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 28th Sep 2008, 09:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 774
JSF and A400M at risk?

From today's Times Online:

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk
LFFC is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 10:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: AKT no more
Posts: 93
What about the windfall the Gov. is going to get from selling British Nuclear Fuels. What else are they going to spend the money on?
FlapJackMuncher is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 10:33
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 955
"What about the windfall the Gov. is going to get from selling British Nuclear Fuels. What else are they going to spend the money on?"

As a guess, how about marginal and/or Scottish constituencies??

Big, big implications if these projects are cancelled. For once I agree with the LibDems, we really need a Defence Review......
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 10:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 13
Further info here: Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout - Times Online
SuctionBoost is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 11:10
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
The F-35 i can sort of understand but the A400!!! are they mad our current AT is falling apart!!!
collbar is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 11:19
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
A400M might be delayed, but its a programme that is relatively under control, the JSF is under attack from all over the shop. Cost for the JSF can only rise and rise...
tonyosborne is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 12:00
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 356
What about the windfall the Gov. is going to get from selling British Nuclear Fuels. What else are they going to spend the money on?
How about propping up the broken economy for one? Bailing out banks? Huge increases in people on the dole?

Reckon defence will become even more of a low priority fairly soon.
Farfrompuken is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 12:14
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
I think this is where I get to grin and say "I told you so" - largely on the basis of all the times I posted comments about how the JSF programme would probably get dumped eventually and we'd end-up with navalised Typhoons. I don't know whether all the people who disagreed really did imagine that the F-35 really was a viable proposition (and that the navalised Typhoon wasn't), or whether they just hoped that it would be. Let's hope they do the right thing this time and dump the F-35. It would be no more than the Americans deserve and it would enable us to use our surplus (well, technically surplus) Typhoons which are better suited to the job in the first place.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 17:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Tim

Budgets aside, in what world would a navalised, 4th generation, land based fighter design, be "better suited to the job" of flying from an aircraft carrier than a purpose designed 5th generation naval fighter?
SammySu is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 18:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1
Can't see us pulling out of JSF however, I can see us only getting 30 of them!
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 18:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
Tim,

You are quite clearly an armchair enthusiast (id*ot) with a chip on your shoulder that even the late Mr Norris McWhirter would be impressed by!

What gives you the impression that a marinised Typhoon a) is a viable option and b) can do the job equal or better than the F-35? Whatever you're smoking I'd quit before the men in white coats come and lock you up with the rest of the loons!!

This cr*p always, always comes around every time cuts have to be made. I distinctly remember a regularly-fielded round of cuts that always threatens the Red Arrows, no? It's part of the whole "options" bit - nothing is a done deal until it's......done. Get over yourself.....

The solution for marinising Typhoon is so unbelievably hilarious it harks back to the Heath-Robinson days and no matter what you retrofit to Typhoon it'll never bridge the technology gap.....ever.

Keep working on your Darwin award, you're really close now!

Barn Doors is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 18:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
The way it normally works is like this:

MOD is short of money, so various staff officers (Wg Cdr or equivalent normally) are tasked to write papers on the cost savings and operational impact of, for example,.....

Scrapping all RN submarines.
Halfing the number of Army main battle tanks.
Scrapping the RAF E-3D fleet.
Disbanding the Royal Marines
etc
etc


Each of these alone would provide the cost savings required, and none of them is usually adopted, instead more salami slicing takes place. But if/when the journos get hold of it the story is.....'MOD to scrap all RN submarines, and reduce Army main battle tanks, and scrap the E-3D fleet, and...., and,.....and, to cover black hole in budget.

Oh, and lots of Wg Cdrs get bored writing papers on things that will never happen, but they are well paid and have a big mortgage and school fees to pay for.......
Biggus is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 19:04
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Ignoring the half-hearted attempts at insults, I'm afraid you're fooling yourself BD.

British Aerospace have repeatedly said that navalising the Typhoon would be relatively straightforward. Please don't respond with the inevitable "well they would say that" as even British Aerospace is no longer in a position to make wild claims in the hope that the Treasury will fund them.

The Typhoon is a capable aircraft with a good weapons fit. We've already got them into service and (unless the Treasury has an appetite for paying cancellation fees) we will have more than we (technically) need.

The JSF is an over-priced and unproven design which is already promising to offer nothing that can't be achieved with the Typhoon. Stealth capability is a pointless luxury and VTOL/STOL is something which belongs to the days of the Cold War. The Times article draws your attention to the JSF's lack of firepower when compared to the Typhoon, and also highlights the delicious prospect of our government paying more than two billion quid every year for two different strike aircraft over the next decade. Hmm...

I would suggest BD that you spend rather less time on chilish comments and a little more time considering the facts of the situation. Anyone can see what a difficult situation that the government is in, and it looks like they might (for once) finally do the right thing and get out of the JSF farce while they can.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 19:15
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 531
JSF programme would probably get dumped eventually and we'd end-up with navalised Typhoons
Or maybe Rafaele? On a single sister-ship to the new French aircraft carrier? Lots of potential cost-savings and political advantages too.
CirrusF is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 19:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Tim
Are you eight, or nine years old?
Tourist is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 19:30
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
You guys just ..

..can't see past your blinkers.

A Modern, 5th gen (?) European, Twin Engined Naval Fighter is in service and HAS SEEN OPERATIONAL USE over Afg to great success.

I just don't see any rational reasons to buy an unproven, performance limited single engined cab, NONE at all.

Just give it up!
glad rag is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 19:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 548
'The Typhoon is a capable aircraft with a good weapons fit'.
Good weapons fit? Apart from the fact that PWIV isn't cleared, there is no ammo funded for the gun (which also still isn't funded), the fins clash on obvious weapon mixes and the inboard pylons can't always be used due to conflicts with the flare pods.....yep, absolutely cracking!
Jumping_Jack is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 20:14
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
British Aerospace have repeatedly said that navalising the Typhoon would be relatively straightforward. Please don't respond with the inevitable "well they would say that" as even British Aerospace is no longer in a position to make wild claims in the hope that the Treasury will fund them.
No, I've been personally briefed on the solution....it isn't one, it's laughable, and a Heath-Robinson solution too.


The JSF is an over-priced and unproven design which is already promising to offer nothing that can't be achieved with the Typhoon. Stealth capability is a pointless luxury and VTOL/STOL is something which belongs to the days of the Cold War. The Times article draws your attention to the JSF's lack of firepower when compared to the Typhoon, and also highlights the delicious prospect of our government paying more than two billion quid every year for two different strike aircraft over the next decade. Hmm...
I think you'll find that Typhoon is also an "overpriced and unproven design" - how many Ops do you see it proving itself on, seeing as though it's already "in-Service". Don't get me wrong, as an AD platform designed last Century (for today's, not tomorrow's threats BTW) it's got good capability. As an A/G platform it's maturing, nothing more. Sit down, do some sums and the Eurofighter flyaway cost is huge (last conservative estimate 160m GBP all-in!!!). If JSF ever comes in at $300m a piece I will eat my hat, regardless of what you believe written in The Times! Oh, and JSF aint VTOL sunshine, it's STOVL - go read again.

So, all in all, you're ashamedly misinformed and revelling in the fact that a well regarded broadsheet news article has seemingly supported your fragile opinion on a debate that you have no expertise or wisdom in.....ergo, you're an armchair enthusiast and, whilst I respect your right to have an opinion, I think you're pretty bonkers.

Barn Doors is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 21:11
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
JTO,

The ammo so freely being converted into empty cases is still (afaik) bought on the tonka budget. No money in the typhoon fleet for tyres nevermind such stuff as ammo.

None provisioned for typhoon, no firing maintenance spares for the guns, no manpower for the post firing maint, no gunbay(s) equipped for post firing etc etc ...

'only going to be ballast' was the term in use, therefore strip and regrease only to maintain airworthiness. Too expensive to build ballast blocks and get them certified.

And as for the way it gets loaded ......

Still, thats all 'old' info - might have changed in the 3 months I've become happier, but I doubt it.
L1A2 discharged is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 21:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,926
Typhoon will NEVER be as good an aircraft for CVF as a STOVL JSF.

Typhoon will NEVER be as good a day one strike aircraft as JSF.

It may not be quite as good a carrier aircraft as Rafale or Super Hornet, even after the extensive mods that would be required. But it could perhaps be good enough?

And a Marinised Typhoon would give useful commonality with the RAF's aircraft, with consequent cost savings.

But the real savings would flow from scrapping BOTH JSF and CVF. That would free up enough cash for tankers, Support Helicopters, recce, SEAD and all of the other kit we need.



Barn Doors,

You undermine any credibility you may have had with the ridiculous statement that Typhoon was developed to meet today's threats, not tomorrows. It was designed to cope with a developed Flanker, assuming parity in radar, avionics and weapons - and that is exactly the threat now being developed and likely to be out there 'tomorrow'. Nor does Typhoon have a 160 m flyaway cost - or at least not in Euros (the price is in the order of €60 m as shown by the Austrian order) or pounds (the flyway or UPC is in the region of £37 - 42m for a Tranche 2 jet). The total unit programme cost is £82-86 m (£19-20 Bn divided by 232). Only a witless, innumerate nerk like Lewis Page could get to £160 m GBP......

Last edited by Jackonicko; 28th Sep 2008 at 23:28.
Jackonicko 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.