Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

JSF and A400M at risk?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

JSF and A400M at risk?

Old 26th Oct 2008, 20:22
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Interesting and well put points Mick, however buying carriers and nothing to put on them will also lose a lot of face, and this marinised Typhoon rubbish would also cost a fortune and probably fail.
F18 anyone?
Tourist is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2008, 22:53
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Well, I remain sceptical that the UK will abandon the JSF and won't hold my breath for such an announcement saying as much to emerge. Buying alternative Super Hornets, Rafales or navalising Typhoons is still going to cost money. A reduction in the numbers of the planned procurement of 138 F-35Bs sounds more realistic depending on what Lockheed Martin eventually charges complete with support costs, etc and how the current financial crisis pans out. As Hutton acknowledges, it would be pointless building the carriers with no aircraft to operate off them after the Harrier is retired.

As for tranche three Typhoon, it appears that contract will be split into two batches with one ordered in 2009 and the remainder at a later date, according to recent interviews in the specialist aviation media with Eurofighter's Aloysius Rauen.
mick2088 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 10:05
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Hutton

...but you'll note that he restricted his answer on the politics show. He said that the carriers would be equiped with 'capable aircraft' - and didn't specifically name JSF. There was also a lot of 'eyes left' when he was given those questions. A body language person might suggest that he was hitting a grey area at that point.

.. and the horrendous maths that some might be doing:

tranche 3 - circa 9bn
JSF - 9 - 12bn
Total 20bn

Marinised tranche 3 circa 14bn = 6bn saved.
hulahoop7 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 10:08
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 47
Posts: 151
So if the 25 A400Ms are cancelled what will fill the AT shortfall?

The remaining C130Ks will just about last until 2012, the C130Js are racking up fatigue life with outer wing replacements already talked about in 2012 for the fleet leaders.

Which platform will take over the DSF commitment - the C130J programme is only designed as a interim measure until the future SF (A400M?) platform!

Have we not realised that AT is a priority? Lessons learned from 7 of years operations?

We will always need AT, both strategic and tactical as force projectors and multipliers - cancelling A400M would be a stupid move that will leave UK PLC poorly placed for ongoing and future operations.

Last edited by Truckkie; 27th Oct 2008 at 10:46.
Truckkie is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 10:54
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Hulahoop7,

Super Hornet is a capable aircraft......
XV277 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 11:22
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Truckkie,

As far as I know, there's nothing to fill the role, hence the A400M was born in the first place.

I believe LM are looking into a fatter-albert, but that is even further away than the A400M is.

C17 is a good strat AT, but too big for the smaller partner nations who only ordered 1 or 2 aircraft. ~(South Africa, Belgium etc), also not suited to the majority of Euro tac work due to its size.

I agree it would be daft to cancel it, but then again, since when has anyone in power listened to the coalface.

If anyone can remember the start of the C17 project, that was nealry cancelled a few times, and only after massive investment did it work.

Hopefully the partners involved here will bite the bullet and finish what was started.
moosemaster is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 12:21
  #187 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,280
That's before you take into account that a couple of months ago 1 got you $2. Now it's down to just over $1.52 and the forecast is below $1.40.

That's means the original 9B,reputedly now up to around 15B, will turn into 12B-20B.
ORAC is online now  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 12:24
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Surely a lot, if not all, of that is offset by the fact that we are one of the manufacturers, and thus get paid in dollars also?
We are buying very few, and yet are getting a substantial part of the build.
Tourist is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2008, 12:33
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Surely a lot, if not all, of that is offset by the fact that we are one of the manufacturers, and thus get paid in dollars also?
We are buying very few, and yet are getting a substantial part of the build.
Sounds good, if you could guarantee the BAE portion of the JSF build was done in UK. But BAE have extensive facilities in the USA, (Wiki):

BAE now sells more to the US Department of Defense (DOD) than the UK MOD.[82] The company has been allowed to buy important defence contractors in the US, however its status as a UK company requires that its US subsidiaries are governed by American executives under Special Security Arrangements. BAE Systems faces less impediments in this sense than its European counterparts, as there is a high degree of integration between the US and UK defence establishments. BAE's purchase of Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems in November 2000 was described by John Hamre, CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former Deputy Secretary of Defense, as "precedent setting" given the advanced and classified nature of many of that company's products.[83]
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2008, 15:46
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
Analysis: Reducing F-35 purchase could save UK up to USD5.8bn - Jane's Defence Business News
TiffyFGR4 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2008, 16:21
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Where do we go from here?

Quite agree with Mick Smith's post: of all the options, considering there ARE going to be cuts, JSF is the most plausible: way too man unknowns, way too expensive, and the only program hich can be efficiently replaced. But with what?
- Forget about Typhoon. No matter how fantastically superior it is to everybody else. It is not possible to navalise it and it will not be: airframe strength, nosewheel under the intakes, no deck visibility due to the canards, high approach speed, low payload,etc.... Tried it with the Jaguar, binned it, tried it with the Mirage 2000, binned it, it required 80% of modifications on the acft.

Only sensible option is to grind the ski jump and put some F/A-18 (they will be damn old by 2015) or Rafales. I understand RN would rather chew their own hats rather than buying Rafales and re-learning to cat&trap 30 years after Ark Royal (the real one), however it makes sense...
LeCrazyFrog is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2008, 16:45
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 160
this is an interesting sentence;

A REDUCTION in the number of F-35s procured to as few as 85 aircraft would allow the RAF to maintain its current fast jet combat aircraft inventory levels WHILE AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING the capability and flexibility of the force.


Anyone explain to me how that would work ?

Or am I thick
Tyres O'Flaherty is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2008, 09:56
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Rafale

Guys I think the Hornet is a good aircraft. But what with Europe getting closer together and also the fact our carriers and those of the French Navy wil be very much the same as I understand it there should be only one logical aircraft:- The Rafale!
If we buy American there always seem to be so many strings attached to what we can and cannot do with the plane!
Plus the Royal Navy could have its own Rafale fleet the RAF can have its Typhoons end of story. No longer will RAF pilots have to spend time at sea. How many Rafales would we need? About 100 maybe? Atlast we will have a proper Navy with real planes and real carriers! We could even then buy Hawkeye from the Americans.
Ronald Reagan is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2008, 10:20
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: world
Posts: 76
To save money the best thing would be to cancel the carriers. Keep typhoon and jsf. No more c17 ,buy B747 freighters/combi can carry 100 tons direct to most current operational areas.
icarus sun is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2008, 10:48
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
100 tons????

I can see the old "ships-are-useless-because-with-our-mighty-planes-we-can-go-anywhere" rant coming on...

100 tons per aircraft i hear, so how many of those will you need to carry 40 JSF (20 odd tons each) plus a couple of AEW (I'm talking E2C, not the old bag), plus weapons, plus the engineers, plus supplies, plus beds and food for the whole lot....? I would say at least... one carrier...

Not to mention that before landing somewhere, you need the clearance, etc...Want an example? air force started working in a'stan 4 months after carriers were already launching strikes.
LeCrazyFrog is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2008, 13:41
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 47
Posts: 151
4 months after carrier ops..........

Not entirely true for all Air Force assets

And who says you need clearance?
Truckkie is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2008, 19:06
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Flight Global has just published latest A400M slippages.

Cue the Big Top music: "Rit dit diddle diddle...etc"

EADS slows down A400M production due to engine flight-test delays


On a serious note, is our AT requirement not heavily or utterly relient on this platform? I hear the J needs rewinged in circa 2012 and is knocking up an eyewatering FI. The Tristar is having the guts ripped out of it's cockpit imminently. Are we at risk of a dreadful shortfall of airlift for the guys who so desperately need it in theatre?
indie cent is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2008, 19:13
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 181
We MUST get more C17s. No question. Perhaps 10 all together?
hulahoop7 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2008, 20:14
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 47
Posts: 151
On a serious note, is our AT requirement not heavily or utterly relient on this platform? I hear the J needs rewinged in circa 2012 and is knocking up an eyewatering FI. The Tristar is having the guts ripped out of it's cockpit imminently. Are we at risk of a dreadful shortfall of airlift for the guys who so desperately need it in theatre?
That's about right:-

12 very tired C130Ks reduce to 9 next year - just enough to maintain support to DSF and UK standbys. OSD 2012
C130Js racking up FI - first outer wing due replacing on fleet leaders in 2012. SF upgrade programme due to start 2010 through to 2012/13 - removing line airframes for modernisation.
Tristars OSD now 2014 - cockipit/avionic upgrades and fuel system overhaul permitting - cue Marshalls delays
VC10 - very, very tired.
C17 - brilliant but not enough airframes or crews - full fleet not operating until 2011/2012
A400M - original ISD 2010/2011 now slipping right at a vast rate of knots.
FSTA - 2009/10 - are you having a laugh?

2012 is being called the 'perfect storm' in the AT world when the airframe situation becomes critical.

Couple this with the move of Lyneham to Brize and the upheaval of the infastructure of the entire C130 fleet plus the continuing demands of operations and something called the Olympics!!

We will not have enough AT to support current ops, never mind anything else
Truckkie is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2008, 02:16
  #200 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,414
Whilst the Herc fleet is getting tired and is overused I still think a lot more could be done to ensure longevity of both fleets.

That said, for the type of ops we're involved in we should buying a bunch of these fellas:

12T payload, 60 odd troops, bags of performance. So obvious it hurts
StopStart is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.