JSF and A400M at risk?
 

From today's Times Online:

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?

"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......

Further info here: Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout - Times Online

The F-35 i can sort of understand but the A400!!! are they mad our current AT is falling apart!!!

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...

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.

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

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?

Can't see us pulling out of JSF however, I can see us only getting 30 of them!

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!

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

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.......

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.

Or maybe Rafaele? On a single sister-ship to the new French aircraft carrier? Lots of potential cost-savings and political advantages too.

Tim
Are you eight, or nine years old?

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!

'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! :D

No, I've been personally briefed on the solution....it isn't one, it's laughable, and a Heath-Robinson solution too.


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.

:ugh::ugh:

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 ...... :sad:

Still, thats all 'old' info - might have changed in the 3 months I've become happier, but I doubt it.

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......

"Only a witless, innumerate nerk like Lewis Page could get to £160 m GBP......"


Not true Jacko. Apparently others can also manage to get it to that figure.

Tim

Who are these "British Aerospace" people you refer to? Last time I looked both Typhoon and the JSF consortium featured British input from some multinational defence company called BAE Systems. Perhaps thats why your view on their products seems to be so very 20th century.

Rafale is indeed a smart machine, but really needs to get an LDP fitted to save the embarrasment of a SEM buddy lase/ self generate coords for AASM.

Clever boy Sammy - nobody had spotted that British Aerospace isn't called British Aerospace any longer:rolleyes:

Anyway, wild claims, name calling and b*tching aside, I haven't actually read so much as a single line to suggest that my view (and that expressed by the Times) is somehow wrong. But then I really can't see how anyone could come-up with a plausible reason why the government would still be stupid enough to continue pouring money into the JSF when it patently isn't going to result in an aircraft which is in any way significantly superior to the Typhoon - which we've already got (or will be getting). It really is that simple.

It would be quite refreshing if the government really do make the right decision - for a change!

Tim and others,

Trying to get the emotion out of the thread, may I offer the following:

Typhoon is an excellent BVR air to air combat aircraft. It's what it's designed to do. It will probably have a very reasonable air to ground facility in a short while. The delta wing layout and need for external fuel tanks will probably lead to restrictions on mixed weapons carriage (reduced space) but that doesn't make it a bad land based platform. It's very, very unlikely that it will ever be navalised - not strong enough (it's not weak, just not designed for carrier landings or catapult launches) and too fast on the approach (fine for runways, just not for carriers).

JSF will be a good strike fighter. It's what it is designed to do. Stealth, internal weapons and good internal fuel capacity have been attained by going for one engine and forsaking the air to air qualities Typhoon has in abundance. STOVL variant (35B) offers exceptional basing flexibility (including landing on a bare and relatively cheap flight deck) at a cost in range and payload. CV variant (35C) does better from a more expensive deck.

The point is that different aircraft are designed to do different jobs (not always the ones they end up doing, but the point still stands). Comparing them nearly always ends up as an 'apples and oranges' discussion, or worse, name calling.

My take - UK buy of JSF will go ahead, but I wouldn't rule out another slip in our delivery dates - this would hack the US off big time and reduce our ability to influence the programme, but our Government may decide it's a price worth paying. I don't agree but hey, I'm not in charge.

best regards to all as ever

Engines

Jacko,

Why are you so Air-to-Air orientated here? All well and good playing cat and mouse with MiG-this and Su-that to only get your ass burnt off by SA-surprise that Typhoon was NOT designed to be anywhere near!!

I neither agree or disagree with your petty journo squabbles, and I didn't get the figure from any of his articles either. Last time I was at CGY there weren't 232 jets on the line and talk was uncertain of getting anywhere near that many. Any way you slice it, Typhoon is already a monster of a money-pit even when the Saudis bailout the production commitment.

:=

Barney,

Flyaway infers a proper unit production cost - and we know that that is in the €60 m/£42 m ballpark. That's really not disgraceful or extravagant enough for the usual motley crew of slack-jawed 'Phoon-haters

Even if we were to talk unit PROGRAMME costs, then we can't get to the kind of figure you use. All of this: "Any way you slice it, Typhoon is already a monster of a money-pit" is just so much witless and tiresome buffoonery.

If production is limited to T1+T2 (about 144 aircraft) and we pay the full costs for the 232 aircraft programme, then the Unit PROGRAMME Cost (not the flyaway, numbskull) might reach £132-139 m. That's worst case.

Jacko,

My apologies for mistakenly using the wrong phrase when making my earlier point - do you suggest that your 140m GBP figure is acceptable then?! Treasury now saved from impending doom.....

Sorry, one should show more respect to an enthusiast with 3000+ posts.

Mmm....muses...I wonder if the UK will end up buying the CTOL Naval JSF, the Rafale - or will that early MOD concept drawing for CVF showing parking boxes marked 'F/A-18E/F' come true....?

Barney,

F*ck me that's a big chip on your shoulder, fella.

'Petty Journo Squabbles', 'Enthusiast'......?

What's next? Beagle Pup-driving amateur? Former UAS mediocrity?

All accurate insults, but can't you argue the point, rather than attacking the man?

I'm not a pro FJ pilot, like you, but looking in detail at programmes is my bread and butter, and I have notebooks full of interviews with IPT folk, Main Building desk warriors and NAO people, and files of correspondence too.

I therefore do understand the difference between a flyaway, a Unit Production Price, and a Unit Programme Cost, and it gives me the pip when the stupid, the lazy, or those with a pro JSF agenda distort Typhoon prices. You quoted a 'flyaway' of £160 m GBP - which is about 400% wrong as a 'flyaway' or 'Unit Production Price', and about double the planned unit programme cost.

I hope that you're a bit more careful with your flight planning calculations.

The only way programme costs can rise to £130 m are if more than one third of the Typhoons covered by the umbrella contract are cancelled. I don't and would not approve of that.

There are plenty of good reasons to kick Typhoon (and more than a few valid criticisms of F-35, too), without dragging in exaggerated and partial views on cost, and silly claims extrapolated from Typhoon's 'Cold War origins'.

****-canning Tranche 3 would not save the UK any money, up front - though we'd save on support and operating costs. Cancelling the carriers and JSF could still save the better part of £12 Bn.

How much would eliminating the entire MOD cost? I'll bet you like that number even more.

I think this article should be taken with a pinch of salt. Consider this part

After a quick google search I found this August article from the Mail Britain must send more troops to Afghanistan to defeat Taliban, says military chief | Mail Online

The interesting part is

The Times are trying to make an interesting story about a gulf between UK and US policy that does not exist. They imply that the US have asked Britain to send 4000 more troops when in fact it was our own generals that seem to have floated the idea in the first place. How then can the decision not to send them be perceived as a snub to the USA? :confused:

Sorry, I know this adds nothing to the discussion re JSF and A400M but perhaps it highlights the emotions the Times are trying to engineer in their readers and casts doubt on the story's authenticity.

The Times:- "Mr Bush. Are you aware the UK was going to send an additional 4000 troops to Afghanistan?"

Mr Bush:- "Er, really? I hadn't heard that."

The Times:- "Well they're not going to do it you know! How do you feel about this snub?"

Mr Bush:- "Ummm, what?"

Cancellation/delay of JSF wouldn't have an immediate effect on operations in the sand pits, however:-

Cancellation/delay of A400M would put these ops at considerable risk as the AT fleet cannot cope now!

If A400M is cancelled we'd better start buying wings for the C130Ks and look at some fatique-reducing options for the 'new' C130Js that are already approaching outer-wing fatigue life.:mad:

Got to agree with Trukkie here. For the guys on the ground it has to be helo's and AT over future/possible fast air, for pressing concern.

If EADS are attempting to renegotiate the penalty clauses for late delivery, it surely does not bode well for the entire project. No company in this situation would announce the full extent of any delays until the last possible minute.

EADS announces new A400M first flight delay

Not that anybody will be the slightest bit surprised. A400M 'looks' and 'sounds' great in its conception. Although (as I understand it...), delivery #1 is due 2010; of an unproven airlifter, built by a company with zero previous military experience, with brand new hypothetical engines, that are not even straight off the drawing board but a theoretical stab at the world's most powerful turbo-prop.

The thing still hasn't flown.

Which would be fine. Were it not for the immediate and pressing needs.:ugh:

We have future requirements, lets not forget the here and now.

It's all about the wider picture. Throwing performance figures back and forth is something best left to plane spotters. Likewise, juggling cost figures is a hobby best reserved for politicians. The point is quite simple; the Typhoon is a perfectly adequate aircraft for the new carriers, no matter how many fancy scenarious you might like to imagine. It's clear that unless the Treasury is prepared to cough-up money for Typhoons that they claim we no longer need, then they may as well take them. The "navalisation" issue is a red herring, besides, the RAF's JSF replacement Typhoons wouldn't even need "navalisation" in any case.

Consequently, the JSF has not been a particularly attractive option for a long time. As the development plods-on, the costs keep climbing and the Americans continue to treat us as inferior partners in the project, it becomes even less attractive until (as the Times says) we reach a stage where a serious choice has to be made. Given the huge cost of the JSF purchase, and the availability of Typhoons, it's a no-brainer. Even our confused and twisted politicians ought to be able to make the right decision this time and get out now. Let's leave the Americans to play with their shiny new toy at their own expense, methinks.

AW&ST - 22nd Sept: "Two for One"
Limited weapon-bay space in F-35 drives talks at the Pentagon on a new weapon

Options to expand the limited internal weapons capacity of the F-35 JSF are emerging as operators begin thinking seriously about how they will use the stealthy aircraft's combat capability.

THe USAF and USN have begun talks talks to define the Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) intended to replace both the air-to-air AIM-120 AMRAAM and anti-radar AGM-88 Harm beyond 2020 and allow the F-35 to defend itself against both opposing fighters and air defenses.

Operators are concerned the baseline F-35 will carry only two AIM-120s internally, in addition to air-to-ground munitions. The larger AGM-88 is an option for external carriage only, but is not on the weapons road map for the JSF.

"I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air dominance weapons", Maj Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command's advanced air dominance branch, told an IDGA air-launched weapons conference in Vienna, Va, last week.......

Separately, studies into "super-packing" the JSF's bays to increase the number of weapons carried have come up with a way of loading six AMRAAM-sized missiles internally, according to the program office. This could be an option for later F-35 capability blocks.*

The JSF program office (JPO) meanwhile, says it will cost at least $100 million to add a new weapon beyond the initial suite being integrated under the F-35 development program. Weapons planned to be cleared for the baseline Block 3 JSF include two AIM-120s internally and two AIM-9X externally on the outboard wing pylons.

Block 4, proposed for funding beginning from 2015, would add the latest AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block 2. New air-to-ground weaponry would include the the Small-Diameter-Bomb Increment 2, Dual-Mode Laser-Guided Bomb and AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand-off Wweapon, all carrier internally.

"Anything beyond Block 4 is notional", Capt. John Martins, JPO air vehicle director cautioned at the conference, but the program office has a "wish list" of weapons for Block 5 (targeted for 2017). Block 5 includes the anti-armour Joint Air-to-Ground Missile and anti-ship Joint Strike Missile internally, as well as laser guided 70mm rockets, AIM-120s, JDAMs and JSOWs externally. Block 6 would nitionally add the European Meteor BVR missile and the UK's Spear air-to-ground missile......

With no anti-radiation weapon programmed for the F-35, the Air Force and navy continue on their separate ways, with a decision on low-rate initial production of the U.S. Navy's AGM-88e Advanced ARM Guided Missile (AARGM) scheduled in October...... The Navy requires 1,750 AARGMs...... IOC is planned for 2010 on the F/A-18C/D followed later by the F/A-18E/F and the EA-18G......

The Air Force's position is not to spend additional money on HARM upgrades, including AARGM, but to focus instead on weapons suitable for carriage in stealth aircraft... The Air Force has in excess of 2,000 HARM in it's stockpile....

*(The above, of course, is based on the larger internal bay of the F-35A/C, not the smaller one of the F-35B. So which, if any, of the alternate designs being considered would fit is open to question. Even if something like the super-pack were possible, which I doubt, I also doubt whether the capability to bring it back aboard wouldn't be there either.)

Indie/Truckkie,

Completely agree that given the current Op Tempo the need for more/better AT is a priority. I have no experience of the A400M programme but one thread that seems to run common here is sceptisism over 'unproven' designs - we've come a long way since the days of having to actually build aircraft to find out how they fly/handle/operate.....modern modelling and simulation, whilst not being the whole solution, is now suprisingly accurate. I'm not sticking up for the aerospace companies, simpy suggesting that 'unproven' is perhaps not an argument

Jacko, your worst-case suggestion, which could very soon become reality BTW, was 140m GBP.....that's not a good news story, come on! If you consider the capability you get for the money, right now, it's doesn't paint a rosy picture - they couldn't even get the austere capability for A/G ops sorted in time, and how much extra are we pumping into the Typhoon programme to give it this capability? I guess the answer is in one of your notebooks somewhere perhaps?

The research in the Times article is clearly flawed (3 x 500lb bombs??) and therefore loses it for me I'm afraid.....please don't get me wrong, I didn't produce the 160m GBP figure, and I understand changes will be made to procurement plans but, to get back on track, cancelling the A400M and our JSF buy is not the solution by any means.

"They couldn't even get the austere capability for A/G ops sorted in time, and how much extra are we pumping into the Typhoon programme to give it this capability?"

The official position is that the Austere air-to-ground capability embodied under CP193 (single target engagement on a single pass using EPW and Litening III) was 'sorted in time' for FOC on 1 July 2008, when the Typhoon force was declared combat ready in the air-to-ground role.

I would venture to suggest that the extra funding required has already paid for itself, since Saudi Arabia would not have bought a single-role Typhoon

Typhoon air to surface
 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Luftwaffe, which originally had zero interest in Typhoon Air to Ground, is also participating. Now Typhoons will replace some Luftwaffe Tornados and instead a squadron of ancient air to air tasked Luftwaffe F4s must soldier on until 2015.

Barn Doors, that's just my point. The faith we have in modern techniques reducing testing and design timescales completely flies in the face of the reality of putting an aircraft together (no pun intended). Surely I don't need to point out the A380, 787 delays to prove my scepticism.

Furthermore, the A380 and 787 are single mission airliners! The C-17 and C-130J both had huge complex issues to solve in their development programmes. The A400M was supposed to replace the C130K - the 'unproven' aspect, I would suggest, is absolutely an argument.

I do, however, agree that cancelling JSF and A400M is not the answer. We may not have that choice, financially.

(Dons floppy hat and shoes...) I propose we accept EADS request to waive late delivery charges. As long as they understand we will take first A400M delivery and make first payment around 2020. Replace the J's which will by then, be shagged...

In the interim, use the money allocated to the A400M to buy C-17's, enhance the J's capabilities and develop the '400 in a sensible timescale.

J's stay at Lyneham 'till endex, A400M arrives at Brize when ready - Catara simplified, Lyneham happy.

I'm still working on my plan for JSF.


indie

"I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air dominance weapons", Maj Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command's advanced air dominance branch, told an IDGA air-launched weapons conference in Vienna, Va, last week


This is just the sort of stuff that makes me giggle, and if this is the sort of language that is exchanged between the JSF partners, it's little wonder that we've been dragged along in this saga so needlessly. I mean, what is this guy talking about? Going in where precisely? To do what, against whom?

It's quite comical - both Britain and America are busy trying to avoid going bust, and people like Koch are waking-up in cold sweats becaus the F-35 has only two air dominance weapons. I think it speaks volumes for the absurdity of the whole saga.