Sea Jet
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure about our purchases being driven by operational requirements! If anything, one of the most endearingly farcical things about our defence procurement is that we always heroically get the right aircraft for the wrong job, or vice versa.
For example, our crowning glory was of course the Tornado F3, perfectly designed for a task which promptly disappeared just as the aircraft entered service! The Harrier has gone much the same way, retaining a versatile Vtol capability which we haven't needed for more than a decade. We disposed of Belfasts because we had no heavyweight/oversize transport requirement (until three years later!) and now we're busy retiring Sea Harriers and Jaguars before we have anything to replace them. Some things never change.
We do certainly need to stop being a "global player" when we don't have the resources to support the missions. Blair seems to think that we can protect an empire on the cheap, and now we have to shuffle our remaining forces from one disaster zone to another. You have to wonder whether the situation in Basrah has genuinely deteriorated recently, or whether the media is simply being fed a line by the government, so that we can claim that the place has fallen into civil war and pull-out our troops, just as we're (rather conveniently) pouring them into Afghanistan. Presumably, when they've spent heaven-knows how much money and killed heaven-knows how many servicemen, the government will abandon Afghanistan too and move onto the next arbitarily-declared trouble spot.
The point which really disturbs me is that our over-stretched forces are supposedly tasked with the defence of the United Kingdom and its citizens. Nobody seems able to offer a plausible reason why our forces are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We've heard all the crap about defending democracy, cutting-off drug supply lines, foiling terrorism and so on, but it's patently nonsense. Does anyone honestly believe that any of our overseas endeavours have stopped so much as one terrorist bomb, or one bag or herion? Course not - it's just Blair trying to keep us on a world stage that ultimately does us no favours and simply costs us money and lives.
However, you have to stop and consider what would have happend had we not embarked on our overseas crusades. Even though Blair's adventurism has over-stretched our forces, it doesn't take much imagination to assume that without these tasks, our forces would have been stripped-back even further, on the basis that we didn't need them. I suppose that the only comfort we can draw from our present situation, is that our armed forces are probably valued more than they ever have been since WWII.
Strange world innit?!
For example, our crowning glory was of course the Tornado F3, perfectly designed for a task which promptly disappeared just as the aircraft entered service! The Harrier has gone much the same way, retaining a versatile Vtol capability which we haven't needed for more than a decade. We disposed of Belfasts because we had no heavyweight/oversize transport requirement (until three years later!) and now we're busy retiring Sea Harriers and Jaguars before we have anything to replace them. Some things never change.
We do certainly need to stop being a "global player" when we don't have the resources to support the missions. Blair seems to think that we can protect an empire on the cheap, and now we have to shuffle our remaining forces from one disaster zone to another. You have to wonder whether the situation in Basrah has genuinely deteriorated recently, or whether the media is simply being fed a line by the government, so that we can claim that the place has fallen into civil war and pull-out our troops, just as we're (rather conveniently) pouring them into Afghanistan. Presumably, when they've spent heaven-knows how much money and killed heaven-knows how many servicemen, the government will abandon Afghanistan too and move onto the next arbitarily-declared trouble spot.
The point which really disturbs me is that our over-stretched forces are supposedly tasked with the defence of the United Kingdom and its citizens. Nobody seems able to offer a plausible reason why our forces are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We've heard all the crap about defending democracy, cutting-off drug supply lines, foiling terrorism and so on, but it's patently nonsense. Does anyone honestly believe that any of our overseas endeavours have stopped so much as one terrorist bomb, or one bag or herion? Course not - it's just Blair trying to keep us on a world stage that ultimately does us no favours and simply costs us money and lives.
However, you have to stop and consider what would have happend had we not embarked on our overseas crusades. Even though Blair's adventurism has over-stretched our forces, it doesn't take much imagination to assume that without these tasks, our forces would have been stripped-back even further, on the basis that we didn't need them. I suppose that the only comfort we can draw from our present situation, is that our armed forces are probably valued more than they ever have been since WWII.
Strange world innit?!
BHR you think we no longer need a Navy? How many of the things that you've ate, drank or used (including fuels) in the last 48 hours were imported by sea?
Perhaps you think we can shirk our responsibilities to the international community - which includes contributing forces (including ships or aircraft) to effort to deal with crises? Perhaps you think goodwill is enough to deter attacks? Perhaps you look forward to the day the lights go out, and the Union Flag is lowered for the last time?
When was that article from the The Communist errr I mean The Economist written? Who was it by? Were they aware of how often the RN has been involved in operations since the end of the Cold War?
Perhaps you think we can shirk our responsibilities to the international community - which includes contributing forces (including ships or aircraft) to effort to deal with crises? Perhaps you think goodwill is enough to deter attacks? Perhaps you look forward to the day the lights go out, and the Union Flag is lowered for the last time?
When was that article from the The Communist errr I mean The Economist written? Who was it by? Were they aware of how often the RN has been involved in operations since the end of the Cold War?
Not just that but, we have a significant number of dependancies around the world which we are responsible for defending. We have a number of treaties which we are responsible for upholding, not least of which is NATO which has kept us all safe for 50 + years. Do you suggets we withdraw from that. We have an agreement with 5 nations in the far east for mutual defence in a very volatile area where there is much disputed territory. Antarctica is the largest untapped mineral resouce left in the world. At the moment, there is a treaty banning commercial exploitation of Antarctica but, as Oil etc becomes more scare, the demand to use Antarctica will grow. A significant portion of that land mass is claimed by the UK. Most of the territory on Antarctica is in dispute and come the crunch a coastal defence force will be no use against the might of another nation with a counter claim.Why do you think the Falkland Islands and South Georgia are so important? It's not for the sheep/penguins that's for sure.
BHR, you show great ignorance of the UKs world role. We are a permanent member of the Security Council, A key member of NATO, A key member of the UN, One of the world's nuclear powers, a member of the Commonwealth amongst many others. Do you suggest that we throw all that away and just defend our fish against the Icelandic?
At this moment in time one of our ships is actively engaged near the Horn of Africa in counter-piracy ops. If you think Piracy is not an issue, then look here: http://www.rncom.mod.uk/maritime/WWTS/dec/dec05_summ.cfm
As WEBF stated, most of our trade is by Sea and needs to be defended. It was not that long ago that Iran and Iraq were at each others throats and trying to sink our petrol tankers. (If you think this will not effect you or your country's economy, then you need to read a bit more of the economist). The RN has been in the Gulf since the 1980s defending our shipping and supporting two wars. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that in the current climate, those shipping routes could be under threat again.
What the RN has not been good at, is publicising what we do. Unlike the RAF, you do not see ships flying over your house. Often they are out of sight and out of mind. The RN has existed for 1000 years and has consistently justified it's existance in many conflicts/crises. If you wish to ignore history, then more the fool you. We are living in very dangerous times. Not since the 1940s and 50s has the world been as unstable. See here! http://www.rncom.mod.uk/maritime/WWT...dec05_summ.cfm
Despite what you may think of Blair's decision to go into Iraq, it is essential that the UK is engaged worldwide, if only to bring some sanity to the negotiating table, something we are very good at but only if you have the "big stick" to back it up!
BHR, you show great ignorance of the UKs world role. We are a permanent member of the Security Council, A key member of NATO, A key member of the UN, One of the world's nuclear powers, a member of the Commonwealth amongst many others. Do you suggest that we throw all that away and just defend our fish against the Icelandic?
At this moment in time one of our ships is actively engaged near the Horn of Africa in counter-piracy ops. If you think Piracy is not an issue, then look here: http://www.rncom.mod.uk/maritime/WWTS/dec/dec05_summ.cfm
As WEBF stated, most of our trade is by Sea and needs to be defended. It was not that long ago that Iran and Iraq were at each others throats and trying to sink our petrol tankers. (If you think this will not effect you or your country's economy, then you need to read a bit more of the economist). The RN has been in the Gulf since the 1980s defending our shipping and supporting two wars. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that in the current climate, those shipping routes could be under threat again.
What the RN has not been good at, is publicising what we do. Unlike the RAF, you do not see ships flying over your house. Often they are out of sight and out of mind. The RN has existed for 1000 years and has consistently justified it's existance in many conflicts/crises. If you wish to ignore history, then more the fool you. We are living in very dangerous times. Not since the 1940s and 50s has the world been as unstable. See here! http://www.rncom.mod.uk/maritime/WWT...dec05_summ.cfm
Despite what you may think of Blair's decision to go into Iraq, it is essential that the UK is engaged worldwide, if only to bring some sanity to the negotiating table, something we are very good at but only if you have the "big stick" to back it up!
Last edited by Widger; 3rd Mar 2006 at 21:10.
Well said Widger.
Some of the posters here have dismissed the potential threat to shipping Iran could pose if the current dispute over their nuclear programme escalates. This link reports the commissioning of Iran's second self built submarine. If they have the technology to build submarines, they can keep their air force flying.
Some of the posters here have dismissed the potential threat to shipping Iran could pose if the current dispute over their nuclear programme escalates. This link reports the commissioning of Iran's second self built submarine. If they have the technology to build submarines, they can keep their air force flying.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said in #1554 the UK needs to stop trying to be a global player
... Well why don't you point your opinion towards HMG instead of sounding off about it here. If HMG made it policy not to be involved in exped warfare then you could bet you bottom $ that the Armed forces would be alterd accordingly. So here's your chance BHR. Why not write to Tony Blair etc stating your objections. And while your at it - go tell the employees of Shipbuilding UK/ BAE/ Rolls Royce etc.. of how you would provide a meaningfull amount of work to see them into the future.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Althenick,
You assume that my only outlet for my opinions is in here.
Widger,
You assume that I know nothing of what you refer to. You disagree with my statement and rather than deal with that at face value you attempt to belittle me despite knowing nothing about me beyond what you see posted in here.
I would ask you how much protection our SLOCs get from SSBNs. I think that both you and WEBF should actually look at what we need to do as opposed to what the politicians would like us to do.
Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially Iran are not about treaty obligations or protection of SLOCs they are about power projection and it is my contention that we should not be in that business since we cannot afford it.
As someone who has served HMG in my time and cares deeply that those who continue to do so should have what they require at all times. My concern is and always will be that politicians and those who have not moved on from the Empire mentality are prepared to put the lives of the men and women in uniform at risk rather than deal with the changing face of the world in which we find ourselves.
BHR
You assume that my only outlet for my opinions is in here.
Widger,
You assume that I know nothing of what you refer to. You disagree with my statement and rather than deal with that at face value you attempt to belittle me despite knowing nothing about me beyond what you see posted in here.
I would ask you how much protection our SLOCs get from SSBNs. I think that both you and WEBF should actually look at what we need to do as opposed to what the politicians would like us to do.
Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially Iran are not about treaty obligations or protection of SLOCs they are about power projection and it is my contention that we should not be in that business since we cannot afford it.
As someone who has served HMG in my time and cares deeply that those who continue to do so should have what they require at all times. My concern is and always will be that politicians and those who have not moved on from the Empire mentality are prepared to put the lives of the men and women in uniform at risk rather than deal with the changing face of the world in which we find ourselves.
BHR
Last edited by BillHicksRules; 5th Mar 2006 at 16:35.
BHR,I know plenty about you....your posts speak for themselves....You are anti-hunting......A Liberal in every sense of the word....Are pro-speed limiters, yet freely admit to speeding in Scotland.......An Aries.....now that say's a lot........A Jaguar loving anti-BMW driver, who actually has an MPV!.......Someone who does not rate JK Rowling! What has Harry Potter ever done to you?......In seriousness, if my post appeared offensive then I apologise.........But to business.What protection do our SLOCs get from SSBN? I could tell you but, then I would have to kill you! So...........You'll never know!!!.......Para 3. That is purely your contention.... Our presence in the Gulf of Arabia since the early 1980s has certainly been about SLOCs.......You may have been in the Services at some time but, you no longer are and we have all moved on. ....Not only that but you were Crab!.... Ergo, your knowledge of Defending Britain's Interests Worldwide, whilst not living in a Hotel is limited.......Before we get howls of derision from the MPA/C17/C130/F3/GR fleet, about the cr@p state of accomodation/living in tents etc. ..... It is meant in jest and just think of your lovely warm bunk, with the steward bringing you a hot cup of cocoa and your flying ovies, freshly laundered, when you serve on the CVF!...
Why does this bl**dy computer not recognise the VB code for spaces and returns?
Why does this bl**dy computer not recognise the VB code for spaces and returns?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
“BHR,I know plenty about you....your posts speak for themselves....You are anti-hunting......A Liberal in every sense of the word....Are pro-speed limiters, yet freely admit to speeding in Scotland.......An Aries.....now that say's a lot........A Jaguar loving anti-BMW driver, who actually has an MPV!.......Someone who does not rate JK Rowling! What has Harry Potter ever done to you?......In seriousness, if my post appeared offensive then I apologise”
Anti-hunting – yes
Liberal – Card Carrying (stood at local elections for councillor in 2003)
Pro-speed limiters – yes
Speeder – yes
Aries – born on the Spring Equinox
Jaguar lover – ohh yeah
Anti-BMW – not all of them (see below)
Has an MPV – not anymore (now own a BMW) thanks to an old git
Harry Potter hater – well I hate the hype surrounding it more than I hate the books themselves.
Took offense at your post – not in the slightest
“But to business.What protection do our SLOCs get from SSBN? I could tell you but, then I would have to kill you! So...........You'll never know!!!”
Tell me, tell me, I have to know!!!
.Para 3. That is purely your contention.... Our presence in the Gulf of Arabia since the early 1980s has certainly been about SLOCs.......You may have been in the Services at some time but, you no longer are and we have all moved on. ....Not only that but you were Crab!.... Ergo, your knowledge of Defending Britain's Interests Worldwide, whilst not living in a Hotel is limited.......Before we get howls of derision from the MPA/C17/C130/F3/GR fleet, about the cr@p state of accomodation/living in tents etc. ..... It is meant in jest and just think of your lovely warm bunk, with the steward bringing you a hot cup of cocoa and your flying ovies, freshly laundered, when you serve on the CVF!”
Two points here, one I was most certainly not a crab, I worked for a living (and before you say it I was not a grunt either). Secondly, still have plenty of mates still taking the Queen’s Shilling including dark blue, light blue and green suit wearers currently serving in the big sandy. So I like to think I am still up to speed on conditions.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the issues here. I respect your opinions and understand your reasoning behind them.
I am looking down the line a few years for the UK and am keenly aware of some major political changes/decisions that are going to need to be made at home which will cost billions of pounds to implement. John Q Public cares not for the ability of the RN to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age whilst simultaneously landing Marines up and down the coast, if he cannot heat and light his house because a) it is too expensive and b) there is insufficient power generation to allow it anyway.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. ”Why does this bl**dy computer not recognise the VB code for spaces and returns?”
I could tell you but then I would have to kill you
“BHR,I know plenty about you....your posts speak for themselves....You are anti-hunting......A Liberal in every sense of the word....Are pro-speed limiters, yet freely admit to speeding in Scotland.......An Aries.....now that say's a lot........A Jaguar loving anti-BMW driver, who actually has an MPV!.......Someone who does not rate JK Rowling! What has Harry Potter ever done to you?......In seriousness, if my post appeared offensive then I apologise”
Anti-hunting – yes
Liberal – Card Carrying (stood at local elections for councillor in 2003)
Pro-speed limiters – yes
Speeder – yes
Aries – born on the Spring Equinox
Jaguar lover – ohh yeah
Anti-BMW – not all of them (see below)
Has an MPV – not anymore (now own a BMW) thanks to an old git
Harry Potter hater – well I hate the hype surrounding it more than I hate the books themselves.
Took offense at your post – not in the slightest
“But to business.What protection do our SLOCs get from SSBN? I could tell you but, then I would have to kill you! So...........You'll never know!!!”
Tell me, tell me, I have to know!!!
.Para 3. That is purely your contention.... Our presence in the Gulf of Arabia since the early 1980s has certainly been about SLOCs.......You may have been in the Services at some time but, you no longer are and we have all moved on. ....Not only that but you were Crab!.... Ergo, your knowledge of Defending Britain's Interests Worldwide, whilst not living in a Hotel is limited.......Before we get howls of derision from the MPA/C17/C130/F3/GR fleet, about the cr@p state of accomodation/living in tents etc. ..... It is meant in jest and just think of your lovely warm bunk, with the steward bringing you a hot cup of cocoa and your flying ovies, freshly laundered, when you serve on the CVF!”
Two points here, one I was most certainly not a crab, I worked for a living (and before you say it I was not a grunt either). Secondly, still have plenty of mates still taking the Queen’s Shilling including dark blue, light blue and green suit wearers currently serving in the big sandy. So I like to think I am still up to speed on conditions.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the issues here. I respect your opinions and understand your reasoning behind them.
I am looking down the line a few years for the UK and am keenly aware of some major political changes/decisions that are going to need to be made at home which will cost billions of pounds to implement. John Q Public cares not for the ability of the RN to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age whilst simultaneously landing Marines up and down the coast, if he cannot heat and light his house because a) it is too expensive and b) there is insufficient power generation to allow it anyway.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. ”Why does this bl**dy computer not recognise the VB code for spaces and returns?”
I could tell you but then I would have to kill you
Suspicion breeds confidence
I hope not More to the point, interesting article in the Scotsman about Argentine sabre rattling in the Falkland Islands. Here
More to the point, interesting article in the Scotsman about Argentine sabre rattling in the Falkland Islands. Here
Last edited by Navaleye; 6th Mar 2006 at 20:44.
Suspicion breeds confidence
And at last some positive news on CVF. The french parting with hard cash and covering 1/3 of the development costs so far is good news.
Here
Here
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the RN could be reduced to just a coastal force for economic zone duties without any risk to national security
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Red Arrows, when not booked for a display, could surely defend the UK airspace adequately from all current threats and when things get difficult we could always ask our allies for help
Suspicion breeds confidence
Interesting feature drom Defense Aerospace on why we need not have to retain STOVL capability for CVF. Commenst welcome
by Giovanni de Briganti
PARIS --- How much of a premium is Britain prepared to pay to give its future combat aircraft a short take-off/vertical landing (VSTOL) capability it may not really need?
This, as much as the recent controversies about access to closely-guarded US technology or alternate engine programs, is what should ultimately decide whether Britain commits to the Joint Strike Fighter by year-end, or pulls out.
The British perfected the Harrier “jump-jet,” the world’s first operational VTOL fighter, from which they then derived the Sea Harrier (and the AV-8 for the US Marine Corps). In the 1960s, when it was designed, the operational rationale behind the Harrier was to allow the Royal Air Force to disperse its German-based units away from vulnerable air bases and runways, and thus to survive Soviet air strikes.
The same technology later allowed the Royal Navy to build small, and comparatively inexpensive, Invincible-class aircraft carriers, thanks to which Britain was able to defeat Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War. The Sea Harrier also allowed other countries, such as Italy and Spain, to deploy sea-based jet fighters from even smaller aircraft carriers, acquiring a capability that would have otherwise been inaccessible to them.
However, the case for STOVL is much less persuasive in today’s strategic environment. Dispersing air force units away from heavily protected air bases is no longer necessary absent the credible threat of massive air attacks. On the contrary, it would be more dangerous to disperse air and ground crews as this would expose them to direct attack from the irregular forces and terrorists they are likely encounter during future operations.
The argument in favour of STOVL capability for the Royal Navy also has faded, if not disappeared altogether: while it was crucial to fit jet fighters to small carriers displacing 20,000 tonnes, it is far less necessary for the RN’s future carriers, which will displace around 60,000 tonnes.
Consequently, there is no longer an absolute British need for a STOVL capability, even though it is one of the main reasons Britain opted for the Joint Strike Fighter in the first place. It is to acquire this capability that it would pay over $100 million for each JSF it buys, compared to about $60 million for the Dassault Rafale and about $80 million for the F-18E Super Hornet, the only two other Western carrier fighters in production.
Thus, the “STOVL Premium” is about $40 million per aircraft, which adds up to as much as $6 billion for Britain’s planned buy of 150 JSFs. In addition, Britain is expected to contribute another $2 billion in development costs, bringing this premium to $8 billion.
Another option is to develop a carrier-based version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Mike Turner, CEO of BAE Systems, recently said this option remains on the table. Its cost remains to be determined, however, and it is questionable whether a naval Eurofighter could be ready by 2012-2103, when the new carriers are due to enter service. Even if development of a naval Typhoon were to cost $1 billion, the JSF’s “STOVL Premium” would still amount to a hefty $7 billion.
Buying the F-18E makes little sense, as it is the latest upgrade of a design dating back to the 1970s and thus offers limited growth potential. Furthermore, its performance has been often questioned, notably by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Buying the Rafale, on the other hand, would lower the acquisition and life-cycle costs of the future British carrier force because they would be shared with France across the board, and not simply on part of the ship design as is now the case. And with their main naval ports and air bases so close together, support would be far simpler than with JSF.
And, given the status of the Rafale program, Britain should be able to obtain very significant price concessions and offsets for a 150-aircraft buy. Best of all, from a British point of view Rafale is at an ideal phase for such a deal: naval Rafales have been operational long enough to iron out its kinks, yet production is not so far advanced as to make integration of a new partner impossible.
BAE Systems’ involvement and work-load would be assured by both Typhoon and Rafale options, while Rolls-Royce would no doubt obtain far more production and maintenance work than from the JSF, now that the alternate engine it was to develop has been cancelled.
The JSF has been described as an economically inefficient way for participating governments to transfer public funds to their own industries, via the US and Lockheed Martin, both of which take a slice of that money as it passes through their hands.
Apart from obvious operational and industrial advantages, buying either Typhoon or Rafale instead of JSF would at least do away with this US “tax,” as well as with the operationally useless STOVL price premium.
PARIS --- How much of a premium is Britain prepared to pay to give its future combat aircraft a short take-off/vertical landing (VSTOL) capability it may not really need?
This, as much as the recent controversies about access to closely-guarded US technology or alternate engine programs, is what should ultimately decide whether Britain commits to the Joint Strike Fighter by year-end, or pulls out.
The British perfected the Harrier “jump-jet,” the world’s first operational VTOL fighter, from which they then derived the Sea Harrier (and the AV-8 for the US Marine Corps). In the 1960s, when it was designed, the operational rationale behind the Harrier was to allow the Royal Air Force to disperse its German-based units away from vulnerable air bases and runways, and thus to survive Soviet air strikes.
The same technology later allowed the Royal Navy to build small, and comparatively inexpensive, Invincible-class aircraft carriers, thanks to which Britain was able to defeat Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War. The Sea Harrier also allowed other countries, such as Italy and Spain, to deploy sea-based jet fighters from even smaller aircraft carriers, acquiring a capability that would have otherwise been inaccessible to them.
However, the case for STOVL is much less persuasive in today’s strategic environment. Dispersing air force units away from heavily protected air bases is no longer necessary absent the credible threat of massive air attacks. On the contrary, it would be more dangerous to disperse air and ground crews as this would expose them to direct attack from the irregular forces and terrorists they are likely encounter during future operations.
The argument in favour of STOVL capability for the Royal Navy also has faded, if not disappeared altogether: while it was crucial to fit jet fighters to small carriers displacing 20,000 tonnes, it is far less necessary for the RN’s future carriers, which will displace around 60,000 tonnes.
Consequently, there is no longer an absolute British need for a STOVL capability, even though it is one of the main reasons Britain opted for the Joint Strike Fighter in the first place. It is to acquire this capability that it would pay over $100 million for each JSF it buys, compared to about $60 million for the Dassault Rafale and about $80 million for the F-18E Super Hornet, the only two other Western carrier fighters in production.
Thus, the “STOVL Premium” is about $40 million per aircraft, which adds up to as much as $6 billion for Britain’s planned buy of 150 JSFs. In addition, Britain is expected to contribute another $2 billion in development costs, bringing this premium to $8 billion.
Another option is to develop a carrier-based version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Mike Turner, CEO of BAE Systems, recently said this option remains on the table. Its cost remains to be determined, however, and it is questionable whether a naval Eurofighter could be ready by 2012-2103, when the new carriers are due to enter service. Even if development of a naval Typhoon were to cost $1 billion, the JSF’s “STOVL Premium” would still amount to a hefty $7 billion.
Buying the F-18E makes little sense, as it is the latest upgrade of a design dating back to the 1970s and thus offers limited growth potential. Furthermore, its performance has been often questioned, notably by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Buying the Rafale, on the other hand, would lower the acquisition and life-cycle costs of the future British carrier force because they would be shared with France across the board, and not simply on part of the ship design as is now the case. And with their main naval ports and air bases so close together, support would be far simpler than with JSF.
And, given the status of the Rafale program, Britain should be able to obtain very significant price concessions and offsets for a 150-aircraft buy. Best of all, from a British point of view Rafale is at an ideal phase for such a deal: naval Rafales have been operational long enough to iron out its kinks, yet production is not so far advanced as to make integration of a new partner impossible.
BAE Systems’ involvement and work-load would be assured by both Typhoon and Rafale options, while Rolls-Royce would no doubt obtain far more production and maintenance work than from the JSF, now that the alternate engine it was to develop has been cancelled.
The JSF has been described as an economically inefficient way for participating governments to transfer public funds to their own industries, via the US and Lockheed Martin, both of which take a slice of that money as it passes through their hands.
Apart from obvious operational and industrial advantages, buying either Typhoon or Rafale instead of JSF would at least do away with this US “tax,” as well as with the operationally useless STOVL price premium.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but...
Navaleye,
We could of course save some money in procurement costs by buying F-35C CTOL JSFs which will be rather more capable than F-18E/F or Rafale... and actually designed for role, unlike marinized Typhoon.
UK Rafale is fantasy land, IMO.
S41
We could of course save some money in procurement costs by buying F-35C CTOL JSFs which will be rather more capable than F-18E/F or Rafale... and actually designed for role, unlike marinized Typhoon.
UK Rafale is fantasy land, IMO.
S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One of the main advantages of STOVL was that land based crews need only a short work up period, whilst CV operations require continuous practice. Hence all the JSF force pilots would be available for surge carrier operations at short notice. STOVL also has operational advantages in that the problem of launch/recovery cycle timings largely disappears.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'll start learning Dutch if the Sea Typhoon gets ordered, agreed that the Rafale is a better bet then the Super Bug, but overall yes, the F-35C is the way to go.