capability, then started wars a third of the globe away.
Dave
*Which is a nice way of saying 'we can't afford it' of course.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35
Lets not forget the money either. For British industry it is a huge huge winner. Getting 20%? of a project this big is going to keep money rolling in for many years to come. Probably far out stripping the outlay on the jets themselves. ... plus we get to peak inside too unlike the other partners. Its such a great deal.. if its decided we don't need them, it would be better to buy them and crush them than loose out on the work share!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... plus we get to peak inside too unlike the other partners.....
I still remain to be convinced that the USA will export A/C that match their own 100% in EVERY aspect......
I still remain to be convinced that the USA will export A/C that match their own 100% in EVERY aspect......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St.Annes (07892890416)
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Drift
Interesting.
Doesn't look like there have really been any actual answers to the thread starter's quuestion.
Rakshasa said:
but that really only makes the case for a (any) carrier-borne AD-capable aircraft. I don't intend to start a debate about whether we need one of those - UK defence policy is that we're going to have one. But why JSF?
Tightflester's (outdated) links mention UK/US cooperation and say that JSF will be shiny and capable, and ORAC (predictably) blames the RAF for choosing JSF for the RN (?), but I am still a bit confused as to how we got to where we are.
Is it stealth? If so, I'm unconvinced that the small range/weaponload when stealthy is cost effective when compared to the cheap & cheerful TLAM or the more-capable Storm Shadow. Is it the STOVL capability? Nice to have when you're operating from small strips (as JFH have demonstrated) but is this an articulated capability requirement, perhaps as part of the FRES rapid intervention concept?
Yes, we will need SOMETHING to put on our carriers (providing the Defence Select Committee can be convinced we have the ability to operate them), but why JSF? Why not SuperHornet or Rafale?
What hole does this capability really fill?
Doesn't look like there have really been any actual answers to the thread starter's quuestion.
Rakshasa said:
Well for starters, it's not 20+ years old (AV8B/GR5+), has a radar (GR7/9 do not), and comes in CATOBAR and STOVL varieties that the Typhoon cannot and almost certainly never will.
Tightflester's (outdated) links mention UK/US cooperation and say that JSF will be shiny and capable, and ORAC (predictably) blames the RAF for choosing JSF for the RN (?), but I am still a bit confused as to how we got to where we are.
Is it stealth? If so, I'm unconvinced that the small range/weaponload when stealthy is cost effective when compared to the cheap & cheerful TLAM or the more-capable Storm Shadow. Is it the STOVL capability? Nice to have when you're operating from small strips (as JFH have demonstrated) but is this an articulated capability requirement, perhaps as part of the FRES rapid intervention concept?
Yes, we will need SOMETHING to put on our carriers (providing the Defence Select Committee can be convinced we have the ability to operate them), but why JSF? Why not SuperHornet or Rafale?
What hole does this capability really fill?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outdated?
Tightflester's (outdated) links mention UK/US cooperation and say that JSF will be shiny and capable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugb...up/3228728.stm
As it was an outdated link it probably isn't true. England rugby fans please STFU.... It never happened.
The training requirements for catapault launch/arrested recovery ops are such that the aircraft procured would not be available to do anything else. They would be an asset which would effectively be tied to the carriers.
The theory is that a STOVL type will be able to conduct both carrier ops and land based, and will thus be more flexible and more useful, more often.
The implications of command over carrier-capable assets was discussed recently on another thread.
So in answer to the original question, the answer is B) we are getting carriers so we'd better get some JSF.
As to what relevant capabilities we will get that are not already available using other platforms, there are very few.
Like the OP I'm not convinced that the carrier argument is fully valid. I can see that there are theoretical scenarios in which carriers would be the only option (you only have to look back 26 years to see the last example.....
).
Unfortunately, though, there are equally compelling scenarios that could be used to support the acquisition of similarly high-cost and seldom-needed capabilities - from the ability to air-drop paras in brigade strength, through the ability to mount another Desert Storm/Granby scale effort, to the ability to mount a large scale armoured offensive, or even the use of strategic heavy bombers.
We can't afford any of these - nor, according to the defence assumptions, can we afford to do the kind of large scale autonomous ops to which many of us would aspire. In that strategic and budgetary context, CVF is not affordable, and should not be acquired. We are not the major world player that we once were (and should still be). CVF and JSF together do represent a MASSIVE amount of money, that would be better spent on the capabilities we actually need every time out - not just helos and transports, but tankers, SEAD, recce and land based FJs as well.
The theory is that a STOVL type will be able to conduct both carrier ops and land based, and will thus be more flexible and more useful, more often.
The implications of command over carrier-capable assets was discussed recently on another thread.
So in answer to the original question, the answer is B) we are getting carriers so we'd better get some JSF.
As to what relevant capabilities we will get that are not already available using other platforms, there are very few.
Like the OP I'm not convinced that the carrier argument is fully valid. I can see that there are theoretical scenarios in which carriers would be the only option (you only have to look back 26 years to see the last example.....
).Unfortunately, though, there are equally compelling scenarios that could be used to support the acquisition of similarly high-cost and seldom-needed capabilities - from the ability to air-drop paras in brigade strength, through the ability to mount another Desert Storm/Granby scale effort, to the ability to mount a large scale armoured offensive, or even the use of strategic heavy bombers.
We can't afford any of these - nor, according to the defence assumptions, can we afford to do the kind of large scale autonomous ops to which many of us would aspire. In that strategic and budgetary context, CVF is not affordable, and should not be acquired. We are not the major world player that we once were (and should still be). CVF and JSF together do represent a MASSIVE amount of money, that would be better spent on the capabilities we actually need every time out - not just helos and transports, but tankers, SEAD, recce and land based FJs as well.