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 29th Sep 2008, 16:36
  #41 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I mean, what is this guy talking about? Going in where precisely? To do what, against whom?
Erm, isn't one of the foundations of a military service to be able to handle the next fight no matter who it might be?

And how many times have you gone into any such fight?

Should the balloon go up anywhere with an air-to-air threat, will you be leading the squadron in your jet?


I'll also be pleased to pass on your sentiments to the US services' Public Affairs offices if you'd like.
 
Old 29th Sep 2008, 17:13
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
Jacko,

Your estimate of 19-20Billion that you quote is now nearly 5 years old!

NAO won't even list the currently forecast cost of Typhoon in its reports, instead saying it's "Commercially Sensitive", i.e. well fookin' over-budget and embarrassing so don't come over all 'holier than thou' when it comes to the numbers dear boy, please. Lets just agree to disagree on this and move on.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...08/070898i.pdf
Barn Doors is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 17:53
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Erm, isn't one of the foundations of a military service to be able to handle the next fight no matter who it might be?

Hmm, well I suppose so. I take it from your comment that you imagine that the FAA or RAF would somehow be incapable of handling any fight, equipped with an F-35 armed only with a mere pair of air dominance weapons then? I'd advise you to refer to the lessons of history

Seriously though, you're illustrating precisely the attitude that I was referring to in my last post - this fatally flawed American-inspired notion that in order to prevail, there must be a constant battle to create yet another over-priced warplane that is somehow even more technically brilliant than the last one. We've reached a stage where we can afford to get out of this expensive game and accept that, given the available resources of our government and the outstanding abilities of our service personnel, the Typhoon would be a much more practical choice for our carriers.

It's fine to conjure-up this "we must be prepared to defend ourselves against anything" notion but when it comes down to the practicalities of what is realistically likely rather than hypothetically possible, you get a different answer.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 18:55
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 777
Tim,

I'm sorry to disagree openly, but the Typhoon is not a viable choice for the CVF. The studies BAE Systems did were thorough, but the solutions offered for getting to the deck were risky in the extreme.

CVF is designed to be adaptable - it can take a STOVL doing VLs, or be converted to take a CV aircraft doing cat and trap. (UK is doing additional work on SRVLs, as threaded elsewhere). What it can't do is take a Typhoon, because the sort of recovery envisaged needs a completely new landing aids system and deck layout, plus new arresting systems. But the biggest obstacle is the aircraft.

Designing combat aircraft for conventional carrier operations HAS to be done from the start. (T-45 is the only example I know of a move from land to sea and that was a 90% redesign - and it has no weapons payload to carry). Coming to the deck at around 135 kts with full controllability is hard, taking the wire is hard, and taking a cat launch is super hard.

Typhoon can't get there. Period. If a redesign were to be attempted, I'd bet that the only bit left unchanged would be the name.

JSF STOVL is in flight test and is doing ground tests on the hover pit at Fort Worth. It's a real programme, with real challenges and real firm backing from the USMC. If you want a hypothetical solution to aircraft for CVF, go Typhoon.

Happy to swap PMs with you on this if you want.

Best regards as ever,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 19:32
  #45 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hmm, well I suppose so. I take it from your comment that you imagine that the FAA or RAF would somehow be incapable of handling any fight, equipped with an F-35 armed only with a mere pair of air dominance weapons then? I'd advise you to refer to the lessons of history

Oh, I hadn't thought of history. Thanks for that.

So it's to be .303s all around then?

Seriously though, you're illustrating precisely the attitude that I was referring to in my last post - this fatally flawed American-inspired notion that in order to prevail, there must be a constant battle to create yet another over-priced warplane that is somehow even more technically brilliant than the last one. We've reached a stage where we can afford to get out of this expensive game and accept that, given the available resources of our government and the outstanding abilities of our service personnel, the Typhoon would be a much more practical choice for our carriers.
A. You don't have those carriers yet. I hope you do get them, but until they are bobbing at anchor, I'd be wary.
B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.
C. Are you seriously arguing that technological innovation and progress is not a vital part of the military air business? Using your oh-so-welcome historical vector from above, the outstanding service personnel in the Fairey Battle expended a whole lot of blood because the RAF 'had gotten out of this expensive game.' There are countless other examples as well.

You are awfully generous with the lives of those who actually will do the fighting.
 
Old 29th Sep 2008, 21:11
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 48
Posts: 1,759
It's a real programme, with real challenges and real firm backing from the USMC.
Is that the same USMC caught 'sexing up' the performance data from the Osprey V22 trials?
This may compromise their impartiality somewhat.

(No axe to grind either way, just couldnt let that one pass)
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 21:44
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
B. Far more learned and informed people are telling you that a navalized Typhoon is just not a viable solution without spending more money.

You think so? Personally, I'm inclined to go with BAe's view and that which seems to be gradually emerging within our government - at long last.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 22:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 19
Hi,

Is there a genuine naval aviator on this forum who believes that the Typhoon is suitable for carrier operations?
I don't think so.

Best regards, Transall.
Transall is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 22:35
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Transall.

Don't be ridiculous

There are almost no aviators left on PPRuNe, let alone ones on drugs...
Tourist is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 23:23
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Thankfully, the final choice between JSF and Typhoon will not be made by naval aviators or the Navy
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 23:53
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
Tim,

Respectfully, I can assure you that there is no choice between them, and no decision of one vs other to be made.

BAe's view will always be that their prodigal aircraft programme is the one the Govt should be fully supporting - oh, and BTW they're certainly running out of money and need another "commercially sensitive" cash inject to prevent a loss of UK jobs......always the same - British Waste-of-space. Your inclinations are your own, but your dreams of a CVF full of Typhoons is nothing more than that.....a dream!

Being proud of our Country's past aviation achievements is commendable but don't let it make you ignorant by believing the propaganda coming out of Warton right now.
Barn Doors is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 02:09
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
So what IF we do pull out of the JSF project......Maybe we'll go for a navalised Typhoon, Rafale or maybe the F/A-18.....And lets just say, for example, we decide to navalise a few Typhoon's for Royal Navy & it works out fine & cost-effective etc etc. All well & good, that's the Harrier's replaced in the FAA/Royal Navy service, lovely jubbly for them. So, what about the Harrier's in RAF service? What are we going to replace them with then? The Swedish JAS 39 Gripen C/D or Gripen NG? Good choice? Curious.

Hope things go well for the A400M....
TiffyFGR4 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 07:19
  #53 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,071
JSF is taking a battering at the moment - as the reliance of small numbers of stealth fighters.

Flight has an article this week entitled, "Rand Analysis Sparks off F-35 crisis".

The basis of the article is that Rand did a war game based on F-22s in the Taiwan Straits against the PAF. The F-22s lived but their tankers got shot down so the F-22s were lost anyway.

Cue much shouting in Australia, again, about how the F-35 is inadequate for their needs and they need F-22s. Though how they got there from the above I am not sure. Lots of articles in Oz papers and magazines, much support of F-35 from the government. e.g. Govt Should be defending JSF: Opposition JSF "Clubbed Like Baby Seals"

I am sure Oz mates can provide links to the more informed of the articles.

Most unfortunate result is the F-35 program chief blaming a conspiracy to do the F-35 down but unable to explain how or why. Comes across as paranoid.

At the same time Congress has approved a defense spending billing encouraging the USN to budget for a third mutli-year purchase of F/A-18E/Fs for a buy of about 150 aircraft through 2016. But that will overlap with and eat into F-35 production/procurement. They also reduced F-35 production next year by two aircraft, to 17.

Not a good month for the F-35 program.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 10:53
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Thou speaketh in riddles BD - why would BAe be any more inclined to push the (relatively minor) modification of just a part of the Typhoon fleet when they already have a significant stake in JSF? Actually, please don't bother even answering that as we're going round in circles here! You obviously have your view and I have mine. As I've said, I tend to agree with the growing (and welcome) view that JSF is a complete waste of money. Contrary to your comments, the choice will be made (there are no other viable options) and hopefully sooner rather than later.

There was of course a great deal of speculation that the option of using the Typhoons that we will already have was merely a bluff to give America a nudge in the right direction, but anyone can see (unless you choose to stick your head in the proverbial sand) that the JSF saga simply continues to become less encouraging and even more expensive. You can argue the merits of both JSF and Typhoon but ultimately it comes down to the cost, and given our financial situation, I don't think the Government will have the stomach to spend that much money for so long, on an aircraft which we can comfortably do without. We're talking about huge sums of money. Argue as much as you like but really it's that simple.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 11:35
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
It seems that the only reason BAE are participating in JSF at such a high level, is because the UK JSF buy justifies continuing with the JSF-B version.

Should the UK JSF order go, JSF-B will not have much going for it. And the BAE participation won't have much justification either.

But remember, the BAE share of JSF-(A,B&C) manufacturing could quite easily be performed at a BAE plant in the USA, rather than Warton. Anybody telling themselves that although JSF-B may not be technically the best, but at least its making jobs in the UK, is deluding themselves as well.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 11:35
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
If the bin F35, then I'd guess the carriers are called into question. Binning the carriers will save a bag full of money (and I personally tend to agree with Jacko that perhaps we should just get out of the Carrier game as the money is needed elsewhere - helicopters, transport, armoured vehicles, maybe more T45 and the rest of the Navy, etc etc.) however I can't see that happening frankly - too many jobs in important constituencies are at stake.

So lets say hypothetically that we do bin Dave, but still get the carriers. What should we put on them if not a navalised Typhoon (and I'm not for that or against it, but suspect its not as simple as some are suggesting)? Rafale, F18E/F, AN Other? How much less would we be paying for an existing aircraft, how effective are they (particularly Rafale?) and how much more may we end up spending on conventional carrier ops? Would it even be cost effective?

EDIT: Additionally, is there any particular driver for theUSMC buying Dave B over any other version? What will they be operating the aircraft from, and would they not be as well to operate from conventional carrier aircrft from conventional carriers for commonality and interoperability with the USN as they once did?
(Edit cos I got my B and C versions the wrong way round, doh!)

Last edited by Postman Plod; 30th Sep 2008 at 17:44.
Postman Plod is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 16:26
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
What should we put on them if not a navalised Typhoon (and I'm not for that or against it, but suspect its not as simple as some are suggesting)? Rafale, F18E/F, AN Other?

F-35C's for the RN. Then collect the whole set and buy F-35A's as well as B's for the RAF.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 17:02
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 955
Tim,
I don't know how you get the impression that the Typhoon only requires "relatively minor" mods to be a carrier aircraft. It would need a massively uprated (and preferably functional.....) undercarriage, a substantially beefed up fuselage with arrestor gear, a marinisation programme to replace/upgrade potentially corrosive systems as well as a probable re-write of some fairly meaty flight control software. Apart from the latter (which is just very expensive and time consuming...) all of the others have a substantial impact upon weight and thus performance. If you were to marinize the Typhoon you would cause a significant reduction in the platforms capabilities, eroding any margin it has over F18E/F or Rafale. Therefore, t'baron's coffers aside, there is no point in going down that route. Better to keep F-35B, migrate to F-35C (though it's not without issues itself...) or dumb-down to the super-bug. Sell T1/T2 Typhoons to pay for them if required. Remember, History is prologue. As Engines tells you there have been very few cases of a land combat aircraft sucessfully becoming a carrier one. BAES may well have some glossy brochures, snazzy powerpoints and Jedi mind tricks to seduce weak-minded lobbyists, journos and politicians - listen to the coal face, it is not worth adapting Typhoon.

USMC need F-35B for their LPH/LPDs - they cannot operate Cat n Trap F-35Cs off them. In USMC doctrine the F-35 is there to support the RW/V-22 community, therefore they co-locate. If F-35B goes, the USMC will be reliant on F-35Cs on USN CVNs -and that is not a place they want to be (think Guadalcanal....).
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 17:28
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,502
and that is not a place they want to be (think Guadalcanal....).
You think that pissed off the Marines, look at what happened at Wake Island. There was quite a bit of animosity between the Marines and the Navy after the Navy washed their hands of Wake allowing a successful Japanese invasion.
West Coast is online now  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 19:51
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Well like I said earlier, I really don't think BAe is still able to be in the business of making wild claims which turn-out to be costly mistakes, and then assume that the Government is going to pick-up the bill. We all know that those days are gone, so I merely base my comments on the statements from BAe (made at least twice to my knowledge) that equipping a batch of Typhoons for naval operations wouldn't be a particulary complex affair. I accept that there may be a bit of over-optimism on their part but in all honsetly I can't imagine BAe would claim that such a conversion programme is both possible and financially worthwhile if it isn't. Why would they?

Anyway 'nuff said - let's wait and see what happens - should be fun, in a dark sort of way.
Tim McLelland is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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