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 3rd Oct 2008, 10:19
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 180
SEAD

What are your thoughts on JSFs capabilities in the intelligence gathering area Jacko?
hulahoop7 is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 10:42
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,545
Wouldn't argue with the need to spend on SH - 845,846 & 848 SK4s are ancient as are Bensons Pumas. But that's what you get when FASH begets SABR which begets FRC (which again is struggling to get non-maritime aircraft to operate from ships). Whether you agree with the options for FSTA or not - at least it's signed up and on the way if in inadequate numbers (T45 anyone?).

Unfortunately, the wish list of PR9, R1 and SEAD falls squarely under what you are suggesting for CVF/JSF - as Homer Simpson said "why can't someone else do it?". Last time I looked the principal AA threat in the sandpits was MANPADS and if we were doing Granby or Telic again, "surely" we'd be doing it with all the bells and whistles the USN & USAF bring to bear.

I don't for one minute disagree that good organic ISTAR & SEAD assets are very useful and the existing UK capability punches well above its weight - (much like our CVS + JFH) but as you seem to be arguing for our naval aviation capability "it's unaffordable". The actual enemy is in Whitehall and all this endless squabbling and finger pointing as to "my kit's more necessary than your kit" does is obscure the real culprit - PopEye and his minions. Look at Perce - someone springs for a "small" bunch of MPVs including remanufacturing the good old FV432 and he's supposed to beggar off happy with 500M.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 12:42
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
The Equivocator
Does this whole thread not strike anyone as bearing a striking similarity to the general maladies that our fast-jet centric air force demonstrates everyday?

The war-fighters are crying out for rotary assets, AT and effective and omnipresent ISTAR.

Someone posts a thread entitled JSF and A400M at risk and we get 95% focussed on turning the Typhoon money pit into a carrier aircraft.

I look forward to seeing more photos of CAS standing next to a Typhoon with a thick under carriage and a cctv camera on the nose. Brilliant. Meanwhile somewhere sh*t, sandy and hot, without an airshow crowd in sight, the operational RAF quietly gets on with it.

A honorable mention here to our sand covered brothers in the Harrier force! Hope PR09 is kind to you, but I expect not. Anyway what reward would you expect for doing such a sterling job on ops! If only you' done more airshows....

Or are we brighter than I give credit for and PPRuNe accepts that cancelling any rotary or AT project is just beyond comprehension in the current climate? No? Thought not....


Oh the irony....
The Equivocator ,

I personally think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think anyone is disputing the need for more AT, SH, ISTAR, etc etc. I think everyone knows its an immediate need in comparison to F35 and carriers - and I think that is why nobody is arguing about it on the forum - they know that ditching A400M would be barking - and those that have mentioned A400M have said as much.

However they're not so convinced that changing / ditching carriers and F35 are quite as barking hence the arguments made.

With regards to SEAD, I seem to recall someone suggesting the F3 would make a suitable SEAD platform and had been looked in to??
Postman Plod is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 13:24
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,946
Hulahoop,

Formidable, if everything works as advertised, and if the UK gets everything that works.

But not sufficient justification to spend the thick end of 20 Bn on CVF and JCA.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 14:03
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
You summed-up the situation precisely in your earlier post Jackonicko - JSF would be a great asset in an ideal world with limited resources. Typhoon however, is good enough, it really is as simple as that.

It seems to be the problem with so many of these threads, that people chime-in with what they assume to be some dazzling response, when they've merely repeated points that have been raised earlier in the thread. This, sadly, was precisely what WEBF did when he added his rather snotty comments aimed at myself. Just to set the record straight, I'm not in the military and never have been. However, I'm entitled to a view just like any other member of the public, and if some people don't agree that's fine. I do however, think it extremely childish to constantly repeat this "are you in the military because if you're not, then you're stupid and I know better than you" mantra. It's pointless and wrong. Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make anyone any more qualified to make a judgement, indeed it could be argued that such people are less qualified, as they're not looking at things from a wide perspective.

WEBF might think it's arrogant to say that the JSF/Typhoon decision will not be made by the military but there we go - sorry but it's true, and it is indeed a good thing that the decision will not be left to the military. Decisions such as this one have to be made by politicians - it's not a simple choice based on a straightforward comparsion between the F-35's and the Typhoon's performance. The decision has to take into account a whole range of considerations, not least the huge cost, and the very difficult task of predicting where foreign policy might take us over the life-span of the new aircraft. I keep repeating (because it's true!) that this saga is not about simply picking whatever aircraft is "best" as there is no ideal solution. It's about choosing the right option to suit our needs and our resources.

Oh, and I do apologise if my traditional preference for the using the shorthand term "BAe" offends some people. I thought it would be self-evident that I was actually aware of the fact that BAe are now BAE Systems, but it seems some people can be a little too pedantic for their own good!
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 14:34
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
Tourist,
As long as we get diverted into this argumentum ad hominem stuff we will never get anything done. Either here or in the wider world.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 14:41
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
Navaleye - The problem with a stealth alpha strike in conjunction with the US Navy is that the B has half the offensive load of the C, and 200 nm less combat radius. Question: how do the 680 "Department of the Navy" F-35s split between Bs and Cs? Answer: Nobody will tell you, and nobody has decided, because the Marines want Bs on board the CVNs and the big-deck Navy doesn't.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 14:46
  #108 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Please excuse the ignorant American's question, but is this

I do however, think it extremely childish to constantly repeat this "are you in the military because if you're not, then you're stupid and I know better than you" mantra. It's pointless and wrong.
and this

Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make anyone any more qualified to make a judgement, indeed it could be argued that such people are less qualified, as they're not looking at things from a wide perspective.
some of that famous British irony?
 
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 14:48
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
LowObservable.

I know what you are saying, but I do not believe that important decisions of procurement should be based upon "one man one vote" with each persons opinion being considered equal no matter what their background.

The idea that "Engines" and "Tim"'s opinion are of equal validity in this debate is lunacy of the greatest order, so it is important to establish the debators credibility. If this were a court, we would first establish the expert witnesses credibility before paying any attention to his words. In a hospital, you would not allow a person without medical training to make medical diagnoses, so why must we accept idiocy like:-
"Being a member of the armed forces doesn't make anyone any more qualified to make a judgement, indeed it could be argued that such people are less qualified, as they're not looking at things from a wide perspective"

I would accept his points if he was even an engineer, but it would appear he is not.

This "I know better than you how to do your job" [email protected] from polititions is what got the Yanks in trouble in Vietnam, and all of us in trouble in Iraq.

Tim has no argument to attack other than "BAE says they can so it must be true."
Tourist is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 15:09
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 3
It is obvious that I spend most of my time reading rather than contributing on PPRuNe, but i can contain myself no longer:
Tim - for god's sake, there have been countless people, far more knowledgeable than you or I, giving you excellent, practically insurmountable arguments against marinising Typhoon and yet you still persist in offering it up as your preferred solution to the admittedly expensive JSF.

Sadly, it is the people like you who are responsible for making the decisions in the running goat f that is military procurement and that we, the end users, have had to endure all of our working lives.

Tourist: thank god for once you have talked sense!
Taco Bill is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 15:24
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Not true I'm afraid. You make the assumption that the people who make the various statements are "knowledgeable" - but how do you reach that conclusion?

You also say that these people make "practically insurmountable arguments" against Typhoon, but where? You make the assumption that everything they say is correct, and you also fail to take into account that even if all the anti-navalisation points were correct (which they are not) then this would make the decision simple, which of course it would not, because, as I keep saying, the choice isn't one which can be based simply on a direct comparison.

You would think that Tourist would be sufficiently intelligent to know that procurement decisions of this nature are made by politicians, based on the advice of manufacturers, engineers, air crew, defence policy planners, Foreign Affairs ministers, Treasury ministers and so on. It has to be that way of course and the Great British Taxpayer would be outraged if it wasn't.

I'm quite astonished that some people seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp that the JSF programme has become a hideously expensive and protracted saga which Britain can ill-afford to remain involved with. To make matters worse, the US Govermnent then persists with this notion that they can invite a foreign partner to share development and production costs on a major programme but then keep their own technology to themselves when it suits them. It's little wonder that when the programme has been handled so badly, and the amount of money it will require still seems potentially limitless, the Government finally decides to take a cold, hard look at whether it's really worth sticking with it.

We have progressed way beyond the simple "what is the best aircraft" arguments. To suggest that the programme should be pursued or abandoned based on the advice of the military (particularly the Royal Navy) would be just ludicrous. Fundamentally, it is a question of deciding whether the Treasury can afford the sums of money which will be required, and has to be judged with the Typhoon orders in mind. The two factors cannot be separated. I really don't know how some of the guys on here cannot understand how this is not a "my plane is better than yours" fight - it's a political decision which will affect the Treasury and the MoD for years to come, and given the financial situation of our economy at present, the idea of sticking with JSF looks less likely every day. That's the way I see it, as do many others.

PS- I'm tempted to add (although I'm at risk of opening another proverbial can of worms, so let's not go-off at a tangent here!) that we've been in this situation before. It's TSR2 all over again. It doesn't matter how technologically-brilliant an aircraft might (or might not) be, it still has to be paid for!

Last edited by Tim McLelland; 3rd Oct 2008 at 15:47.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 19:20
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,545
Serious analysts are now estimating the UK JSF programme at more than 11 Bn, and 6-7Bn for the ships

Jacko - is there any chance of you (or your serious analyst mates) becoming my accountants please? How anyone can estimate a 50% increase in costs for two ships where there is now significant design maturity (steel already purchased and first cut this year), most major equipment already on contract and virtually no developmental systems (radars, electric motors, FICS etc all done on T45) is beyond me, particularly when set against a 10% forecast on a developmental aircraft programme! Leads me to believe thye're making it up as they go along.

Tim - you are correct that procurement decisions like these are not taken purely by the military, but you should recognise the make-up of the IAB. Last time I looked the S&T scrutineers (civvies - now part of SIT) would be in hysterics at the thought of the risk involved in "navalising" Typhoon. Those studies have been run in parallel ever since the inception of CVF and what was FCBA and every single time, the answer has come back - way too risky, whichever way you try to operate them. BAE are not stupid, if you were looking at a programme thats still not signed up and for which you were not the Prime, you'd have something in your back pocket to brief with as well. However, a thinkpiece designed for lobbying use is a long way way from a credible design and programme and I think thats what people are trying to get across to you.

Anyway, on we go - "Fight!Fight!Fight!"........
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 19:25
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
the US Govermnent then persists with this notion that they can invite a foreign partner to share development and production costs on a major programme but then keep their own technology to themselves when it suits them.

What percent of built in test, flight control, and offensive and defensive avionics software is the UK paying for or developing? Please tell us.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 20:49
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 779
Gents,

One more try, and then I'm out.

Taking a dedicated air combat aircraft like Typhoon and turning it into a carrier aircraft would be difficult for a number of reasons. These include:

1. Reworking the flight controls (and probably surfaces and actuators and wings and canards and engine controls) to give level 1 handling and response down to 135 knots on the glideslope, as well as at the end of catapult launch, and on the bolter. Deltas are pretty horrible to the deck (ask Boeing). Complete new flight qualification tests, probably in the USA as we don't have the test facilities in the UK)

2. Relocating the gears (to give acceptable deck handling) and beefing them up (F-35C gears weigh well over twice those on the A for a reason)

3. New structure to take the hook loads, and new systems to retract and extend the hook, and also to relocate the hook to give acceptable post-engagement characteristics. Complete series of cat and trap tests (in the US)

4. New nose gear to take the catapult bar and all new structure and nose gear bay to take the new leg and twin wheels (probably would need to be an extending leg to allow launch)

5. New cockpit and windscreen to give the required over the nose view for CV approach

6. New systems to integrate JPALS approach system with the flight controls. Also new avionics to integrate properly with CVF operations.

7. Re-stressed airframe to take the impact loads of carrier landing and launch (including all pylons and external stores). Requalified airframe to take the completely new operating and loads spectrum. All new fatigue test specimen and tests.

8. Further work to remove materials susceptible to corrosion

I could, honestly, go on. The point is that the Typhoon has been deliberately (and very sensibly) optimized for its intended primary role. It's a great aircraft for that reason. But trying to take it and get it to the deck would mean undoing 15 years of detail design and starting nearly all over again.

One more thing - JSF a 'hideously expensive and protracted saga'? What would Typhoon be described as?

I very much agree that the answer will, in the end, be political. All major defence decisions are. However, there is no 'choice' between JSF and Typhoon for CVF - that's over.

Ok, done. Very happy to respond to any PMs on this.

Best regards to all as ever,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 20:57
  #115 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
But he whose name must not be mentioned is pathologically unable to let it go.

The logic of 'pulling out of one hideously expensive' project only to dive into another for a lesser end result simply cannot be argued.

Read history, I've been told.
 
Old 4th Oct 2008, 01:18
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Navaleye - The problem with a stealth alpha strike in conjunction with the US Navy is that the B has half the offensive load of the C, and 200 nm less combat radius. Question: how do the 680 "Department of the Navy" F-35s split between Bs and Cs? Answer: Nobody will tell you, and nobody has decided, because the Marines want Bs on board the CVNs and the big-deck Navy doesn't.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II Program
In April 2002 the Navy - concerned that it could not afford the number of tactical aircraft it planned to purchase - reduced the number of JSF aircraft for joint Navy and Marine Corps operations from 1,089 to 680 by reducing the number of backup aircraft needed. News reports in 2002 indicated that the proposed reduction would cut 259 jets from the Marine Corps buy, and 50 from the Navy purchase, resulting in a total F-35B buy of 350.
1. 330 F-35C for the USN to replace their F/A-18Cs, and to work beside their F/A-18E/Fs.
AND
2. 350 F-35B for the USMC to replace all their AV-8Bs and F/A-18C/Ds.


And, the USMC wants their Bs on the LHA/LHDs, not the CVNs. The USN wants some USMC squadrons on the CVNs, but the USMC refuses to buy any "CV/paved runway" versions... they want all to be of the "amphib/austere field" version.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2008, 11:07
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
The obvius point there Engines, is that no matter how long and expensive the Typhoon programme might have been - it's here now. The F-35 isn't!

I don't doubt that all your comments about navalising Typhoon might well prove to be correct. If so, then the Government would be foolish to take that option. Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Brickhistory can go back to sticking pins in his little Tim McLelland doll... keeps him happy...
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2008, 16:13
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by Modern Elmo
What percent of built in test, flight control, and offensive and defensive avionics software is the UK paying for or developing? Please tell us.


Your question implies that you think it's zero, Elmo. It isn't - here's one example.
hoodie is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2008, 16:21
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
"The obvius point there Engines, is that no matter how long and expensive the Typhoon programme might have been - it's here now. The F-35 isn't!"

No Tim, it isn't here now. Not in any form that can operate off a carrier. To get it to that form would take a lot of work and money, if indeed it is possible at all.

If someone was to bet the makers of F-35 and Typhoon 10 Billion pounds to take off from and land on a carrier within a week, there is only one that would get a prize.
Tourist is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2008, 16:26
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Of course, the problem with this thread that too many clever, motivated people are arguing with other, using valid cases backed up by a wealth of evidence.

All forgetting that if the decision is made to scrap JSF and replace it with whatever, it will be made on the basis on saving money and not on relevant military capabilities.

SirPercyWare-Armitag 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.