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 30th Sep 2008, 21:19
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
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?
Because some at BAE imagine that they can get away with it. Again.

They know that a strategy that proclaims a project at first trivial can, over time, become, "Well its taken so long and you've spent so much, -- how can you possibly cancel now?"

Maybe F18s would be best?
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 23:25
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
oh dear...
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 06:03
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
oh dear...
Well, perhaps you might like to review the status of the MRA4.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 09:53
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
I say,(In my opinion) let BAE work on a navalised Typhoon & lets see if their claims will be, as what they say they'll be. Let them work on, one, two, three or whatever number of Typhoon's they'll need, and if it all works out well, seriously consider that option.

I'm not "Anti-F35" and I'm certainly not "Pro-F35", never thought it's a good deal for us for a, "Watered down", (The Yanks not wanting, so it seems, to share tech/codes with their "Closest-Ally", so much for trusting your friends) "Stealth" aircraft. Stinks to me!

F/A-18? Nice, but, cancelling an aircraft in favour for another it (F-35 A/B/C) was designed to replace........Well, that's a bit like going to buy an Aston Martin DB9 & thinking; 'Naaaaah, I'll buy the old Aston Martin DB7, the one the DB9 was designed to replace, instead'. Still a nice buy though....

Rafale? A tempting buy....But what about the workshare? Weapons fit, avionics etc, most of it would have to be changed?....

Gripen NG? A good replacement for the Harrier's in RAF service.

As I said, this is just my opinion(s), so... =)

Regards
TiffyFGR4 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 10:24
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,008
Let BAE work on the navalised Typhoon as a true 'Private Venture' - you know, the thing that aeroplane companies used to do when they took commercial risks.................

Arc

If it's any good then maybe we would buy it....................... if not then 'no thanks', What about Rafale as an alternative ??
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 11:33
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Let BAE work on the navalised Typhoon as a true 'Private Venture'
Tee hee, you can always rely on PPRuNe for a laugh.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 12:21
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Jetex, my point was that I'd already mentioned that BAe were unlikely to be able to embark on a "navalisation" programme which the Government would pour endless amounts of money into. As I've said, those days are gone, it just wouldn't happen, so if BAe think the concept is viable, they must be pretty confident that it can be done affordably, as they must be aware that the Government is unlikely to pick-up the bill if it turns-out to be the complicated and expensive saga that some people fear.

I guess we will just have to wait and see. If the Government is inclined to carry-on pouring billions into the JSF programme then I will be genuinely surprised - I think that on the basis of everything that's been said over the past months and years, it's pretty clear that the project is unaffordable. I accept that given limitless money and time, JSF might produce an excellent aircraft, but that rather misses the point. We really don't have the finances to buy whatever aircraft is judged to be technically superior when we will already have aircraft which is "good enough" for our requirements. Naturally, you can imagine all kinds of scenarios where the JSF might be judged to be superior to the Typhoon but that's the kind of argument that you find in the pages of aeroplane enthusiast magazines - it's not the kind of judgement that a government makes.

Ultimately, it's a choice based on available funds, potential requirements and a wider view of what roles the carrier force is likely to perform. We've already reached a stage where the Government has to ask the MoD what we can comfortably do before deciding whether to do it rather than making knee-jerk decisions on the assumption that the armed forces can handle any challenge. The truth is that we obviously can't - we just don't have the resources.

Consequently, I think the Government will ultimately decide the JSF's fate in this way. It's not about purchasing a technically-brilliant aircraft which is capable of handling even the worst-case scenario. It's about money, and just how much overseas military/political clout the Government can afford to maintain with the finances that are available. Consequently, it seems clear to me (for all the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts) that the less-ambitious Typhoon option must look like the most attractive choice to the Government now. I'm sure they would - in an ideal world - proceed with JSF regardless, but we're not in an ideal world.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 13:00
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Tim.

1. Are you a Navy Pilot?
2. If No, are you a Pilot?
3. If No, are you aircrew?
4. If No, are you an aircraft engineer?
5. If No, are you another type of engineer?
6. If No, are you Navy?
7. If No, are you Military?
8. If No, have you ever been Military?
9. If No, where the hell in your deluded mind do you think you know better than all the people who you are arguing with who do tick all those boxes?

Arrogant much?
Tourist is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 14:24
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somerset
Posts: 53
Minor Mod!

2 things:

Do anyone really believe that Navalising a Typhoon is a 'relatively minor mod'. Adding a new radio system is a major modification.

IF Typhoon is such good value, why is it excluded from the NAO Major Projects Report. Is it because:

a) If people saw the real cost of Typhoon against the budgeted profile many would have a heart attack/choke on their breakfast.

b) Some high level Politics (probably coupled with the threat of massive job losses or a(nother) government bailout)

c) Because it BAE are so completely transparent and without fault that there is no need....

May be wrong

strek is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 14:41
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
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
Well if they are so sure, maybe they could offer a firm fixed price contract.

Very unlikely, when was the last time BAE, or anyone else in military manufacturing commited to such a thing?
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 18:20
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 74
Came across this.....

Came across this a short time ago...

Eurofighter Typhoon -

"He highlighted the unique selling points of our product – carefree handling, highly integrated man/machine interface – and even gave a “provisions are in place” nod to recent media speculation on aircraft carrier operations for Eurofighter Typhoon"......

Interesting?...
TiffyFGR4 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 18:47
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: kirkcald fife scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 2
navalised typhoon

i thought the french pulled out of the euro fighter because they said it could not be navalised and thats why the rafale came about and it was to do with the position of the engine air intakes i beleive
rrovers is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 18:56
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 56
Posts: 74
I am only a simple helicopter chappy but this talk of Navalising the Typhooon has got me a little confused.
Capability aside the most important thing I can think of is the structural integrity for any Naval FW aircraft. Having watched from the stbd D as F-14, A-6 and F 18 thump into the deck of assorted CVN I find it hard to believe we have built a fighter tough (heavy) enough to take that type of treatment just in case we need a Naval version?
Not seen a Typhoon undercarriage close up but I have just been looking at snaps on google of a Typhoon and Buccaneer and I know which one I would rather fly in to the deck with.
Oh, and lets not start on wet build......
ianp is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 18:58
  #74 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,120
i thought the french pulled out of the euro fighter because they said it could not be navalised and thats why the rafale came about and it was to do with the position of the engine air intakes i beleive
You thought wrong.

The French had a requirement that the aircraft had to be able to operate off the Foch, which limited it in size/range etc. Nobody else was willing to accept the consequent limitations, so they had to go off on their own. That was well before the design was finalised and, only subsequently, was it optimised without having to take into account carrier capability.
ORAC is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 19:22
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Naval Typhoon must've been shot down so many times on this forum, Adolf Galland is looking down from the heavenly mess bar and starting to get jealous of the kill tally!

As for what our options are if no F-35?

Umm.... errr..... Bombed up Goshawk, anyone?
Rakshasa is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 19:23
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 778
Tim,

The idea of forums like this is to exchange ideas and also to exchange information that can change our ideas. I've certainly learnt plenty on this site. You might like to consider these points....

When I say that Typhoon won't get to a deck without VERY significant modification (to the point of being a new aircraft), it's not because I think so - it's because I've spent a fair bit of my working life on carrier based aircraft projects, including T-45 and JSF, and also studying aircraft design. Typhoon is a beautifully designed and engineered land based air dominance fighter, optimized for BVR combat at all altitudes. The designers made a number of well judged design trade offs to get that performance - nearly all of those decisions make the Typhoon basically unsuited to carrier operations. I could go into detail, but I won't here.

So what about the BAES studies? The MoD had to show the Treasury that they had looked at all options, and navalised Typhoon was one. So studies had to be done. They showed what was theoretically possible, but identified very serious risks and a number of unresolved (and quite possibly unresolvable) issues. In the end, it comes down to physics and maths. Both were against Typhoon.

Some BAES people may have a view of the results of the studies - they are entitled to them. My opinion (considered) is that Typhoon won't go to a deck. That fact (and it is a fact, Tim) supports the Uk MoD decision.

Interestingly, studies showing how land based fighters can easily go to a carrier deck aren't new. I recall seeing a swing wing Lightning proposal, and Lockheed produced a beautifully crafted brochure for a navalised F-22. There have been proposals covering F-16s, Mirages, Hunters.....and on. What all of them had in common was that they didn't stand a chance of working.

Best regards as ever,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 20:02
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 56
Posts: 322
having followed this debate with interest for the past couple of days a thorght comes to mind, at least f35 is flying and testing is gathering pace as we speak.
unfortunately the same cannot be said for a400m, what will we replace THAT with if chopped, c17s seem to cost way too much and c130j isn't enough, is it??
mr fish is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 21:02
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern England
Posts: 15
Agree F-35 is the way forward in the perfect world. If the aircraft is as exportable as they claim then we may well get alot of money back in the long term based on out Tier 1 involvement.

However, if we were not in a perfect world, here's a wild idea (based on nothing but a 3 cans of stout):

The UK MOD is committed to 100 Typhoons it doesn't want but can't cancel. (100 x £42M = £4.2Bn)

The French Air Force has an aircraft in it's arsenal that is a compromise between a naval and a ground based fighter and is therefore (based on the fact that the other Air Forces wouldn't accept its performance compromises and it therefore left the Typhoon Team) sub-optimal in the latter category. No evidence here, not connected with fighters atall but it's a reasonable bet.

The French are also desperate for an export order to make their R&D costs worthwhile and keep their factories busy.

Unit price of Rafale equals about $50M, equals about £30M. (100 x £30M equals £3Bn)

How about we do a swap? Our spare 100 Typhoons for 100 Carrier version Rafales. They would get a worthwhile ground based fighter and we would get a carrier aircraft for the cost of the Typhoons that we already have to pay for (and would continue to have to pay for even if we cancelled them) We could build their Typhoons and service them and enjoy economies of scale and keep BAE happy. They could build and Service our Rafales and keep Dasault happy. I think that's called 'Comparative Advantage' in economic terms.

Ah, I hear you say. 'Why would we swap 100 aircraft worth £4.2Bn for 100 aircraft worth £3Bn?' Well, how about if they made up the order with another 100 aircraft worth £1.2Bn? With what? What do the Frenchies make for £12M unit cost? Well how about 100 EC725s ( cougar helicopter, AS 725, military helicopters – Eurocopter ) A seriously good aircraft that we desperately need (and, in many ways, much much better than the NH90 - which is actually causing EC a big export problem!). Massive range, good cargo carrying capability and all the toys. (and we would also save ourselves having to convert our remaining Pumas to Puma 2 standard)

So there we go. It's amazing what a few pints of Guiness will create. We get a Carrier aircraft, a bunch of very much needed helicopters (which are coming off the production line now in Marseille and maybe Westlands could actually assemble) and out of a sticky situation with BAE. They get a worthwhile ground based fighter. All at no additional cost to either party and a hole in the defence budget filled. Massive synergies too if the French also go ahead with our Carrier design (which they may be encouraged to do if we share the cost of the catapult R&D with them). Eurofighter partners also happy because its better than the UK pulling out of Tranche 3 completely and them losing the work out of their factories when they really need the jobs (and spares provision for the next 30 years).

I do like the F-35 though!

Last edited by Nomad72; 1st Oct 2008 at 21:18.
Nomad72 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 21:42
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Merrie England
Posts: 1
Sale of Nuclear Fuels

Bradford & Bingley?
4472 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 22:21
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
I take your point Engines, and you may well prove to be correct. As you know, my view is different but I'm quite happy to acknowledge that BAe's proclamations might not live-up to practical development! We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Tourist, you make yourself sound incredibly stupid when the only reasoned argument you can offer is to whine about whether someone happens to be a member of the Navy, the military, an engineering trade or whatever. The point that an awful lot of people never seem to grasp is that the JSF saga has to be looked at in a much wider sense. It's completely pointless to dwell upon what a Navy pundit might think appropriate or what a particular engineer might think is the best solution. The Government is obliged to look at a much wider picture, not least in terms of the political fallout and the amount of money being spent. Surely you must be able to grasp that it's really not about technical performance figures?
Tim McLelland 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.