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

JSF - if we lose it to save 9bn, we'll be using Typhoon...

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 - if we lose it to save 9bn, we'll be using Typhoon...

Old 12th Feb 2009, 08:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 32
Posts: 168
JSF - if we lose it to save 9bn, we'll be using Typhoon...

SO, as the title says - MoD are considering sacking off JSF, cause it'll cost 9bn and we havn't paid for it yet, hence solving our 1.5bn defense budget hole - I believe there is another thread on this very forum discussing it. However, what I would like to put out there, is would we actually gain from using Typhoons instead of JFS from the carriers.

They can carry more ordenance, their more manouverable, and they'll force the Govt to install a proper CATOBAR system, meaning we can get a decent AEW frame on it, and we're buying the d*mn things anyway, so may as well make use of them.

On the other hand, we lose out on the stealth, which, if we ever got into a real high intensity conflict, seems to me to be an excellent thing to have on our side. Plus the F35 has more current avionics (?)

So what do people think is the best answer...?
Yeoman_dai is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 09:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 51
Posts: 1,053
Hmmm

Can I just check if I have understood what you are asking. You seem to be saying would we be better off if we pull out of JSF (which is under development) and design a whole new aircraft from scratch, but based around the existing Typhoon. As naval aircraft are very different from land based types, we would have no idea of it's weapon carrying ability or weight, or it's manoeuvrability in naval form. What percentage of the new Typhoon do you see as using the same parts as the existing Typhoon, and do you see Britain going alone in it's production?
I'm only asking as I'm curious as to your own thoughts. If I were being troublesome I'd probably ask which service you feel should fly it from carriers
barnstormer1968 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 09:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sunny Staffordshire
Posts: 22
.

Lovely idea,... 'ceptin how as Typhoon was never designed to land on no carrier.... so it would have to be adapted... which is another way of saying redesigned... which would take 10 years and involve a whole load of expensive imponderables....

Then you'd have to fit CATOBAR to the carriers... more delays... more money

Total bill?... quick guess...

9 billion.... kerrching!
RichardIC is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 09:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
Technicalities aside, you'd never hear the end of the tin foil hat brigade in the RN calling it a scam by those nasty people in the RAF to get rid of the WAFU.

Like they need an excuse to bleat their paranoia.
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 09:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 764
Speaking as a light blue uniformed person, any navalised Typhoon should be definitely flown by dark blue FAA types, as we much prefer our runways to stay still, attached to land and close to home!
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 09:31
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,913
If binning 66 JSFs saves 9 Bn, they're costing 136 Bn each, unit programme cost. That's some affordable fighter!

But if we want to really save money, and fund all the other priorities, then bin them, and bin the flipping carriers too.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 09:51
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Well for a start, why not claw some of it back from RBS who want to spend 1bn of govt bailout money on staff performance bonuses? If they've got that much spare money now to spend on bonuses, surely we gave them too much?

Unbelievable that the UK is throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at banks while the armed forces are reduced to squabbling over pocket change.
Radar Command T/O is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 10:06
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 32
Posts: 168
barnstormer.... much as I admire that admirable cynicism BAe have already carried out conversions and tests on a EF, and have found out that it works. Plus, the carriers are currently in building, so don't require any expensive retrofitting - their already designed to bolt a cat and trap on anyway, if need be.

Plus, i'm advocate dark blue pilots, although cross training would be possible obviously.

and we can't bin the carriers because at the end of the day, any true strike carrier is an exceptionally useful asset.


I think a better question would be, which would give us the greatest capability? JSF or EF?
Yeoman_dai is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 10:15
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
If binning 66 JSFs saves 9 Bn, they're costing 136 Bn each, unit programme cost. That's some affordable fighter!
A cynic might suggest that the total bill and unit cost is a variable depending on whether you want it to be affordable or unaffordable.

If you really want something then you will move all the bolt-on items on to someone elses budget - ground equipment if is can be used for something else - works services for sqns etc etc.

If you want to prove it unaffordable then you include the flying clothing, kettle, carpets, curtains and fittings.

What would you really get for your 9bn? 66 jets or 66 jets and . . .
Wader2 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 10:35
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Sweet Jesus, not this again!!!

BAe have already carried out conversions and tests on a EF, and have found out that it works. Plus, the carriers are currently in building, so don't require any expensive retrofitting - their already designed to bolt a cat and trap on anyway, if need be.
Unless you work for BAeS YD, go and take a VERY large reality pill and think about what you've just written!

Regards,
MM
Magic Mushroom is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 10:48
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2,157
Any Typhoon can land on any carrier...........






...........but only once.
ZH875 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 11:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 16
I like the Idea of a Navalised Typhoon. This will also open up doors for other AEW aircraft, such as the E-2 Hawk eye

But, the Crew should be FAA Dark Blue Suiters........ Keeping Fixed Wing Flying in the RN
ChecklistPlease is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 11:32
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Deja vu. This from the House of Commons Defence Committee a few months ago.

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: At the moment, and this is still a decision-making process going on, we are looking at buying three [F-35B], which are the Operational Test and Evaluation aircraft [due to be ordered very very shortly].

Robert Key: Beyond that?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: Why do we not wait and see what the Operational Test and Evaluation comes out with? [due to end 2014ish]

Robert Key: Is a marinised Typhoon still an option?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: That is not being looked at, no.

Robert Key: What discussions have you been having with the French about the possibility of purchasing a French aircraft that could fly on the French aircraft carriers and the British aircraft carriers?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I have not been having any.

Mr Jenkin: Would we still consider buying the non-STOVL version [F-35C] if the STOVL version [F-35B] was not available?

Rear Admiral Lambert: At the beginning of the process we looked at the capability requirement needed for both carrier strike and for our future combat air capability, and the option that met the bill was STOVL. We revisit it every so often to make sure that we have got all our figures right, and the requirement right, and the answer still comes up as STOVL.

Mr Jenkin: So would we develop STOVL on our own account if the Americans did not want to develop it?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: The carriers are not fitted for, but could be fitted for, the carrier variant.

Chairman: Was that a yes?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: No, it could be - if STOVL went, which I think is your question?

Mr Jenkin: Yes, that is what I am asking.

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: Then carrier variant must be an option.
mick2088 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 12:20
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sunny Staffordshire
Posts: 22
.

Dai - BAe have not carried out any conversions or tests on a navalised Typhoon.

They have done some computer modelling and concluded that it would be feasible if anyone wanted to throw billions of quid at making it a reality.

A navalised Typhoon doesn't exist; it hasn't been funded; it hasn't been designed.

And adding cats and traps to the carriers would require considerable time and cost. There is (supposedly) some margin for future growth built into the design. But there has been no detailed work done, let alone cash set aside for the hardware. And it's not just a case of bolting the equipment on. Cats require enormous amounts of extra power that has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere doesn't exist on the current design.

And how much energy would it take to launch a Typhoon N? Answer: Dunno because it hasn't been designed and doesn't exist.

Last edited by RichardIC; 12th Feb 2009 at 14:53.
RichardIC is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 13:31
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Blue Sky Thinking....

Surely if the real and pertinent question was posed:

'How much does it cost to eliminate a man on a 20 year old motorcycle carrying an even older RPG",

then any answer which cost 9 billion pounds would not get past the starting post?

Or am I being naive again?

I'll get my coat.
Megawart is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 14:15
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by Megawart View Post
Or am I being naive again?

I'll get my coat.
Yes.

JSF and the CVS are for the war but one. Tiffy is for the next one. JFH was for the current one but now we might get rid of it.


hat, coat, umbrella (it's snowing).
Wader2 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 14:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wichita, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 127
BAe have already carried out conversions and tests on a EF, and have found out that it works. Plus, the carriers are currently in building, so don't require any expensive retrofitting - their already designed to bolt a cat and trap on anyway, if need be.
Really! Was that on DA2 or DA4, the only reason I ask is that when I worked on them they hadn't had any such testing carried out, and I haven't heard anything from my collegues that still work at Warton to substantiate your claim. I would have thought that would be quite a major rework too - beefed up landing gear and all the fittings that it bolts to, beef up the hook, install a hook retraction hydraulic system, and beef up the frames that the hook attaches to. Then theres all the EMC testing that needs to be carried out to put an Air Force fighter onto a boat

Yep - great way to spend 9 billion quid I'd say, or you could just by some F-35's
FlightTester is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 14:42
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,816
Given the 12 Billion for St Athan which asks the question what is the money really being used for then how does it sit with the concept of Naval aviation in the future ?

Is the money better spent on the development of pilotless drones flown from anywhere....ok I guess this is really popular with Pilots.

If you look at Aircrew being the most important asset.........some will get big heads with statement like this.

Equipment can be replaced..eventually but air crew trained to that level cannot and while you can train others it uses up scare resources and can be delivered too late to make an impact when required.

Surely resources should be looking more at the development of pilotless aircraft / drones that can do the same thing i.e. eliminate an enemy. Bottom line whether eliminated by a JSF or Typhoon or Drone the impact is still the same.

Losing a 500k drone v a JSF with crew is an easy calculation to make but harder when you consider the impact of a Senior Defence Chief's ego.
racedo is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 14:57
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 57
Posts: 144
Yeoman,

Is this a new story or just speculation on your part?

FWIW I believe the CVF design has space set aside for steam gennys for any future cats.

cheers
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2009, 15:18
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Perverse logic

There is a possible perverse logic. That is:

We're going to spend around 8bn of tranche 3 Typhoon, and 9bn on JSF.

If you go for Typhoon M, you could spend an extra 3 - 4 bn navalising the 80 or so tranche 3 aircraft (plus fit cats and traps to the 2 CVF).. and still save 5bn. You end up with a one type airforce, but fantastically expensive aircraft.

BUT - this has been done to death. There are a load of other factors - including the work you'd need to do on the airframe, CTOL training regimes, UK earnings from the JSF programme etc etc etc. Use the search function!

I think we've concluded time and again that it's JSF or nothing.
hulahoop7 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.