F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Mr Boffin - It's true that the UK's investment in F-35/CVF has so far been much smaller than that in Typhoon, according to NAO. But so far that's only one squadron of aircraft - I have not seen numbers for the full 48 and how that compares (on a unit cost basis) with a similar number of Typhoons.
And to amplify JTO's comments, there are more bills to come, some of them rather large, and LCC will (as usual) come up to a multiple of acquisition alone.
While Typhoon may not have drawn the same opprobrium as F-35, it certainly suffered from lack of enthusiasm, and has never enjoyed the same stability of funding. The features that aren't there are mostly missing because nobody paid for them, and now there's a bigger fleet to retrofit, and you have to add capabilities and fix obsolescence at the same time. Fun!
And to amplify JTO's comments, there are more bills to come, some of them rather large, and LCC will (as usual) come up to a multiple of acquisition alone.
While Typhoon may not have drawn the same opprobrium as F-35, it certainly suffered from lack of enthusiasm, and has never enjoyed the same stability of funding. The features that aren't there are mostly missing because nobody paid for them, and now there's a bigger fleet to retrofit, and you have to add capabilities and fix obsolescence at the same time. Fun!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would dearly love to hear that Typhoon was and had continually been a great success. Sadly that will only ever be true on the front pages on RAF news or similar.
As an Air Defender you only need a couple of things. For the longer range fight a combination of great sensor, link and weapon - the Typhoon has a very average radar, good IRST, average link and weapon. It may one day have AESA and Meteor - but this is not that day. Eurofighter 2000 may one day deliver - but not this side of 2020.
In the short range arena you need performance, HOBS capable helmet and HOBS weapon with decent Rmin. Typhoon has performance.
So on balance you'd have been at least as well off buying off the shelf.
Stacks of blood, sweat and tears from the boys and girls on the frontline, but a woeful equipment solution for a team who deserved better.
As for air to mud - remind me which stand off weapon it uses in 2015...a mere 9'years after AOC 1 Gp announced it would be in Afghanistan by the middle of 2007. What's the ARM?
Unless you're packing JDAM, HARM, JSOW, Harpoon etc you're not even at the F-18 entry bar...but feel free to pat yourself on the back about KFF and Paveway 4!
As an Air Defender you only need a couple of things. For the longer range fight a combination of great sensor, link and weapon - the Typhoon has a very average radar, good IRST, average link and weapon. It may one day have AESA and Meteor - but this is not that day. Eurofighter 2000 may one day deliver - but not this side of 2020.
In the short range arena you need performance, HOBS capable helmet and HOBS weapon with decent Rmin. Typhoon has performance.
So on balance you'd have been at least as well off buying off the shelf.
Stacks of blood, sweat and tears from the boys and girls on the frontline, but a woeful equipment solution for a team who deserved better.
As for air to mud - remind me which stand off weapon it uses in 2015...a mere 9'years after AOC 1 Gp announced it would be in Afghanistan by the middle of 2007. What's the ARM?
Unless you're packing JDAM, HARM, JSOW, Harpoon etc you're not even at the F-18 entry bar...but feel free to pat yourself on the back about KFF and Paveway 4!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney old chap - I know that the arguments were held and revisited repeatedly. But that only saddens me. How can we possibly claim that what we have paid, for what we ended up with is in anyway VfM?
Speaking as the unelected representative of the generation who bought the glossy magazines with EAP in as school kids, who got briefed to death at Valley about the thing, who did whole front line tours without it pitching up, who got to desk jobs before it took Q, who listened to 2 stars saying it was going to theatre...when it didn't....and who are now hanging up their flying boots after whole careers in the air watching nothing more impressive than a fighter with a mech scan radar armed with the air to mud store we Harrier types took into battle in 2008....deplorable.
Speaking as the unelected representative of the generation who bought the glossy magazines with EAP in as school kids, who got briefed to death at Valley about the thing, who did whole front line tours without it pitching up, who got to desk jobs before it took Q, who listened to 2 stars saying it was going to theatre...when it didn't....and who are now hanging up their flying boots after whole careers in the air watching nothing more impressive than a fighter with a mech scan radar armed with the air to mud store we Harrier types took into battle in 2008....deplorable.
Orca, I do understand that you are not a great fan of the Typhoon. I, on the other hand, am not a great fan of the way the programme was run - and that was my view from my very early days of my involvement in it. It is that which has held back the development of its capabilities. I agree it's a deplorable state of affairs.
Some of your claims about its capabilities are slightly outdated now, but I would never suggest other than too many of them were (and are) too long coming.
Just one other thing. The "off the shelf" myth is exactly that; a myth. Everything has to be developed, built and supported by someone. It's only "off the shelf" because someone else has done the first bits already or is doing them.
I wonder what platform you would have chosen, instead of Typhoon, to meet the need in the days when the Typhoon decision was taken.
Some of your claims about its capabilities are slightly outdated now, but I would never suggest other than too many of them were (and are) too long coming.
Just one other thing. The "off the shelf" myth is exactly that; a myth. Everything has to be developed, built and supported by someone. It's only "off the shelf" because someone else has done the first bits already or is doing them.
I wonder what platform you would have chosen, instead of Typhoon, to meet the need in the days when the Typhoon decision was taken.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would choose Typhoon again.
I would also, despite my disparagement of it, choose Tornado again.
I can do that because of hindsight.
We never needed a decent war winning aircraft in all the years we had Tornado, and up till now we have not needed one whilst we have had Typhoon.
What buying expensive home made toys has done is keep our home defence industries in the game. Some day we might need them.
If we actually had a war to go to. A proper real war, the answer now is the same as when the Tornado was purchased.
F15
Lots of.
I would also, despite my disparagement of it, choose Tornado again.
I can do that because of hindsight.
We never needed a decent war winning aircraft in all the years we had Tornado, and up till now we have not needed one whilst we have had Typhoon.
What buying expensive home made toys has done is keep our home defence industries in the game. Some day we might need them.
If we actually had a war to go to. A proper real war, the answer now is the same as when the Tornado was purchased.
F15
Lots of.
One tech point. Back in 2002 the Eurofighter people had a coherent explanation for why they didn't go AESA right off the bat, which has been confirmed by all the difficulties with early fighter AESAs.
Tourist: when Tornado was bought the F-15 was not an option for the mission, because "not a pound for air-to-ground" still ruled. Macs brought the Strike Eagle demo to Farnborough in 1980 but it was too late by then.
Would the RAF been well equipped with F-15s? Probably so. But today there would be no UK combat aircraft industry and if UK wanted to stay aligned with the USAF there would be one choice: F-35. The other choice might be a Franco-German Rafale.
Tourist: when Tornado was bought the F-15 was not an option for the mission, because "not a pound for air-to-ground" still ruled. Macs brought the Strike Eagle demo to Farnborough in 1980 but it was too late by then.
Would the RAF been well equipped with F-15s? Probably so. But today there would be no UK combat aircraft industry and if UK wanted to stay aligned with the USAF there would be one choice: F-35. The other choice might be a Franco-German Rafale.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When here, the RAF said they went with the radar because it outmatched the red air and so fitted the requirement.
This far away, it looked like the end of USSR, euro partner squabbling and later resistance to properly fund the eurofighter/typhoon.
This far away, it looked like the end of USSR, euro partner squabbling and later resistance to properly fund the eurofighter/typhoon.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Some of the concerns are expressed below. Another is that the MDF packages are regionalised. Who decides who has access to which packages? No OOA deployments without US approval? Will the UK have access to the South America package for Falkland deployments, for example?
AW&ST: U.S. Will Keep Locks On JSF Software Updates
Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats. This regime is more stringent and far-reaching than earlier U.S. fighter export deals. Those usually withheld the software’s source code from the customer, but in most cases allowed local users to manage their own “threat libraries,” data that allowed the electronic warfare (EW) system to identify radio-frequency threats, with in-country, locally staffed facilities.
For the U.K. in particular, the reliance on U.S.-located laboratories looks like a pullback from its earlier position. In 2006, concern over access to JSF technology reached the national leadership level, and prompted a declaration, by U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, that “both governments agree that the U.K. will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the JSF such that the U.K. retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.” That promise seemingly contrasts with the severe limits now being imposed on non-U.S. access to the system.
Concerns about the lack of sovereignty and access to the core system are being voiced, since customer laboratory personnel will not be co-located with operating units. A retired senior Royal Air Force officer comments that “the non-U.S. operators are going to have to take a very great deal on trust. Further, ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ is still going to hold sway, and I doubt that the non-U.S. customers will be able to check what is going in.” Security arrangements “seem to go a lot further and deeper” than on earlier platforms, he says.
Another source close to the U.K. user community notes that Lockheed Martin has advertised the capability of the “fusion engine”—the software that combines inputs from different sensors and data links—to identify targets and implement rules of engagement automatically. But if the logic of the fusion engine itself is not understood at the U.K.’s operational level, he says, “you can imagine that this slaughters our legal stance on a clear, unambiguous and sovereign kill chain.”.........
It is not clear who, ultimately, would control the use of the foreign-funded laboratories, which will depend on host U.S. bases for power, communications and access. Lockheed Martin referred all questions on this topic to the JSF program office (JSFPO), which did not respond to repeated requests for comment.......
The mission data files (MDF) generated in the U.S. labs are sensitive because they are essential to the aircraft’s stealth characteristics. They include information that allows onboard software to build a so-called “blue line” flightpath that avoids exposing its less-stealthy viewing angles to hostile radar.....The MDFs are twice as large as the equivalent data load in the F-22, the Air Force has said. There are 12 packages covering different regions.......
The JSF program is establishing two centers to produce and update MDFs, at Eglin AFB, Florida, and NAS Point Mugu, California. The western center will host a lab to support Japanese and Israeli F-35s. An Australia/U.K. facility and a laboratory to support Norway and Italy will be established at Eglin. Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to build the Australia/U.K. facility in April. According to an Australian government document, the lab will have a staff of about 110 people, of whom 50 will be U.S. nationals, and the international partners will cover all its operating costs. .....
AW&ST: U.S. Will Keep Locks On JSF Software Updates
Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats. This regime is more stringent and far-reaching than earlier U.S. fighter export deals. Those usually withheld the software’s source code from the customer, but in most cases allowed local users to manage their own “threat libraries,” data that allowed the electronic warfare (EW) system to identify radio-frequency threats, with in-country, locally staffed facilities.
For the U.K. in particular, the reliance on U.S.-located laboratories looks like a pullback from its earlier position. In 2006, concern over access to JSF technology reached the national leadership level, and prompted a declaration, by U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, that “both governments agree that the U.K. will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the JSF such that the U.K. retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.” That promise seemingly contrasts with the severe limits now being imposed on non-U.S. access to the system.
Concerns about the lack of sovereignty and access to the core system are being voiced, since customer laboratory personnel will not be co-located with operating units. A retired senior Royal Air Force officer comments that “the non-U.S. operators are going to have to take a very great deal on trust. Further, ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ is still going to hold sway, and I doubt that the non-U.S. customers will be able to check what is going in.” Security arrangements “seem to go a lot further and deeper” than on earlier platforms, he says.
Another source close to the U.K. user community notes that Lockheed Martin has advertised the capability of the “fusion engine”—the software that combines inputs from different sensors and data links—to identify targets and implement rules of engagement automatically. But if the logic of the fusion engine itself is not understood at the U.K.’s operational level, he says, “you can imagine that this slaughters our legal stance on a clear, unambiguous and sovereign kill chain.”.........
It is not clear who, ultimately, would control the use of the foreign-funded laboratories, which will depend on host U.S. bases for power, communications and access. Lockheed Martin referred all questions on this topic to the JSF program office (JSFPO), which did not respond to repeated requests for comment.......
The mission data files (MDF) generated in the U.S. labs are sensitive because they are essential to the aircraft’s stealth characteristics. They include information that allows onboard software to build a so-called “blue line” flightpath that avoids exposing its less-stealthy viewing angles to hostile radar.....The MDFs are twice as large as the equivalent data load in the F-22, the Air Force has said. There are 12 packages covering different regions.......
The JSF program is establishing two centers to produce and update MDFs, at Eglin AFB, Florida, and NAS Point Mugu, California. The western center will host a lab to support Japanese and Israeli F-35s. An Australia/U.K. facility and a laboratory to support Norway and Italy will be established at Eglin. Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to build the Australia/U.K. facility in April. According to an Australian government document, the lab will have a staff of about 110 people, of whom 50 will be U.S. nationals, and the international partners will cover all its operating costs. .....
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than Sweetman having his usual doom and gloom, clueless how it is going to work. Are any of the partners saying they aren't getting what they want? Israel is even getting a plug and play EW.
Australia , UK and probably canada are sharing the development of threat library and all 3 are in different regions. The threats can be updated between missions and even shared in real time.
Australia , UK and probably canada are sharing the development of threat library and all 3 are in different regions. The threats can be updated between missions and even shared in real time.
Last edited by a1bill; 26th Oct 2015 at 20:06.
Australia , UK and probably canada are sharing the development of threat library
Canada? Can you define "clueless" for us ignorami?
ORAC
One interesting factor is that nobody ever thinks that the US might want to prevent them from taking unilateral or non-US-led action, because it's been the US leading the charge for the last 20 years or so. But there's still a substantial group in one major party that would like Bernie as C-in-C, and a lot of people would have had the US do nothing in the Falklands. Not to mention you could get some folks in the Pentagon saying "Sorry, but what you're doing isn't worth the risk of compromise to our crown jewels."
Canada? Can you define "clueless" for us ignorami?
ORAC
One interesting factor is that nobody ever thinks that the US might want to prevent them from taking unilateral or non-US-led action, because it's been the US leading the charge for the last 20 years or so. But there's still a substantial group in one major party that would like Bernie as C-in-C, and a lot of people would have had the US do nothing in the Falklands. Not to mention you could get some folks in the Pentagon saying "Sorry, but what you're doing isn't worth the risk of compromise to our crown jewels."
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR, ???? they even have to pay for the planes they want. Shocking, isn't it.
LO, you are so abusive it's getting tiresome. Canada still have guys in the ACURL. yes they are playing for free, for now. Let me know when they change the name to AURL or Canada withdraws from the F-35 programme.
LO, you are so abusive it's getting tiresome. Canada still have guys in the ACURL. yes they are playing for free, for now. Let me know when they change the name to AURL or Canada withdraws from the F-35 programme.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
I wouldn't have called you clueless. You're just missing large pieces of the whole picture but that's not your fault for being a civvie and not having access.
In my opinion you're a very thorough and well-read Journo who asks pertinent questions. However all these years of hatred toward the F35 Programme have resulted in bitter and aloof responses to those you consider below your acumen; i.e. everyone.
Other than that I read your work when I can.
Keep it up!
I wouldn't have called you clueless. You're just missing large pieces of the whole picture but that's not your fault for being a civvie and not having access.
In my opinion you're a very thorough and well-read Journo who asks pertinent questions. However all these years of hatred toward the F35 Programme have resulted in bitter and aloof responses to those you consider below your acumen; i.e. everyone.
Other than that I read your work when I can.
Keep it up!
MSOCS -
You're falling into the Lory trap again.
Without getting into classified stuff, which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?
You're falling into the Lory trap again.
Without getting into classified stuff, which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, I'm only going by open source, but from 'what I have read/heard' you are so wrong believing the Sweetman article. The partners and even FMS customers can add to the Cyber/EM spectrum of their EW suite. I think it is a layered approach that has a preprogrammed suite that is added to from the battlespace. In real time or between missions.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill, how exactly do you think your opinions and sniping add to this thread?
You are patently not, nor have ever been, a military professional and clearly have no access or information of an interesting nature yet you persist in posting your opinion as if it in some way contributes.
Are you solely here for some sort of self gratification?
You are patently not, nor have ever been, a military professional and clearly have no access or information of an interesting nature yet you persist in posting your opinion as if it in some way contributes.
Are you solely here for some sort of self gratification?