PDA

View Full Version : Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...



Pages : [1] 2

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 5 2010, 19:33
Seems they've decided that Super Hornet is a better idea than Lightning II.

"THE Royal Navy is set to save £10bn from the defence budget by dropping plans to buy the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built to fly off its new aircraft carriers.

It is set to swap the £13.8bn Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project for an improved stealthier version of the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet which currently flies off US Navy carriers.

The potential move was discussed at a meeting between Liam Fox and defence chiefs last weekend to discuss cuts to be made in the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” a senior defence source said. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate and even if we continued with it, we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Boeing’s main US rival Lockheed Martin, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget with costs already put at £13.8bn and rising.

The 138 aircraft Britain planned to buy to replace the Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Royal Navy were originally supposed to cost a total of £7bn.

But they are currently expected to cost £100m each, making them effectively unaffordable given the dire state of both the defence budget and the nation’s finances.

The JSF programme was originally designed to be enough for both new aircraft carriers and four RAF squadrons.

Buying the more stealthy Super Hornet – known as the Silent Hornet - and cutting numbers to no more than 50 so there are only enough aircraft to fly off the carriers, will cut costs to less than £4bn.

That would save £2bn in development costs over the next parliament and a total of around £10bn over the next ten years.

The £10bn saving would be enough on its own to remove a substantial portion of the long-term cash shortages in the defence budget.

The MoD has already received confirmation from Boeing that it could make the improvements to the Super Hornet that the navy needs to produce the Silent Hornet.

The Silent Hornet will have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft and improved fuel tanks that would give it a longer range than JSF.

The aircraft is already able to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF and could be produced in time for the first of the two new aircraft carriers which is due to come into service in 2015.

The JSF programme has been beset by difficulties, with Lockheed announcing further delays last week and the British aircraft not expected to be delivered in time for the first carrier in 2015.

Switching to the Silent Hornet would reverse 30 years of flying short take-off and vertical landing aircraft from the Royal Navy’s carriers.

The version of JSF Britain planned to buy is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft like the Harrier it was to replace. But the Silent Hornet is a conventional take-off and landing aircraft.

The new aircraft carriers are being built to take either type of aircraft, so while it will require the fitting of catapults and arrester hooks, it is not a major problem or cost to switch from one to the other.

A number of Royal Navy pilots are already trained to fly the Super Hornet off carriers having spent time on exchange with the US Navy.

The move will be bad news for the RAF, which offered to axe its entire fleet of Tornado aircraft in the hope that this would mean it would continue to get the JSF.

Now it is set to lose both its Tornados and its Harriers and not get the JSF, leaving it with a single attack aircraft, the Eurofighter, now known as the Typhoon.

This would in itself provide significant cost savings in that a single attack aircraft fleet is much cheaper to maintain and run than a number of different aircraft.

The JSF programme has been beset with difficulties. Britain initially joined it as a development partner and has already put £2bn into the programme.

This was originally expected to cost £7bn with a further £7bn for maintenance and upgrading during the life of the aircraft.

But Congress has reneged on repeated promises by US President George W Bush that Britain would receive full details of the technology on the aircraft.

This will mean that some elements of the aircraft can only be maintained by US technicians increasing costs still further.

The MoD refused to comment on any changes planned as part of the defence review but reiterated that Fox “has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made”.
"

Inkompetent
Aug 5 2010, 20:34
Sounds reasonable. The F-22 and F-35 are fantasy-projects anyway. More a proof of concept, and technology research. A lot has come out of the programs, and I bet a lot of it will be used to modernize current production-line aircraft and aid in the development of newer ones, but in the end a plane can't really be sold if no one can afford it.

The F/A-18 is one of the absolutely best aircraft in the world as it is, and for a much, much more affordable prize. Good move.

The obvious downside would be that the Hornet is no STOL-aircraft for a country with no fleet of full-size aircraft carriers (?).

Max Power
Aug 5 2010, 20:41
Now if only someone could convince the Government of Canada that the JSF is not worth it as well. Typhoons, or even something like the Silent Hornet (which all of our fighter pilots are already trained to fly, and all of our fighter aircraft programmes are currently designed around) seem like they would be a better fit.

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 5 2010, 21:25
Sounds reasonable. The F-22 and F-35 are fantasy-projects anyway.

There are some F22s in service though aren't there?


The F/A-18 is one of the absolutely best aircraft in the world as it is, and for a much, much more affordable prize. Good move.

The obvious downside would be that the Hornet is no STOL-aircraft for a country with no fleet of full-size aircraft carriers (?).

UK is busy building two "proper" aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier ) that will be ready about the same time as the Hornets.

Inkompetent
Aug 5 2010, 21:30
There are some F22s in service though aren't there?

There are. But how much money did USA have to borrow from China to afford them? They are purchased with money that will never ever be possible to pay back. And even USA had to cancel its orders and not buy any more of them because they are too expensive.

But then again *someone* needs to fly them at a decent scale for it to have been worth the development money. After all billions of dollars poured into the project they HAD to buy some for themselves to get some value for the money.



UK is busy building two "proper" aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_E...rcraft_carrier ) that will be ready about the same time as the Hornets.

Ohh, right. I thought I had read something about that, but was currently too lazy to look it up. Thanks :)

Prydain
Aug 5 2010, 21:41
We will see, a Sunday Times article isn't going to be solid proof. It may be a fake leak to the press in order to get purchasing/overall costs down.

There was a hypothesised 'navalised' Typhoon that was basically a threat, of sorts, in case the American's didn't share the all important software information in order to maintain soverignty over the aircraft.

That idea sounds better to my civ mind, the MoD could take RAF Typhoons and refit them for the new carriers, thus cutting RAF numbers and cut out the JSF all together (not just for the RN). Double savings and I doubt the refitting would cost as much as a few Hornets. But heck, that is theory, not reality.

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 6 2010, 07:22
We will see, a Sunday Times article isn't going to be solid proof. It may be a fake leak to the press in order to get purchasing/overall costs down.

Either that or it's a fake leak to show the British public that our shiny new government is at least considering cheaper options. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few months they released another story saying that we have to buy the f-35 because of reason X.



There was a hypothesised 'navalised' Typhoon that was basically a threat, of sorts, in case the American's didn't share the all important software information in order to maintain soverignty over the aircraft.


Didn't the UK have a similar problem with the Phantom? I was very young then so I probably wasn't paying attention. The F-35 operating system was written in C++ if I remember correctly so that future modifications would be easier to undertake. I'm sure by now you can get the source code on bittorrent :)
As for a navalised Typhoon, I hope it will be safer for test pilots than Hawker's efforts in 1943!!

b0b
Aug 6 2010, 12:16
Could be wrong but i think the UK MoD are concentrating on their own project

Project Taranis.. the first ( ? ) unmanned fighter.

http://defense-update.com/products/t/taranis-ucav.htm

Daniel
Aug 6 2010, 12:25
Taranis is only a technology demonstrator for aircraft quite far down the line. We need to replace the Harrier's capability in the near future.

I'm guessing Hornets would only be able to use the Queen Elizabeth carriers?

TomatoArden
Aug 6 2010, 12:27
I was hopping they would buy instead the F35C instead as this would too have saved money on the purchase (wikipedia states $25Mon each aircraft) and resulted in a much increased range and pay load as well.

If they change to a CATOBAR system on the aircraft caries I think this would be much better than the ski jump. Will they change to having an angled flight deck then as well?

Thanks for the quote, since the pay wall we cant do direct links to the Times.

b0b
Aug 6 2010, 12:29
Taranis is only a technology demonstrator for aircraft quite far down the line. We need to replace the Harrier's capability in the near future.

I'm guessing Hornets would only be able to use the Queen Elizabeth carriers?

You could be right about the demonstrator.. however with the MoD having a HUGE percentage of their budget cut (having to pay for Trident included in budget rather than separate ) and £124million been sunk into the project so far, im not too sure its "just" a demonstrator.

TomatoArden
Aug 6 2010, 12:29
Taranis is only a technology demonstrator for aircraft quite far down the line. We need to replace the Harrier's capability in the near future.

I'm guessing Hornets would only be able to use the Queen Elizabeth carriers?

I think that's the point, since the new airacraft will be coming in at about the same time, then you might as well switch to CATOBAR aircraft since they have a greater raneg and payload than their STOVL counterparts.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml - seems the mod are having a catapult developed as well.

walker
Aug 6 2010, 14:03
Hi all

We are probably in to the last of the piloted fighter/fighter bomber aircraft era anyway. So this move is very sensible as it ensures we do not waste money on the last of pilot in the combat aircraft concept.

Personally I think they would do better and save far more money if the Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) Aircraft Carrier version of the Eurofighter was chosen. Also it creates far more jobs in the UK and be cheaper than the hornet as it would not require the Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) technology which also requires the catapult to working at all times, that is another link in the failure chain.

Even if we go for CATOBAR the Eurofighter is the better aircraft. If we are at war we can still build them in the UK. It also reduces the training budget as we are only training one aircraft and don't have to duplicate on simulators, classes manuals and the rest or on the maintenance budget. Those back end costs are the real costs of any program.

Over all if we go down this route then a STOBAR or CATOBAR version of the Eurofighter makes far more sense.

We could of course Skip the last of the piloted planes era. The next stage is Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV)s. They are cheaper, faster, more stealthy, and able to maneuver much better and at higher G than a platform with a human in it. And of course far less risky in terms of dead pilots.

The UK already has the Taranis project under development:
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/ataranis1.jpg
http://patdollard.com/2008/02/taranis-stealth-uav-production-starts/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Taranis

Kind Regards walker

echo1
Aug 6 2010, 16:07
Perhaps the carrier Typhoon didn't work out? Were any working prototypes built?

walker
Aug 6 2010, 16:32
Hi ch_123

A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. All current versions of the Typhoon have an arrestor hook already built in as part of the Airframe Systems / Landing Assemblies.
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=Eurofighter_Typhoon

So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex. The airframe was already designed and built for the naval role, so all that is needed is beefing up the landing gear; which the original design already incorporated the physical capability for, and adding in some avionics.

A relativley simple enhancement program.

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Aug 6 2010, 16:53
Hi ch_123

A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. The current version of the Typhoon has an arrestor hook already built in. So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex.

Kind Regards walker

Actually it wasn't. It was added as an unsolicited research programme (primarily by BAE Systems) as an alternative to the F-35 in the hope they could eek out the aircraft numbers and get the MoD to commit to funding a larger programme. Ultimately it was killed off by the Germans who, having no need for a carrier variant refused to share in the development funding.

I sat through more than a few quarterly progress briefings given by Ross Bradley the then head of EuroFighter (UK). The carrier variant was a popular topic in '98 to 2001. The current design is completely incapable of carrier ops even though it does have a hook.

To get it ready it needs:
• new landing gear
• re-designed wing to fuselage connection brackets
• Heavier rear sub frame for hook mounts
• redesigned centre frames
• and major structural strengthening throughout.

No airframes were ever converted, but the design was "approved" but after the JSF decision was made and the German government delayed the programme for 2+ years there was no budget left to develop variants.

And regards to the F-18 rumours. I think its utter bollocks.

Maybe a switch to the F-35C but no way can the UK business afford to lose the airframe or avionics contracts for the entire F-35 range. For those that don't know all the rear fuselages of every F-35 that rolls off the production line is made in 2 shed at BAE Systems Salmesbury near Preston in the UK. And rather a lot of the software is developed by BAE subsidiaries in the UK.

Its just political posturing prior to the SDR results later this year. The Tories have been slaggin off the program for years and now there is no viable alternative they have got to get the boot in somewhere.

Inkompetent
Aug 6 2010, 18:13
Was as I supposed with the Typhoon then. One can't just slap on a hook to make it able to not crumble into scrap metal when hitting a carrier.

And if UK produces a decent part of the actual airplanes it does too sound like a fully good reason not to abandon it. The industry need to be kept running.

Simon C
Aug 6 2010, 18:55
Plus, with the amount of money we've poured into the JSF project, it would be financially unwise to just pull out now and buy something else.

walker
Aug 6 2010, 19:21
Hi all

In reply to RKSL-Rock; you talk of your experiences in '98 to 2001 of the Eurofighter discussions. And I agree that was the view back then. However things seem to have moved on since then: The latest study using actual aircraft in service as the basis seem to contradict the stated requirements for Eurofighter to be navalised as does the 2005 study.


...The possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as "Plan B" when the UK hit severe problems in relation to technology transfer for the F-35 JSF. Published leaks indicated that BAE engineers had concluded (presumably in the earlier studies) that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings. The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate. There were a number of options for reducing sink rate, only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline. The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant....
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
As always follow the link to the full original text

I really do suggest people read the whole of the above article as it deals with many of the aspects of all of the different options we are talking about here.

The major cost implications are still the back end costs. Which increase according to the numbers of aircraft types you support.

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Aug 6 2010, 19:57
Hi all

In reply to RKSL-Rock; you talk of your experiences in '98 to 2001 of the Eurofighter discussions. And I agree that was the view back then. However things seem to have moved on since then: The latest study using actual aircraft in service as the basis seem to contradict the stated requirements for Eurofighter to be navalised as does the 2005 study.
...



Actually what i posted is the current requirement to navalise the aircraft. If you want the 2001 requirments to can add:

the removal/reduction of the foward fuel tanks.
enlarged Fin root
Wing slats/spoilers
Enlarged flaps and elevon area
relocation of the towed radar decoys to fin tip
design change to intake
half height centre line pylon.
And the major costs might be what you call backend costs. But in reality the non recuring costs would be rather significant. Even higher if we are talking about re engineering existing airframes no matter what the Navy Matters site says.

The centre frame replacment alone requires the removal of the entire rear half of the airframe and wings. And the replacments of the rear two composite 'half panels'. Something that cannot be done in the UK alone since the only tooling to do that is in Italy. And to replicate it would be a huge expense.

Blackhawk
Aug 6 2010, 20:02
Is this an official announcement? Nothing on the BBC and I have not heard anything about any press statement. Could just be a rumour.

If it is true however, I'm still happy, the Hornet is a superb aircraft and proven in combat, I think the F-35 is too expensive, and just unnecessary really. The MoD has been given a very tight budget, and Trident takes up half of it, so they sort of have to make this decision.

Although I would have preferred a Naval Typhoon, that would be even cheaper and better than the Hornet.

Prydain
Aug 6 2010, 20:23
Is this an official announcement? Nothing on the BBC and I have not heard anything about any press statement. Could just be a rumour.
It began in a Michael Smith article in the Sunday Times. Considering this type of procurement would not be his speciality (he writes more about spooks than anything else) I would have thought that the SDR, being the massive review that it is, has brought up loads of situations, including this one that he feels needs to be written about.

walker
Aug 6 2010, 20:24
Hi Blackhawk

The Article that TechnoTerrorist303 is quoting as the OP of this thread is one that was in the Sunday Times. Which no longer makes its articles available on the web as it is part of the Murdoch empire and it needs the cash.

The story is alluded to in various other media:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/f35_canada_wikipedia/

The story could be a negotiating stance by a part of the UK MOD to get the right to build all the F35s in the UK. At the moment only part of the aircraft would be made in the UK. The government wants it all to be built here if it is to be used here, we did after all allow full technology transfer on the Harrier. The concept of what happens when the UK is at war with some one and the US decides not to support us has been there since Suez.

It may also be to land a larger proportion of Eurofighter to be built in the UK for the same reason.

It may be that the back end costs for the JSF have only just been analysed and they are way bigger than was originally thought.

And it could just be that any aircraft now is seen as a stopgap on the way to UCAVs so why pay for an aircraft like the JSF which is still in testing and which did not do so well in the simulated combat tests over the last few years. Why pay for what is about to be an obsolete concept? Better to just tide our selves over with a proven fighter like Eurofighter until Taranis is available

Kind Regards walker

Prydain
Aug 6 2010, 20:33
I doubt that even a larger portion could be built in the UK. I don't even think we have any spare milling machines left, let alone hosting area for an economically viable temporary increase in production from any outlet.

walker
Aug 6 2010, 20:41
...I don't even think we have any spare milling machines left, let alone hosting area for an economically viable temporary increase in production from any outlet.

Hi Prydain

Use horizontal borers instead much more flexable than a milling machine. :D

You can buy them for about 1/2 a million each.

Not to mention it would all be inward investment and that is far better for an enconomy than importing. In all honnesty getting equipment to build them is not IMHO an issue it is just business cost.

Kind Regards walker

Prydain
Aug 6 2010, 21:07
Use horizontal borers instead much more flexable than a milling machine. :D

You can buy them for about 1/2 a million each.

Oh my fucking cock, I'm having a geek-off with walker! Win.

What I mean, walker, is that even though you are circling money around, you aren't gaining any and will probably loose more since you will have to construct new sites or renovate old ones, buy machines from Germany and have material costs to deal with. We are talking hypothetically anyway.

walker
Aug 6 2010, 22:20
Oh my fucking cock, I'm having a geek-off with walker! Win...

ROFL

Prydain, Way way back in the mid to late 70s I worked for Eastwood Engineering which at the time had one of the worlds biggest and most advanced Horizontal Floor Borers. It was where I started my engineering apprenticeship. I worked on among other things: the bearings for the first Inter City 125 trains; the load carriers for Humber suspension bridge, they were gigantic and required us to uses two cranes to shift them with in the workshop; as well as anything big that needed making for Dosco.

The area I specialised in later was welding, I worked on some of the most advanced welding technology in the world from TI Powerflex to GEC, foil thin metals, from titanium and aluminum to even copper and some alloys like Inconel, Incoloy, and Monel that most people will never have heard of and others that were at the time a little hush hush. And using everything from lazers to Electron beams, as well as the usual TIG and MIG. Though even some of the TIG welding I did was vacuum chamber (to remove impurities) followed by argon flush to provide the gas for the plasma in the chamber. We worked in this clean room.
http://vil.org.uk/viassembly.jpg

Margaret Thatcher came round to congratulate us on our pioneering high tech work, and employing disabled people, in the stores as I remember, but more importantly so she could be photographed with us in a clean room suit opposite the hi tech robot welding machine. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104550 White heat of technology was still the phrase then, and hight tech equaled electoral votes. At the time the UK was shedding manufacturing jobs at thousands a week and Margaret thatcher had a reputation as a Jonah to UK manufacturing Jobs.

I only worked in engineering until the early eighties when I taught that robot to do that last welding job. I quit the job after training the robot, I saw which way the wind was blowing and that there was no future in it and watching a robot do my job kinda disheartened me.

A few months later Margret Thatcher signed the contract we were doing for the electrification of the railways over to a firm in Germany along with the technology we had invented, within a year even that technology was out of date, and the UK side of the firm declined from then on.

Now you can say you have had a Geek Off :D

I agree all this talk about the UK's choice of aircraft for a possible aircraft carrier is hypothetical.

Kind Regards walker

Jeza
Aug 6 2010, 23:12
Dam pritty gig news, any news on a confo?

Kind Regards Jeza

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 6 2010, 23:35
I agree all this talk about the UK's choice of aircraft for a possible aircraft carrier is hypothetical.


The carriers aren't hypothetical, they're being built. We'll need something to fly from them!

Also, found this

oIEQgBKXkME&hl=en_GB&amp

TomatoArden
Aug 6 2010, 23:41
The carriers aren't hypothetical, they're being built. We'll need something to fly from them!

they already started cutting huge chunks of metal for the hull!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/CarrierConstructionBeginsOnTheMersey.htm or soemthing anyway.

anybody see the latest daily telygraph story about raf cuts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. Like where it mentions the out of service of all Hercules (even apparently the new c-130Js they only just bought into service). also, note the lack of any sources what so ever, not even the whitehall/mod quotes at the bottom confirm or deny the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

Blackhawk
Aug 7 2010, 08:38
they already started cutting huge chunks of metal for the hull!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/CarrierConstructionBeginsOnTheMersey.htm or soemthing anyway.

anybody see the latest daily telygraph story about raf cuts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. Like where it mentions the out of service of all Hercules (even apparently the new c-130Js they only just bought into service). also, note the lack of any sources what so ever, not even the whitehall/mod quotes at the bottom confirm or deny the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

Does sound like horseshit. I don't believe anything from these minor tabloids or newspapers. I only believe something if I see an actual statement from an official, and that the BBC says something about it.

If this is true, it goes against the policies of the current Government.

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 7 2010, 09:11
There was something on BBC News 24 this morning about RAF cuts in a story titled "the few" but I think that was the bit where they read the newspaper headlines. I don't know, it was 6:20 am and I was trying to get a 15 month old to eat breakfast.

ricbar89
Aug 7 2010, 13:02
Hi ch_123

A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. All current versions of the Typhoon have an arrestor hook already built in as part of the Airframe Systems / Landing Assemblies.
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=Eurofighter_Typhoon

So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex. The airframe was already designed and built for the naval role, so all that is needed is beefing up the landing gear; which the original design already incorporated the physical capability for, and adding in some avionics.

A relativley simple enhancement program.

Kind Regards walker

The arrestor hook has nothing to do with carrier capabilities the airframe was never built for the naval role and it would not at all be a simple job.

walker
Aug 7 2010, 15:14
Hi ricbar89

As I pointed out in this later post
...
both BAE and latter studies seem to differ with you on that:


...The possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as "Plan B" when the UK hit severe problems in relation to technology transfer for the F-35 JSF. Published leaks indicated that BAE engineers had concluded (presumably in the earlier studies) that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings. The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate. There were a number of options for reducing sink rate, only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline. The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant....
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
As always follow the link to the full original text

I recommend reading the full post as it deals with the subject in detail.

Though studies until recently have focused on the low and less important upfront cost and have not taken in to account the far more substantial back-end and peripheral costs as well as the key full internal and balance of trade costs, exporting both hard cash and jobs when in a recession has a very bad effect on the balance of trade.

Along with Suez war effect leading to worries that if US interests were as with Suez not pro the UK we would be left with out an effective Navy. There is also the lack of full technology transfer being reciprocated as happened with the Harrier. Additionally the recent Chinook screw up and its massive cost increase all bear against a US solution.

These are the main reason the JSF is being reconsidered and other options looked at.

Without doubt much of this is the normal and correct practice of playing suppliers off against each other to get the best deal. As I always say get three Quotes for everything, make your suppliers compete on all aspects. Ram down their profits untill they scream, that is the way you get the best deal.

Kind Regards walker

ricbar89
Aug 7 2010, 16:09
BAE are going to say its cheap and practical, read the article yourself, there’s countless references pointing to the fact its anything but.

The Typhoon was never designed with naval capabilities, I think the French pushed for it years back but the British weren’t interested, funny how that turned out.


"It is not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft".

Otherwise the aircraft would be relying on computer controlled precise landing systems to avoid spending huge sums of money to strengthen the aircraft.


But these BAE's idea's do not seem to have been accepted by the MOD, indeed they would appear to be a rather risky cost reduction measure which have become a source of major problems in the future, e.g. preventing flight operations in heavy seas or leading to costly repairs of prematurely fatigued aircraft.

So they may have had another look in 2005 when things were looking grim, and again BAE may have called it practical, but it certainly isn’t a “A relativley simple enhancement program.”


The MOD appears to be internally considering the implications of converting its planned Tranche 3 batch of 88 Eurofighter Typhoon’s in to a navalised “Sea Typhoon” variant suitable for operation from CVF. However the likely costs and difficulties can not be underestimated, expected modifications include changes of materials to reduce corrosion, the addition of an arrestor hook, a larger and thicker wing with power folding, and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines. Even then, there would remain fundamental issues and risks such as the aircrafts canards restricting the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings.

BAE Systems’ Chief Executive Officer, Mike Turner, told the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 28th February 2006:


"it is possible to navalise Typhoon. It is not what we would recommend, because if Joint Strike Fighter proceeds, and we believe it will, I think, in terms of capability for the Armed Forces of the UK, it is the right aircraft, but, indeed, as Lord Drayson has made clear, there needs to be a fall-back in case something goes wrong. Therefore, we would suggest there should be an investigation into navalising Typhoon as very much a fall-back solution. We do not see any other fall-back solution."

RKSL-Rock
Aug 7 2010, 16:29
Walker, even if you post that link 1000 times it wont make the article any less out of date. It was last updated in 2007! And even then most of the "facts" in there are mostly media facing tripe released from the various press offices involved before 2003.

I promise you there will not be a navalised Typhoon (as much as I would like to see one) the politics and the workshare/contractual setup involved in NETMA wouldn't allow it unless the major partners are willing to share the costs. The UK does not hold the design authority for the areas that would be reworked. And even when the design agreement lapses in 2024 it will be too late.

The only reason the F-35B is being reconsidered is the ever spiralling cost. Right now you can buy 1.8 Typhoons for one F-35B. 1.4 for an F-35C and 1.1 for an F-18E/F.

The technology transfer issues were resolved and the limits set in contractual stone. Should the US fail to provide said transfer there are HUGE penalties written into the agreement.

Any significant change to the JCA or CVF programmes right now may appear to provide a cost saving on the face of it. But in reality any change to JCA would cripple the MoD far faster than just buying the F-35B or C.

And I'll remind you that the last time there was a decision milestone for JCA/JSF in the Uk someone in government started rumours about asking for Proposals of Rafales. (an aircraft with no single component made in the UK and no prospect of industrial transfer) So that would never of happened.

So we return to the F-18 "Silent Hornet" - an unproven concept that while based on a proven airframe has so many proposed changes to the airframe and systems as to be almost a new aircraft. And along with that the required changes to the CVF carriers...

Its just not practical given the UK's dwindling aerospace industry's dependence on the F-35 Project. Currently there are only two serious options. Less F-35Bs or swap to the F-35C.

It is the reality of the situation. I know you wont believe anything unless the info comes from a faceless un verified blog/source with vague press releases as fact but I swear to you it will never happen. I've worked within the UK defence procurement sector for over 13 years now. This situation has been debated to death during that time and everyone that is in the "know" says the same. Britain cannot afford to pull out of JSF on economic, industrial and political reasons. Even though "the plane sucks donkey balls". (That's a direct quote from a friend at MoD Procurement Executive Abbeywood).

walker
Aug 7 2010, 17:51
Hi all

Sources for this may well be very very high up.


Double blow for David Cameron as two of his senior advisers prepare to quit the Government
By Jason Groves
Last updated at 9:58 AM on 3rd August 2010

Two of David Cameron's key advisers have announced their resignations.
Former Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt has quit as an adviser to David Cameron following an outcry over his appointment to a political role.

And the Prime Minister is also set to lose his National Security Adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, who was only appointed three months ago and is expected to stand down next year.
Sir Richard was controversially appointed as an adviser to Mr Cameron during last year's Conservative Party conference, just weeks after stepping down as the Army's Chief of the General Staff.
The appointment infuriated Labour and caused disquiet within the Army and Whitehall, where there was concern it could undermine the tradition of political neutrality in the Armed Forces.
But yesterday the outspoken former general announced that he had 'retired' from the role.
He was originally taken on to advise on the forthcoming strategic defence review, and had hoped to become a Tory defence minister.

But an attempt to install him in the Lords was blocked in April on the grounds that he should wait at least a year before taking up a political role.

This made it impossible for him to be appointed a minister.
..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299401/General-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-quits-Government-defence-adviser.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
As always follow the link to original text

I am not a great follower of the Daily Mail In fact think it along with Daily Express are worse than the Sun when page three girl has her time of the month but even a right wing rag has its perspective.

General Sir Richard Dannatt is considered to be extemely anti Aircraft Carrier. He was probably seen as the hatchet man, but the Labour party scupered his Lords Appointment. Margaret Thatcher also used such hatchet men, for the Railways, Steel Works, Mines and of course the pre-Falklands gutting of the Navy, Airforce and Army, the Falklands war taught her not to do it to the military plus she would have found it hard to do post winning the war, it was at that time her major vote winner.

Hatchet Men is an ancient Torry tradition going back to Beeching and probably beyond; they are used so what is rembered is Hatchet Men and not the party. EG you remeber Beeching but you do not remember who the Party or Prime Minister was that made the decision, this is very important at election times.

An Example is this:

RAF to shrink to World War One levels
The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Published: 10:22PM BST 06 Aug 2010

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html
Follow the link to the full article and original text

If Dannat had the job he would be the name associated with it, a modern day Beeching; rather than Cameron. The plan had all ready been set in motion and could not be stopped so when Dannat and the other guy failed to take up the posts Cameron was left with the evidense of the bloody hatchet in his hand and no well paid patsy to take the flack for him, Ooops!

Kind Regards walker

Prydain
Aug 7 2010, 18:07
RAF to shrink to World War One levelsWouldn't that be a real terms increase? Either way, reporting on the possibility that the SDR will bring before it has concluded will tell us nothing except that news reporting is a profession with too much dead weight.

walker
Aug 7 2010, 18:27
Hi all

As pointed out the backend costs are a key factor in why the both the UK and now US Navy thinks JSF may not be advisable.


JSF - Navy Ready To Abandon Ship?
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/15/2010 5:17 AM CST

The Navy is not happy with the new joint-service fighter. It's gained weight during development, but more importantly, the Navy isn't sure that the capabilities it provides are what they want to spend more money on. It's tempting to scrap it and go with an alternative, from a company with recent carrier-jet experience. The obstacle is a headstrong Secretary of Defense who's staked his reputation on the joint program, but the signals are clear: the moment he's gone the Navy's going to bail.

Enough about the F-111. What about JSF?

For the service of "loose lips sink ships", the Navy leaked the blandly titled "Joint Programs TOC Affordability" document through more holes than IJN Yamato off Okinawa. This was no baby-seals-type accident. It's a deliberate hit at the highest level.

Image of a graph in the original

The key chart is page 10, which shows that - over the lifetime of the fleet - the carrier-based and STOVL JSF versions will cost the Navy 40 per cent more, in total operating costs, than the F/A-18C/Ds and AV-8Bs that they replace. (The older aircraft costs are taken from FY2008 and include a lot of aging-aircraft issues.) This is despite a smaller fleet and fewer flight hours: the new aircraft are expected to cost more than 60 per cent more to fly per hour than their predecessors...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af2921a42-0e4a-4bcd-aebf-3eedeafb6984
As always follow the link to the original text

When you add in a option to leap frog a whole fighter class to the UCAV the JSF options seems to continue to decline in validity.

Kind regards walker

Baff1
Aug 7 2010, 19:17
I'm not sure UCAV is exactly a great design concept in high tech dogfighting.

Doesn't some big slow old dinosaur framed AWACS just emit a jamming signal and they all fall out of the sky?

I'm like that guy in the sci fi movie. I think a plane with a pilot is ultimately superior.

walker
Aug 7 2010, 19:23
Hi Baff1

You really think the US Pentagon and NATO is that stupid?

The solution is simple, it is called Frequency hopping.

http://www.worldsecurity-index.com/index.php?pg=91

Kind Regards walker

Baff1
Aug 7 2010, 19:50
That is a solution. But it is hardly a very foolproof one.
If they hop frequencies so will the jammers. Or they will just jam a broader spectrum.
Or worse still they will hack the codes and usurp them!

I will believe NATO and the Pentagon are that stupid when they replace their entire airforces with drones.


I also think that developing an effective jammer will be quicker and cheaper than developing a drone.

While drones are clearly the future, they are only a part of it.

echo1
Aug 8 2010, 10:03
In fairness, if enemy forces were able to tap into the radio system of a manned fighter aircraft, wouldn't they be as compromised in effect?

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 8 2010, 11:32
If the enemy taps into the radio communication system of a manned aircraft then it's up to the pilot and established security protocols to distinguish between real and false orders. It's not quite the same as having a remote controlled plane where someone else has a controller operating on the same frequency.
For the "bread and butter" of today's military operations then UAV is the way to go. Pointing lasers at tents and camels doesn't require a person to be present but for hypothetical environments where you don't have overwhelming air superiority and you need to have decisions made in realtime based on assessment of a situation through stimulus that can't be transmitted over a radio link you need a human pilot.

walker
Aug 8 2010, 14:40
That is a solution. But it is hardly a very foolproof one.
If they hop frequencies so will the jammers. Or they will just jam a broader spectrum.
Or worse still they will hack the codes and usurp them! ...

Hi Baff1

Ahah you are talking about HARM missile targets! Which are probable targets of UCAVs in the first place.

The whole idea of the UCAV is to take control of the enemy airspace by removing all its assets. EG, Jammers, Radars, Radar controled missiles, Radio attenas and pilot in the plane type aircraft.

When they turn on to Jam or to hack the enemey system you become a target and they just send a simple stupid anti radiations missile down the track to the source and BOOM! No more jammer.

As I said do you realy think the Pentagon is that stupid.

As to cracking the command codes well there are million dollar prizes for the person who comes up with a method of cracking commerical code algorythms.

Just do a google search for: prize for cracking encryption algorithm

Government signals encrytion tends to be even tighter.

Like I said Governments tend to be all over this.

Kind Regards walker

MontyVCB
Aug 8 2010, 14:47
I'm still doubtful an UCAV could be a viable replacement for a man in a cockpit. Not until I see one down a MIG-29 at least.

Daniel
Aug 8 2010, 15:09
Yeah, you're still going to need Mk 1 Eyeballs in the sky. Can't imagine an unmanned combat aircraft pulling alongside a potentially hijacked airliner.

echo1
Aug 8 2010, 16:39
Hi Baff1

Ahah you are talking about HARM missile targets! Which are probable targets of UCAVs in the first place.

The whole idea of the UCAV is to take control of the enemy airspace by removing all its assets. EG, Jammers, Radars, Radar controled missiles, Radio attenas and pilot in the plane type aircraft.

When they turn on to Jam or to hack the enemey system you become a target and they just send a simple stupid anti radiations missile down the track to the source and BOOM! No more jammer.

As I said do you realy think the Pentagon is that stupid.

As to cracking the command codes well there are million dollar prizes for the person who comes up with a method of cracking commerical code algorythms.

Just do a google search for: prize for cracking encryption algorithm

Government signals encrytion tends to be even tighter.

Like I said Governments tend to be all over this.

Kind Regards walker

Wasn't it reported a few months ago that insurgents in Pakistan or Afghanistan were hacking into UAVs and watching their video feed?

Baff1
Aug 8 2010, 16:53
The whole idea of the UCAV is to take control of the enemy airspace by removing all its assets. EG, Jammers, Radars, Radar controled missiles, Radio attenas and pilot in the plane type aircraft.
Sending an aircraft that is highly susceptable to jamming out to destroy aircraft jammers isn't a very rock, scissors, paper approach.

If this is the Pentagons and MOD's big idea, it is a singularly bad one.

Over the top lads!




I think much as with stealth bombers this technology, as long as it is kept secret is going to be good for one use in the role you describe. Just as Stealths were.
But thereafter, once the signals have been recorded, the enemy will have all the intelligence it needs to modify it's existing equipment to counter it.

So with Taranis for example at £142 million a piece instead of the £63 million for a Typhoon it's pretty expensive for a system that is only going to be used in one single war.
I suggest to you that in the current climate if that is the proposed role of Taranis, it will never be commisioned at all.

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 8 2010, 18:16
Wasn't it reported a few months ago that insurgents in Pakistan or Afghanistan were hacking into UAVs and watching their video feed?

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. US/UK military information security is nowhere near as good as they'd like everyone to think it is.

walker
Aug 8 2010, 21:39
Wasn't it reported a few months ago that insurgents in Pakistan or Afghanistan were hacking into UAVs and watching their video feed?

Hi echo1

You mean this report.

DECEMBER 17, 2009
Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones

$26 Software Is Used to Breach Key Weapons in Iraq; Iranian Backing Suspected
By SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE

WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter...
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB126102247889095011.html
As always follow the link for the original full text

They were transmitting data over an unencrypted channel.

Kind Regards walker

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 8 2010, 21:44
To be fair, they probably torrented the software :)

fighterman
Aug 13 2010, 14:51
they was on about getting a navy version of the eurofighter which can take of from carriers

Daniel
Aug 13 2010, 15:46
That's been discussed and pretty much discounted, check back a couple of pages.

walker
Aug 13 2010, 22:18
Hi all

Actualy the argument for the Typhoon is increasing as the Candians and Indians are interested in buying it and paying the cost for the Navalised version.

Kind Regards walker

Daniel
Aug 13 2010, 22:26
Source? That sounds unlikely to me since Canada doesn't have any carriers and India is still getting by with the age old HMS Hermes.

EDIT: Just spotted the Indigenous Aircraft Carriers article on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aircraft_Carrier#Aircraft

The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System sounds interesting. Apparently it could still be installed on the CVF Carriers if we do drop the VTOL F-35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System

walker
Aug 13 2010, 23:56
Hi Daniel

There are multiple sources including some recent military magazine and other media articles, there was a meeting recently in India where it was discussed and further talk a few weeks ago at Farnborough.
Canada:

Boeing, Eurofighter bid to usurp F-35 for Canadian fighter deal
By Stephen Trimble

Boeing and Eurofighter have launched a public challenge to Lockheed Martin's widely presumed control of a next-generation fighter contract in Canada.

Both challengers unveiled the outlines of a new push to respectively market the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Typhoon to Ottawa as replacements for the Canadian air force's Boeing CF-18 (F/A-18A/B) Hornets by the end of the next decade.

As a member of the nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter programme since 2002, Lockheed executives have described Canada as a likely buyer for up to 80 F-35s, although the Department of National Defence has released a revised requirement for 65 jets.

Canada has invested $150 million to participate in the F-35's system development and demonstration phase, and has signed for a follow-on production and sustainment phase...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/28/327053/boeing-eurofighter-bid-to-usurp-f-35-for-canadian-fighter.html
As always follow the link for the original full text


F-35 purchase comes under fire
Published On Thu Jul 22 2010

Re: $16 billion for the wrong planes, Opinion July 18

Members of a political and corporate elite who define “leadership” as strict adherence to an ideology based on the permanent, unbroken attachment of government and business are currently leading many of the democracies in the Western world — and leading them away from their citizen’s hard-won democratic freedoms. Our dysfunctional democracies are in dire need of leadership and restructuring that is based on empathy for the majority of our citizens who have been marginalized, made poor, divided and conquered by an increasingly cynical, unaccountable, arrogant business and multi-national corporate establishment...
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/839161--f-35-purchase-comes-under-fire
As always follow the link for the original full text

The Typhoon has been in the running for Indian contract from the start. More so since their decision to make their own carriers and the choice of a STOBAR design.


Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft
22 November 2009 12:13:24 by IANS
By Gulshan R. Luthra

...Eurofighter Vice President and Head of India Campaign Directorate Dr Matthias Schmidlin told India Strategic that while he could not confirm receipt of the RFI for the naval variant of Eurofighter, his company would bid for the Indian Navy’s requirement if invited.

In fact, he pointed out, Eurofighter is the only aircraft among the six contenders for the IAF order which would have thrust vectoring capability in the coming years. Thrust vectoring capability allows an aircraft to stand still in the air, and takeoff and land even in vertical mode like a helicopter.

Some 200 Eurofighters have been produced so far, predominantly to meet the requirements of participating nations which include Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy.

Thrust vectoring is being developed and would be operational on Eurofighters within the first half of the next decade, Dr Schmidlin said...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/indian-navy-keen-to-buy-newer-generation-aircraft_100278386.html#ixzz0XclBi4EO

The competition is now between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the French Rafale

MiG-35 stalls in Indian fighter tender contract
10:42 10/08/2010© RIA Novosti. Ilya Pitalev

Russia's MiG-35 multirole fighter aircraft has failed to make the short-list in a $10 billion international tender for 126 combat aircraft for the Indian air force, according to Indian media reports quoted by Kommersant daily.

The favorites to win the tender are the French Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, Indian media say.

Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the holding company for most of the Russian aircraft industry, and its fighter subsidiary MiG, have not officially confirmed the reports.

"The official results of the tender have not yet been announced," said UAC's Press Secretary Konstantin Lantratov...
http://en.rian.ru/business/20100810/160139524.html
As always follow the link for the original full text

The key factor is the technological improvements in thrust vectoring tested in the Typhoon like X31, and now being introduced into the Typhoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUN8amHnEc

Here are some additional technical details on the thrust vectoring due to be installed on Typhoons.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/18/333501/eurojet-pushes-thrust-vectoring-technology-for-typhoon.html

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

Since all the technology allready exists and is due to be added long before the F35's can be delivered and several other countries will be sharing costs and the Aircraft are already being built and used in the UK, it makes for a far better solution.

This along with some bad tests in simulated exersizes last year is why the F35 is being increasingly seen as not up to the job even in the US.

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Aug 14 2010, 00:46
Hi Daniel

There are multiple sources including some recent military magazine and other media articles, there was a meeting recently in India where it was discussed and further talk a few weeks ago at Farnborough.
Canada:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/28/327053/boeing-eurofighter-bid-to-usurp-f-35-for-canadian-fighter.html
As always follow the link for the original full text


http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/839161--f-35-purchase-comes-under-fire
As always follow the link for the original full text

The Typhoon has been in the running for Indian contract from the start. More so since their decision to make their own carriers and the choice of a STOBAR design.


http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/indian-navy-keen-to-buy-newer-generation-aircraft_100278386.html#ixzz0XclBi4EO

The competition is now between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the French Rafale

http://en.rian.ru/business/20100810/160139524.html
As always follow the link for the original full text

The key factor is the technological improvements in thrust vectoring tested in the Typhoon like X31, and now being introduced into the Typhoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUN8amHnEc

Here are some additional technical details on the thrust vectoring due to be installed on Typhoons.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/18/333501/eurojet-pushes-thrust-vectoring-technology-for-typhoon.html

This along with some bad tests in simulated exersizes last year is why the F35 is being increasingly seen as not up to the job even in the US.

Kind Regards walker

Boeing/BAE for EuroFighters in Canada... old news . DATE:28/05/09 It was denied/rejected by the Canadian parliament about a week later if memory serves. The full reasons were never revealed but industry rumours suggest political pressure from the US. As well as some grumblings between EADS and BAE.

Incidentally at no time was a Navalised Typhoon mentioned/offered or requested.

"F-35 Purchase comes under fire" - Again not really much new since every time the project comes up for funding review (at least once every 12 months) the price spirals and has been doing so for the last 10 years. And its set to keep climbing at this rate.

By the way the latest rumour is that the USN may halve their order for the F-35C. (they also threatened this 2 years ago.)

Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft - 22 November 2009 - There are also articles from 2006 you could reference that say the exact same thing.

But you should also realise that the Indian Navy has also been through this particular loop at least 3 times now and each time comes back to the Mig-29K. They concluded in 2003 (the last big naval spending review) that they could only afford to operate one type of fixed wing aircraft. After various attempts to get more funding they re-committed to buying a Russian made aircraft carrier and 45 aircraft with a large commercial offset covering about 30% of the cost.

What does this mean? Well like most nations with large militaries the budget is split for each service. And the Indian navy has spent its budget on the Mig-29K. They couldn't afford to buy EuroFighters. Navalised or land based. The Air Force well that's a different story.

The MRCA contract is to fulfil a purely Air Force Requirement. Naval capability isn't even in the requirements! And never was. So no matter what the result of the competition is they wont be buying a "Navalised" Typhoon.

I dont know why you are so obsessed with a Navalised Typhoon, but none of these articles support your theory that they are actually going to make one.

I'll even go so far as to say I know they wont make one... I know how these aircraft are made. I can walk you through every stage of the fuselage assembly if you really want me to. And i swear to you that without a massive redesign of not only the aircraft, but the assembly, maching and transfer jigs it wont happen. The investment and the time scales required would be huge.

And having actually asked several friends at the UK MoD and EuroFighter about this "F-18 story" they also concluded that it was "a load of old bollocks from some idiot politicians aide."

And finally, from the horses mouth. An old friend who still works in the EuroFighter design team at BAE Sys Salmesbury confirms the possibility of a Navalised Typhoon as:

"about as probable as Tony Blair having a sex change, marrying George Bush Jr and setting up house on the moon.

...Oh and me buying the house next door with me winnings from the Martian lottery."
(I think its my favourite quote of the year)

Kind regards

Rock

Big Mac
Aug 14 2010, 01:18
The F-35 is shit anyways, they're better off with the F/A-18..

TechnoTerrorist303
Aug 14 2010, 07:47
The F-35 is shit anyways, they're better off with the F/A-18..

That is of course unless you want a stealth fighter that's capable of vertical takeoff and landing?

In any case, Rock just won the thread.

The end.

Barely-injured
Aug 14 2010, 16:07
Yup its pretty much settled.

I dont understand the logic of how either Canada or the UK can hope to opt out of the F-35 program at this point in time. Both countries are heavily invested in the F-35 program, and they probably want a return on their investment.

Regardless of whether or not there are better options out there !!

RKSL-Rock
Oct 22 2010, 18:14
Well the truth is out... No more F-35B... Hello F-35C

I'm not usually one to say "I told you so" but hey, just this once:


More surprising was a scathing attack on Labour's previous selection of the STOVL F-35B to meet the UK's projected 138-aircraft Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. The government will switch its commitment to the F-35C carrier variant (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/lockheed%20martin%20f-35.html) (below), which Cameron says is "more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons". Buying the future US Navy type will reduce life-cycle costs by around 25%, the Ministry of Defence says.

The UK must now find a way of reaching an agreement with Washington over scrapping orders for three F-35Bs to have been used during initial operational test and evaluation. Rolls-Royce will also suffer directly from the decision, with the US Marine Corps and potentially Italy now the only remaining buyers for the STOVL version, which features its lift fan technology. And it makes a continuation of its alternate F136 engine programme for the Joint Strike Fighter with General Electric ever more important.
In addition to a reduced number of F-35Cs, the SDSR says the RAF's future combat aircraft fleet will also consist of "a modernised Typhoon fleet fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions". It is unclear, however, whether this pledge could lead to the UK reviewing its previous decision to walk away from the Eurofighter programme's planned Tranche 3B production phase.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/22/348801/analysis-winners-and-losers-of-the-uk-defence-review.html

TomatoArden
Oct 22 2010, 18:28
Mmmm nice, but 25% less cost reduction? is that based on the lack of the lift fan isnt needed?

vektorboson
Oct 22 2010, 18:30
Just a stupid question: Does the development of the F-35B make any sense at all?
You may save money by having smaller aircraft carriers, but doesn't the probably increased complexity of the F-35B eat a lot of those savings? Beside reduced mission capabilities?
What is the tactical use of the F-35B?

TomatoArden
Oct 22 2010, 18:34
Just a stupid question: Does the development of the F-35B make any sense at all?
You may save money by having smaller aircraft carriers, but doesn't the probably increased complexity of the F-35B eat a lot of those savings? Beside reduced mission capabilities?
What is the tactical use of the F-35B?

well, the USMC are all for it. They'll be operating it off of their amphibious assault ships, including the future America class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_class_amphibious_assault_ship.

Other possible users in the future will be Italy and Spain (who operate Harriers atm) and maybe even Australia who could buy a small number for it Amphibious assault ships.

RKSL-Rock
Oct 22 2010, 20:05
Mmmm nice, but 25% less cost reduction? is that based on the lack of the lift fan isnt needed?

Well its based partly on the difference in complexity, but also the fact that the USN are buying more F-35C than all the other F-35B nations put together had ordered. This is because the setup and tooling costs for that variant can be shared out amongst a greater number of airframes.

eg: (Figures are just an example)
Non Recurring Tooling Costs for F-35A = US$200,000,000
Non Recurring Tooling Costs for F-35B = US$200,000,000
Non Recurring Tooling Costs for F-35C = US$200,000,000

Total orders for F-35A = 1100
Total orders for F-35B = 360
Total orders for F-35C = 510 (inc. UK requirement)

So the cost of tooling per aircraft would be:

Non Recurring Tooling Cost / Number of airframes ordered = ?

F-35A tooling per aircraft = US$181,818.18
F-35B tooling per aircraft = US$555,555.56
F-35C tooling per aircraft = US$392,156.86

Add that figure to the cost of components and assembly per aircraft. Factor in the saving in production costs due to larger batch sizes. Then the difference in the complexity of each variant and you start to see where the where the difference in price between the variants comes in.


Just a stupid question: Does the development of the F-35B make any sense at all?
You may save money by having smaller aircraft carriers, but doesn't the probably increased complexity of the F-35B eat a lot of those savings?
It depends on how much replacing the carrier and LPDs for new larger ships costs. If the cost of them massively outweigh the cost of the F-35B variant then it does.

What is the tactical use of the F-35B?
That's what a lot of people have been asking for some time.

The trade off of VTOL vs. reduced capability makes sense for the USMC's amphibious role where the decks have to be smaller since they are expected to operate very close to the coast. And the transit time to targets (to support the amphibious landing) is far shorter than equivalent USAF role.

But in a land locked nation with friendly airbases with long runways and decent support infrastructure VTOL/STOVL looks a like a huge extravagance.

TomatoArden
Oct 23 2010, 10:23
Well, that was a great answer Rock..you truly know your stuff

RKSL-Rock
Oct 23 2010, 10:47
Well, that was a great answer Rock..you truly know your stuff

Thank you. But it was once my job to plan/develop/cost aircraft production systems. I could go a lot further if you like but i think i'd start to bore the crap out of you after 5 minutes or so :p

I've always thought that the F-35B was a real lemon anyway. The Harrier made sense in the large scale Cold war/WWIII scenario with CAS Harriers operating from West German roads ,and not vulnerable air bases. But since the F-35B didn't quite have the same versatility in a hover as the Harrier (i.e. its pretty much automated and the pilot only has limited options vs full control in the Harrier) it wasn't quite as useful on land because its just not capable of landing in unprepared areas. And when you realise that the UK was going to retire all its small deck carriers and replace them with a full size aircraft carrier, the added complications of STOVL/VTOL just don't make economic or practical sense.

While I would have liked a Navalised Typhoon as per Walker's day dreaming; I'd suggest the F-35C is probably the best compromise at this time. F-18's were never going to happen for a 101 reasons, nor were Rafales which really only left the C. While I think most of the SDSR results are stupid I do at least think they've done the sensible thing here.

Tankbuster
Oct 23 2010, 10:56
Walker's wrong, as usual. The SDSR was, like many MoD projects was doomed from the start, firstly because the previous government (and the MoD, of course) botched the contracts for the CVFs so badly that we now have to have them when ideally, we'd have just one. With any luck, the carriers will be so late that the JSF will actually be more or less ready by the time the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales go down the launchway.

As for the original premise that we were going to get F-18s. I'd facepalm and LOL at the same time, but I don't want to punch my own teeth.

Baff1
Oct 24 2010, 01:04
One is no good matey. We need two. So we can rotate them.

That way we can keep one deployed indefinitely.
Otherwise the length of time you can fight a war which depends on one is limited to one troop rotation.

Also, once you've made the first one, the second one is gravey.


The Jump jet F35 made sense if it was going to be delivered before the new carriers were. So that they could be operated off our pocket carriers and then transition.
The Sea Harrier has been up for replacement far longer than out carriers have. They are only withdrawing those ships now because they are out of money.

As I understand it, under our original procurement plan we would have already taken delivery of the very first JSF's by now had it not gone tits up, while the future carriers were initally planned for 2012. (before that all went tits up! lol.)

Tankbuster
Oct 24 2010, 13:22
One is no good matey. We need two. So we can rotate them.

That way we can keep one deployed indefinitely.
Otherwise the length of time you can fight a war which depends on one is limited to one troop rotation.

Also, once you've made the first one, the second one is gravey.


I know that, YOU know that, but the Whitehall mandarins don't. They probably do, but they are first and foremost, bean counters, not defence specialists.

As Rock will attest, I'm forever banging on about my thoughts that the CVF should have been nuclear powered so they don't need a fueller in the fleet too.

RKSL-Rock
Oct 24 2010, 13:44
....
The Jump jet F35 made sense if it was going to be delivered before the new carriers were. So that they could be operated off our pocket carriers and then transition...
The F-35 could never have flown off the Invincible class carriers. They are too heavy. They would have had to use the entire length of the deck and only have 30% fuel (Bingo fuel state even before it took off) while carrying 2x asraam and 2x 500lb lgb. Anything more than that and it would have stalled at the end of the ramp.

The X-35B could have probably done it since its nearly 40% lighter than the production spec F-35B but it couldn't carry weapons.

The weight increase was due to the bickering of the USN/USMC and USAF about requirements. The original contract stated that the F-35 types must have about 70% commonality between variants to reduce production and lifecycle costs. This is now about 40-50% depending on which source you choose.


The Sea Harrier has been up for replacement far longer than out carriers have. They are only withdrawing those ships now because they are out of money.
The Sea Harrier has been out of service for years. It was finally removed from service in March 2006. They are have been operating the RAF's GR7/7A and GR9/9A ever since. And with the need to withdraw one fast jet type, and with no other jet to operate from the existing carriers it pointless having them. It makes perfect sense to ditch them now.

Personally i think they should have halved the harrier fleet and kept them running until the CVF and F-35C come on line.


As I understand it, under our original procurement plan we would have already taken delivery of the very first JSF's by now had it not gone tits up, while the future carriers were initally planned for 2012. (before that all went tits up! lol.)
Initial deliveries were planned for 2012-14 with in service date of 2015-17.

So far the only the delivery dates have slipped. In theory we may even get the F-35C sooner since the USN were getting priority, we may be able to draw from the first batches since the USN want to slow the initial rate of delivery.

walker
Oct 24 2010, 14:00
Hi all

The Minute that the vertical take off F-35 option with its "Possibility" of additional UK business, jobs and technology transfer came off the table the Lockheed option made no economic sense for the UK.

The possibility of business and jobs at Rolls Royce was the only thing that made the Lockheed an option for the UK. With no technology transfer and only windscreen wiper fitting jobs coming to the UK the Lockheed is a dead duck, they just have not fed it to the dogs yet.

As to the argument about the Lockheeds for testing well since they will never be built the US cannot charge us for them. :)

The Marine Eurofighter Typhoon is now the most economically sensible and only independent defense solution for the UK and the Vectored thrust engine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now ready for the two engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

Along with the new E Scan Radar and focussed infra red tracking and supercruise the Vectored thrust Typhoon is the far more capable aircraft.

On the matter of nuclear power Tankbuster I agree with you.

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Oct 24 2010, 14:30
Hi all

The Minute that the vertical take off F-35 option with its "Possibility" of additional UK business, jobs and technology transfer came off the table the Lockheed option made no economic sense for the UK.

Shows how much you know doesn't it.

Rear Fuselage of every F-35 made in the UK at BAE Salmesbury
Empennage of every F-35 made in the UK at BAE Salmesbury
Flight control actuators of every F-35 made in the UK by BF Goodrich
Fuels systems of every F-35 made in the UK by BAE Systems
Fuels management control system and programming of every F-35 made in the UK by BAE Systems
Pilot lifesupport and prognostic health monitoring systems of every F-35 made in the UK by BAE Systems
Ejection Seat of every F-35 designed and made in the UK by Martin Baker

UK companies provide a shit load more sub systems and components for assembly in the US. Britain does and will benefit from the JSF program regardless.

This little missive was published in 2006 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/07/19/207945/farnborough-f-35-workshare-secure-even-if-uk-pulls-the-plug-says-lockheed.html) since then the design has firmed up and is even more dependant on UK based firms to supply high-tech specialist components.

EDIT - Oh and Walker. the UK is the ONLY nation that will have FULL technology transfer.


The possibility of business and jobs at Rolls Royce was the only thing that made the Lockheed an option for the UK. With no technology transfer and only windscreen wiper fitting jobs coming to the UK the Lockheed is a dead duck, they just have not fed it to the dogs yet.
Yes Rolls Royce is going to get hit if the F136 does get cancelled but since the USMC leadership are actually backing the development of a 2nd design VTOL engine it may just keep going.


The Marine Eurofighter Typhoon is now the most economically sensible and only independent defense solution for the UK and the Vectored thrust engine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now ready for the two engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

Stop talking shit. You have no idea what you are saying. Nor anything to backup your claims.

I've already explained why it will never happen. The politics, the cost and the contracts make it prohibitively expensive and leave it firmly in the realm of your fantasy.


Along with the new E Scan Radar and focussed infra red tracking and supercruise the Vectored thrust Typhoon is the far more capable aircraft. engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

Oh dear Flying Spaghetti Monster save me from the curse of muppets quoting buzz words. He knows not what they mean! :D


E-Scan Radar is a ground surveillance system. If you mean Electronically scanned radar then yes one day Typhoon will have it. But so does the F-35... its called AESA - Active Electronically Scanned Array.

Supercruise.... well yes the Typhoon can super cruise. But only when it has no stores and all but two outmost missile pylons on it. A configuration that is so rarely used as to be pretty much pointless. But the fact it can do it is a testament to the airframe's aerodynamics.

(Incidentally the F-22 cant do it with external stores either.)

Edit - focussed infra red tracking .... nearly forgot this. Yes Typhoon has PIRATE which is a Infra Red Search and Tracking system. F-35 has EOTS - Electro Optical Tracking System which is IRST, radar and EM sensors combined. Rather more elaborate than the Typhoon's system.

Vectored Thrust... well this will be rather cool if they can ever get the aircraft to fly with it. A little birdie tells me the flight control simulations aren't exactly proceeding well but I'm sure they will crack it.

And finally back to the navalised Typhoon.... again.

I'm sorry if i cant make it clear enough for you. But IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. EADS already confirmed that. The option of a Navalised typhoon was really only a business manager's wet dream. And sure as hell it wouldn't be ready in 6-8 years time. even in 2000 they were predicting 10-12 years to finish design and testing let alone conversion and production. And that was before the £5bn cost overruns. In this economic climate and especially after this SDSR its pure fantasy.

Seriously Walker do some proper research. Don't let your day dreams take over your life.

DM
Oct 24 2010, 15:00
I'm forever banging on about my thoughts that the CVF should have been nuclear powered so they don't need a fueller in the fleet too.


On the matter of nuclear power Tankbuster I agree with you.

Second to Rock's educated comments (its nice to have at least one person who has any idea what they're talking about)

so the CVF is nuclear, what about all the other ships in the fleet? Herfaderf :j:

They need a refueller, so one has to be in the fleet anyway (not to mention supplies and ammo....)

Baff1
Oct 24 2010, 15:04
The Marine Eurofighter Typhoon is now the most economically sensible and only independent defense solution for the UK and the Vectored thrust engine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now ready for the two engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

The Eurofighter is a UK independant project?
Why isn't it called the UKfighter then!

I can't remember the last time we produced an independant aerolane. I doubt I was even alive.

@<hidden> the more supplies it needs, the more vulnerable it's supply chain is. I don't know if nuclear is practical or cost effective, but it's certainly desireable to my mind.

DM
Oct 24 2010, 15:07
@<hidden> the more supplies it needs, the more vulnerable it's supply chain is. I don't know if nuclear is practical or cost effective, but it's certainly desireable to my mind.

Oh indeed, but i was more commenting on the ridiculousness of


nuclear powered so they don't need a fueller in the fleet too.

Baff1
Oct 24 2010, 15:11
Maybe teh solar panels and windmills are FTW.

RKSL-Rock
Oct 24 2010, 15:27
...
I can't remember the last time we produced an independant aerolane. I doubt I was even alive...

Its was (arguably) the Sea Harrier. The last solely British Fighter ever made.

TomatoArden
Oct 24 2010, 15:36
Its was (arguably) the Sea Harrier. The last solely British Fighter ever made.
what about the Britten Norman Islander/Defender or the recently scrapped Nimrod? Of course the Shar was the latest fighter.... and the Nimrod was just a remanufacture

RKSL-Rock
Oct 24 2010, 15:46
what about the Britten Norman Islander/Defender or the recently scrapped Nimrod? Of course the Shar was the latest fighter.... and the Nimrod was just a remanufacture

Yup you are right. I hadn't thought about them. I was more focused on fighters i guess.

But you could argue that both the Islander and Nimrod predate the Sea Harrier :rolleyes:

TomatoArden
Oct 24 2010, 16:05
Yup you are right. I hadn't thought about them. I was more focused on fighters i guess.

But you could argue that both the Islander and Nimrod predate the Sea Harrier :rolleyes:

actually they do..even the defender version of the islander does...I only thought of that as it was only recently that the AAC acquired the defender. The Nimrod is based on the De Haviland Comet.. which first flew in 1948. Makes you wonder why the MOD didn't consider replacing it with something more modern instead of that silly re manufacturing project

da12thMonkey
Oct 24 2010, 16:34
The Nimrod is based on the De Haviland Comet.. which first flew in 1948. Makes you wonder why the MOD didn't consider replacing it with something more modern instead of that silly re manufacturing project

Well, we're replacing the Nimrod R.1 SIGINT aircraft with a version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint made from refurbishing three KC-135R tankers - airframes that are at least 45 years old.

Rock; in your opinion is the sensor suite on F-35 in any way adequate at performing a maritime patrol/asw role? I've seen a smattering of posts on other forums saying that MRA.4 isn't needed so much, because F-35 could perform such recce roles (with a much shorter range and loitering time) - I wondered if they're talking shite or not.

TomatoArden
Oct 24 2010, 17:13
Well, we're replacing the Nimrod R.1 SIGINT aircraft with a version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint made from refurbishing three KC-135R tankers - airframes that are at least 45 years old.

Rock; in your opinion is the sensor suite on F-35 in any way adequate at performing a maritime patrol/asw role? I've seen a smattering of posts on other forums saying that MRA.4 isn't needed so much, because F-35 could perform such recce roles (with a much shorter range and loitering time) - I wondered if they're talking shite or not.

base don the fact that the Americans have bothered to develop the P-8 Poseidon to replace the P-3 Orion, then surely the answer is nope.

RKSL-Rock
Oct 24 2010, 20:40
Well, we're replacing the Nimrod R.1 SIGINT aircraft with a version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint made from refurbishing three KC-135R tankers - airframes that are at least 45 years old.

I was gobsmacked when i found out the real ages of the airframes. Even though one of them only has ~20,000 hours on it, every one of them is older than me. I have to wonder if this conversion includes the massively extensive structural re-lifeing the USAF KC-135 are getting. If not i can see it being another Chinook HC3 debacle.


Rock; in your opinion is the sensor suite on F-35 in any way adequate at performing a maritime patrol/asw role? I've seen a smattering of posts on other forums saying that MRA.4 isn't needed so much, because F-35 could perform such recce roles (with a much shorter range and loitering time) - I wondered if they're talking shite or not.
Yes mate they are talking pure shite. Nothing beats a dedicated ASW/Maritime Patrol aircraft.

The (Government version of) reality is that the maritime patrol capability will be taken up by the RN Frigates flying Merlin HM1 - A claim the RN made imo to save the HM1 ASW capability in light of the threat to convert all the ASW platforms to Troop carriers/medium lift types. Since the RN has a significant power bloc in the MoD at the moment its probably been a contributing factor in the decision to kill off Nimrod.


(Slightly off topic but as a result of the SDSR all Merlins HC3 and HC3A of the RAF will be handed over to the RN. While the RAF will retain the Puma until it goes out of service and get new CH-47F Chinooks designated HC6 to replace the war losses and some of the Merlin fleet. Reducing the RAF capability even further. Seems like the SDSR has been a real winner for the RN doesn't it)

Edit - Puma seems to be being extened and the RAF retain the Merlins. Which is a complete u-turn on the press breifing released a week before.

SDSR Details here - http://www.direct.gov.uk/sdsr

EOTS while rather impressive in concept is not designed for maritime roles or search and rescue. F-35's can't detect or engage sub surface targets, has no sub hunting sensors and has a rather limited range compared to a Nimrod MR2. Anyone claiming that it fills the capability gap left by Nimrod is full of it.

EOTS and the rest of the sensor suite is really nothing more than a more sophisticated Sniper ATP pod fused with a host of passive sensors all linked together and with full Link16+ networking capability. The innovation is less about the hardware and more about the way it takes data from the suite of different sensors (radar, IR, electro magnetic, radio etc) and passes the correlated information to the pilots in a single user friendly display. And also that it has the capability to pass the same info around the F-35/Link16 network. But the range and power is very limited compared to a dedicated platform such as the Nimrod/Sentinel/Sentry which makes it a purely tactical and not a strategic asset.

igoV7W7la_0

9fm5vfGW5RY

It does have a lot of ISTAR capability but nothing like that of a dedicated platform like the Sentinel R1 or the Nimrod R1. I can understand why the Nimrod MR4 was axed. It was the perfect sacrificial lamb for the SDSR. It was a perfect example of the labour government's inability to control a project's spending. But at the same time its capability is desperately needed.

Personally I wouldn't have chosen to upgrade the Nimrod airframe, but considering the technology transfer issues and the nature of the kit that goes on these aircraft a non-UK airframe provider/partner was un thinkable. Even the US has repeatedly said that the Nimrod MR2's capability was second to none in both ISTAR and Maritime roles. The fact they back the P-8 Poseidon over the proven Orion 2000 project was in part because they saw the benefits Nimrod provided.

And regarding the retirement of the £1bn Sentinel R1s, what a freaking stupid idea that is. The UK finally gets an equivalent, if not superior capability to the US JSTARS system. Possibly the most significant leap in the UK armed force's independent capability in years and the Muppets in Whitehall throw it away... Labour or ConDem they are all short sighted morons.

DM
Oct 24 2010, 21:31
And regarding the retirement of the £1bn Sentinel R1s, what a freaking stupid idea that is. The UK finally gets an equivalent, if not superior capability to the US JSTARS system. Possibly the most significant leap in the UK armed force's independent capability in years and the Muppets in Whitehall throw it away... Labour or ConDem they are all short sighted morons.

Given that its not happening until the cessation of ops in Afghanistan, do they not have time to realise how dumb this is an back-track on it, or is it written in stone now its in SDSR?

RKSL-Rock
Oct 24 2010, 21:53
Given that its not happening until the cessation of ops in Afghanistan, do they not have time to realise how dumb this is an back-track on it, or is it written in stone now its in SDSR?

I'm guessing here, but I suspect it depends if the Afghan Ops continue past the term of the current government. If we come out of Afghanistan before the next general election we'll lose Sentinel and other systems forever. If it goes on longer then we might actually have some hope of a reprieve.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll see a rise in international tensions in a few years and it will highlight the SDSR for the political power gaming that it is. Stripping back the UK military with the current level of perceived threats in the near future is just dangerous. This review completely ignores the recommendations of the IISS and UN Security predictions. They say they are stripping off the "waste" but they aren't replacing the older systems with modern equivalents. They are removing key capabilities assuming that we will always operate in concert with the US. Its just short sighted. Systems like Sentinel and Nimrod advanced electronic surveillance systems provide an ISTAR capability that no one outside of the US apart from us has. To kill them off is just madness.

Tankbuster
Oct 24 2010, 22:08
but they aren't replacing the older systems with modern equivalents. They are removing key capabilities assuming that we will always operate in concert with the US. Its just short sighted. Systems like Sentinel and Nimrod advanced electronic surveillance systems provide an ISTAR capability that no one outside of the US apart from us has. To kill them off is just madness.

You are absolutely right and this is a real worry. One wonders why Whitehall want to continue with Trident, claiming we need to be a world player "punching above our weight", while they strip operational capabilities from our blokes on the ground.

Perhaps I'm seeing this too simplistically?

Hellfire257
Oct 25 2010, 10:04
The Nuke vs. Forces debate is nothing new. Eisenhower did the same thing during the Cold War to the US AFAIK. It seemed to work well with their policy of brinkmanship at the time, but given our current and most likely path in future events, it seems a bit daft, but we will see.

Daniel
Oct 25 2010, 15:38
Veering a little offtopic...

The major argument for continuing Trident (Successor class) is that we lack the crystal ball that tells us what future threats we'll face. Having our own fairly independent sovereign deterrent means we can deal with any future worst case scenario.

Although that doesn't in any way justify killing off some our other capabilities...

Question regarding scrapping Nimrod and the F-35/ASW Merlin topic:

Won't the Astute fleet somewhat plug the gap once it's commissioned? It should have better performance than the current attack sub fleet (as long as they avoid crashing any more subs into Scotland).

Baff1
Oct 25 2010, 15:50
The Nuke vs. Forces debate is nothing new. Eisenhower did the same thing during the Cold War to the US AFAIK. It seemed to work well with their policy of brinkmanship at the time, but given our current and most likely path in future events, it seems a bit daft, but we will see.
Upto a point. Clearly you can't use nukes at point blank range without killing yourself.

So an enemy that can move fast enough can get inside your cities where your nukes are no longer such a great idea.

One thing I feel is that our enemies will always seek to attack us where we are weakest. So weak submarine defence encourages submarine strike. Weak air defence encourages air assault.

It is certainly better to have the most catastrophic of these enventualites, strongly defended against. Nuclear would obviously be top of my list. But a nuclear deteraant you can't defend isn't an effective one.

Losing the Nimrods is a far bigger issue than the carriers.

NeMeSiS
Oct 25 2010, 15:58
So an enemy that can move fast enough can get inside your cities where your nukes are no longer such a great idea.

That of course doesnt stop you from bombing their cities. ;)

Baff1
Oct 25 2010, 16:04
Their ability to bomb your cities right back might do however.

Are you going to condemn all your own cities to death just to save one?


Will the American's really condemn themselves all to death to save Berlin or Amsterdam or London from foreign occupation?
Or can an enemy even bumrush your nuclear forces before they can deploy?

NeMeSiS
Oct 25 2010, 16:12
Their ability to bomb your cities right back might do however.

Are you going to condemn all your own cities to death just to save one?


No, but thats my point. Wether they are in your cities or not does not really affect your decision to use nukes or not.

Baff1
Oct 25 2010, 21:06
But I might still use one if they are in your city. Just not mine.

If Britain nuked Amsterdam (because it was full of a Russian invasion force), would the Russians condemn all their people to death by nuking Britain?
But on the otherhand, if I did so, would the Netherlands still be my ally. Or would the alliance be broken by this action.

Also, if it looked like I was going to lose all my cities and not just one, then I would nuke as that would be my best chance.
It's a complex issue.

And any predictions of how we would respond to a crisis of that nature is speculation only. It would depend on the decision of an individual national leader at the time more than any military plan or doctrine.


One thing is for certain, I am more likely to use my nukes against a Russian army in the field than I am a Russian Army in Amsterdam, London or Berlin.
It does make a very big difference.

Nuking your enemy is one thing, nuking your friend quite another.

vektorboson
Oct 25 2010, 21:18
If Britain nuked Amsterdam (because it was full of a Russian invasion force), would the Russians condemn all their people to death by nuking Britain?
If Russia invades The Netherlands, you nuke Moscow, not Amsterdam...
That's the whole point of strategic nukes :)

Read on "Mutually Assured Destruction"; that's why NATO always held up the option of a first strike, as a deterrent so the Eastern Bloc does not try a conventional attack.

Ulanthorn
Oct 25 2010, 21:29
You do not win a modern war by "killing them all", that's rarely needed nor really possible exept you want to start a new holocaust. Even WWII was not won by killing all german soldiers "in the field". Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan...the only way the coalition could "win" it was to declare it won...but it is still going on.

JdB
Oct 25 2010, 21:31
If Russia invades The Netherlands, you nuke Moscow, not Amsterdam...
That's the whole point of strategic nukes :)

Yeah, for nuking Russian armies you use tactical nukes instead.

Baff1
Oct 25 2010, 22:08
If Russia invades The Netherlands, you nuke Moscow, not Amsterdam...
That's the whole point of strategic nukes :)

Read on "Mutually Assured Destruction"; that's why NATO always held up the option of a first strike, as a deterrent so the Eastern Bloc does not try a conventional attack.

Nice theory but my money is on it going out the window completely in the event of any such war.
Sorry Netherlands but if Russia invades you, the chances of the rest of us all choosing the mass suicide option is very slim.

It's probably for the best if you get some nukes of your own.

Ulanthorn
Oct 25 2010, 22:36
Nice theory but my money is on it going out the window completely in the event of any such war.
Sorry Netherlands but if Russia invades you, the chances of the rest of us all choosing the mass suicide option is very slim.

It's probably for the best if you get some nukes of your own.Remeber... it was only the US that ever really used nukes...and at that time the people in charge did not really know what they ordered.

It is very well know since a few decades that no side can win a nuclear war, no matter how much hybris a nation may accumulate.

Baff1
Oct 25 2010, 23:11
There is such a thing as total war.
We haven't had one in our lifetimes, but other countries have.

What has happened before will happen again. When it does, it's time for the nukes.

Just becuase you can't win, doesn't mean you can't lose. And while the lesser of two evils doesn't necesssarily count as a win, it's still an improvement on the greater of two evils.

Primarily our nukes are there for the deterance factor, but should it all kick off in Korea for example. It would be time to drop one.

Ulanthorn
Oct 25 2010, 23:20
Tell me the name and place of such a "total war" after 1945.
There was only a "cold war" and since then a lot of what the US called
"campaigns". the "war" word was first used again after 9/11 for something that can barely be called a war in the sense of international law. The war on terror is a outlier and the last nail to the coffin for a once proposed liberal world order.
the somwhat ironic fact is that the last decade of war and the cost of it is the reason for the biggest "wave" of military fund reduction since the 90's...we cant afford this war anymore.

Max Power
Oct 26 2010, 01:03
I think if Russia invaded the Netherlands, the bulk of the response would be through trade embargos, diplomatic missions, and massing forces around the borders of the Netherlands before any kind of nuclear war was even tabled. There may even be direct action in the Netherlands in the form of conventional battles. If Russia was not invaded in a counter assault I wonder if nuclear weapons would even be considered.

Baff1
Oct 27 2010, 01:35
Tell me the name and place of such a "total war" after 1945.
.
Korea.
The Congo.
Ethiopia.

Millions dead...WMD... civilians targeted for mass destruction... genocide.. ethnic cleansing...

Where was Pol Pot from? Cambodia? I don't know the history of that one, but that might fit the picture too.

---------- Post added at 02:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 AM ----------


I think if Russia invaded the Netherlands, the bulk of the response would be through trade embargos, diplomatic missions, and massing forces around the borders of the Netherlands before any kind of nuclear war was even tabled. There may even be direct action in the Netherlands in the form of conventional battles. If Russia was not invaded in a counter assault I wonder if nuclear weapons would even be considered.
Hard to say really.
I think nuclear weapoons would most certainly be considered, but there are no guarentee's they would be used.

Spooky Lynx
Oct 27 2010, 06:58
Nuclear weapons? Would be used? Seriously doubt in it. Nobody wants to make useless hazardous wasteland anywhere, especially now, when human population grows but all kinds of resources decrease.
As for the Hornets, I was surprised that Royal Navy again wants to have full-scale planes but not STOVLs only.

walker
Feb 17 2011, 11:30
Hi all

In a further blow to UK jobs the Republican controled US congress has decided to cut out the Rolls Royce engine for the F35.


House votes to kill funding for JSF alternate engine
February 16, 2011
By Deirdre Shesgreen

WASHINGTON--Amid intense political pressure to slash federal spending, the House voted Wednesday to nix $450 million in funding for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, handing a major victory to Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney.

By a vote of 233-to-198, the House adopted an amendment--backed by veteran Democrat Rep. John Larson and sophomore Republican Rep. Tom Rooney--to strip funding for a second, back-up engine, made by Pratt competitors' General Electric and Rolls Royce...
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/11560/altenghousevote


House Votes Against F136 JSF Alternate Engine
Feb 17, 2011
By Michael Bruno michael_bruno@<hidden>

Amid a heated debate about federal deficits, national security and domestic employment, the U.S. House of Representatives voted against continuing the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter midday Feb. 16.

The move is a reversal of sorts***—a similar vote in mid-2010 indicated broad support among lawmakers for the F136. But with newly empowered tea party lawmakers and other budget hawks having made the House more fiscally conservative since then, the 233-199 vote showed newfound resistance for a congressional prerogative opposed by the White House and Pentagon leadership.

“While we are disappointed at the outcome, the debate to preserve competition will continue,” GE says in a statement issued shortly after the voice vote. “GE is deeply grateful to many House members, including leaders of the House Appropriations Committee and Armed Services Committee, who voted to continue funding the competing JSF engine. These members demonstrated strong support for the core principle of acquisition reform—competition.”

Earlier this week Defense Secretary Robert Gates loudly lobbied lawmakers to help end the F136 (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 15). He warned that if Congress did not do so, he would use other legal opportunities to kill it himself. The program has limped along since funding started to run out last December, and the fact that the federal government has been sustained through continuing resolutions (CR) of 2010 funding appropriations opened doubt as to whether Congress’s earlier mandate still had authority.

The vote was on an amendment by Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) and others to a new CR bill. The House started debating the amendment to strike $450 million for the F136 in fiscal 2011, as well as several other amendments to curb defense spending, late Feb. 15. The majority of other amendments have not been adopted at this time...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/02/16/awx_02_16_2011_p0-290550.xml&headline=House%20Votes%20Against%20F136%20JSF%20Alternate%20Engine
As allways follow the links to the original articles

Opting instead for the US only Pratt & Whitney engine.

Along with the decreases in technology transfer, the fact it will not be built until long after the Aircraft carriers, and the decreasing customer numbers it makes the JSF look like a complete white elephant.

As I said early on; a navalised Typhoon has always looked the better option for the UK.

Kind Regards walker

DM
Feb 17 2011, 11:33
As I said early on a navalised Typhoon has always looked the better option for the UK.

Apart from the fact IT DOESNT FUCKING EXIST :j:


Kind regards DM

walker
Feb 17 2011, 11:41
Apart from the fact IT DOESNT FUCKING EXIST :j:


Kind regards DM
Hi DM

Yes I agree the JSF does not exist it is a complete fantasy aircraft. Hence why the UK will have Aircraft Carriers built, but not have these fantasy JSF to fly from them.

It therefore makes far more sense to navalise the already existing existing real aircraft the Typhoon.

Kind Regards walker

Hellfire257
Feb 17 2011, 12:04
Or buy the Rafale, which was a competitor to the F35 in the market.

http://aviamagazine.xs4all.nl/news/readnews.aspx?id=164

walker
Feb 17 2011, 12:14
Hi all

It apears that Rolls Royce its Partners and the UK governement have spent about 3 billion dollars on the project only for it to be axed.

Pissed off walker

DM
Feb 17 2011, 12:21
It therefore makes far more sense to navalise the already existing existing real aircraft the Typhoon.

You really do live in la-la-land dont you.

Rock has already explained, with comments from people currently involved in the eurofighter project that "navalising" the typhoon would involve re-building a HUGE portion of the fuselage. A task which is neither simple or cheap.

Navalising the Typhoon would take longer and cost more than buying JSF, how hard is it to get that into your head?

walker
Feb 17 2011, 12:23
Hi all

This also comes as Eurofighter anounces that the Eurofighter Naval version is now being developed.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef-world_1-2011.pdf

Kind Regards walker

da12thMonkey
Feb 17 2011, 12:25
It therefore makes far more sense to navalise the already existing existing real aircraft the Typhoon.


You think that funding the development and flight tests of a navalised Typhoon (which as stated numerous times; equates to a completely different airframe to the RAF's Tiffys) on our lonesome, makes financial sense when we'd only ever buy a handful? Have you been living under a rock while all of the MoD's current procurement programs have been slashed?

Even BAe know the UK can't afford it. They've been courting the Indian Navy with the idea; but it's more of a ploy to secure Typhoon for MRCA by suggesting that it's possible to have a common Indian Navy and AF jet - the Indians haven't been daft enough to take the idea seriously.

Christ, we're having enough trouble funding Typhoon Tranche 2 in the UK...

walker
Feb 17 2011, 12:32
Hi da12thMonkey

As I pointed out Eurofighter are already developing the navalised version. The JSF on the other hand is an expensive white elephant that does not exist, and the bloody aircraft carriers will be built long before the JSF, if it ever exists. As to customers for the naval Eurofighter the Indians certainly want it.

The difference is that the JSF is just a fantasy airframe where as the Eurofighter is in service.



Naval Eurofighter: An Aircraft Carrier Version Under Development
By Eurofighter GmgH on Friday, February 11th, 2011

The development of carrier aviation during the 20th century led to a dramatic paradigm shift in military capability. For the first time, navies had the ability to exert their influence far over the horizon – supporting land campaigns and allowing hostile fleets to be engaged from beyond the range of a battleship’s guns. From Pearl Harbor to more recent conflicts in the Falklands and the Middle East, the carrier and its aircraft provide commanders with an unrivaled ability to project military and political influence; several acres of sovereign territory which can be moved close to potential trouble spots at short notice.

Historically, carrier aircraft have been highly specialized and designed specifically for the role. In the majority of cases, there is little or no commonality between the aircraft operated by a nation’s air force, and the different aircraft performing the same role in the Navy. Design decisions taken in order to optimise an aircraft for carrier operations can lead to trade-offs elsewhere – such as additional weight and low-speed handling characteristics that compromise performance in other areas of the envelope.

A classic example today is the F-18 in all its versions, heavy, slow and not capable of facing the most advanced threats emerging around the world.

For a number of years, Eurofighter GmbH and its industrial partners have been studying the feasibility of adapting Eurofighter Typhoon for the naval role. These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers. The studies indicate that these changes are feasible, and would lead to the development of a world-beating, carrier-based fighter aircraft...
http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/
As Always follow the link to the original text in full

This is along with the Defense Procurement review ordered back July 2010 where the Naval Eurofighter was put back on the table due to the increasing cost and slipping delivery dates for the non existant JSF.

All in all it makes far more sense to pursue the existing Typhoon over the non existant JSF.

Kind Regards walker

DM
Feb 17 2011, 15:25
All in all it makes far more sense to pursue the existing Typhoon over the non existant JSF.

All in all, navalised Typhoon exists just as much as JSF does [according to you] i.e. -> it doesn't. Navalised Typhoon is just as much a fantasy as JSF apparently is...


What you fail to see with all your "its better becuase its not american" crap is that the navalised Typhoon exists only on paper and the internet. No real work has been done, and as Rock has said (and you have ignored time and time again) navalising the Typhoon will NOT be cheap, quick or easy.


If you think JSF is a waste of money, the money-sink black-hole that navalising the Typhoon will be, plus all the contract-breaking payouts that would have to be made, will dwarf it.

RKSL-Rock
Feb 17 2011, 15:54
Hi all

This also comes as Eurofighter anounces that the Eurofighter Naval version is now being developed.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef-world_1-2011.pdf

Kind Regards walker
As Da12thmonkey already pointed out its part of the sales pitch to the Indians.

Anyway after reading the magazine I've just rung a friend at BAE Systems EuroFighter and asked him. His response was

"If its a real engineering project its news to me".

He was the engineering design team leader for the empennage when i worked there. Hes now in charge of 5 design teams, still on Typhoon.

But since its an offical EuroFighter publication and not a random opinion piece I enquired further. So I rang another guy I know in International partnerships/sales support, his response was:
"Its speculative PR.
...
At this stage its just an expansion option we're offering to the Indians should they commit to the Typhoon for the MRCA. Just like the option of thrust vectoring...
...
Without the MRCA order any sort of Navalised development will stay in the realms of PR hype. There just isn't the money to develop it.
...
And to be honest I doubt it will ever happen. Right now we're doing everything we can to get export sales so we can keep the production lines open past 2015.

In this case I think the best phrase to cover this is "Don't believe everything you read in the press". This is sales propaganda. If the Indians bite then maybe it will happen. But I can promise you, it wont be cheap. The extra cost, I suspect, will make the Rafale seem very cheap. At which point i suspect thge Typhoon won't be the Indian's first choice.



All in all, navalised Typhoon exists just as much as JSF does [according to you] i.e. -> it doesn't. Navalised Typhoon is just as much a fantasy as JSF apparently is....
Actually the JSF F-35 has all three versions flying. In some cases, there are actually several airframes of each type. So it does actually exist. ;)

Just to emphasise DM's point here: The navailised Typhoon does not exist. At all. Not even a mockup. its just a few illustrations right now and a 350 page engineering report from 2005.

So F-35 is actually real and the Navalised Typhoon is not.

da12thMonkey
Feb 17 2011, 15:59
Hi da12thMonkey
As I pointed out Eurofighter are already developing the navalised version.


Quoting the article; this is the grand sum of naval typhoon's development:


For a number of years, Eurofighter GmbH and its industrial partners have been studying the feasibility of adapting Eurofighter Typhoon for the
naval role. These studies have included the assessment of required design changes, piloted simulations to refine the aircraft’s handling qualities and discussions with key suppliers.

Besides a few bits of artwork and simulation there is no physical development on any of the changes required to make a Typhoon carrier capable.



As to customers for the naval Eurofighter the Indians certainly want it.

Any sources on this? Everything I read from Aero India 2011 was dismissive of the idea of India actually funding development of the navy version without UK involvement.

India's 'request for information' on a navy Typhoon stems from when the UK was looking at it in the July procurement review. If we'd have gone for it India might be more inclined to participate; but as it stands they'll be going it alone - a less attractive prospect.

Its appearance at the show was as much about rationalising interest in Eurofighter for MMRCA:


If Typhoon wins MMRCA then India will have the indigenous skills to develop a navalised version," says Paul Hopkins, BAE Systems' vice-president business development (air) India. "This is a perfect opportunity for the nation to add aircraft with both land and sea capabilities."

It's a marketing ploy as much as anything.


The difference is that the JSF is just a fantasy airframe where as the Eurofighter is in service.

But a navy Typhoon would be a COMPLETELY different airframe to the current Typhoon; it's no less a fantasy than JSF in that respect. At least JSF has a flying prototype in carrier configuration.

Quoting the .pdf again:


In any discussion of a navalised Typhoon, the differences from the land-based aircraft are the natural focus. However, one should also focus on the similarities. A key design driver for a navalised Typhoon has been to maximise commonality between the two variants. Design changes are minimised, allowing for many spare parts and test equipment to be shared across a customer’s air force and navy fleets. The sensors, systems and weapons available to both variants will be common, allowing for a reduction in the aircrew training requirements. And in addition, the two variants will benefit from a common upgrade path – new capabilities will be available to both the air force and navy in similar timescales.

Spare parts, testing rigs, weapons and avionics. There's no mention of the airframe itself having any commonality; just the parts inside it. The article itself dodges the question of what differences between the types would be - suggesting to me that they would be extensive and costly.

One massive departure from the in-service Typhoon stated in the article, is that a navy version would require a TVC engine to allow for a reduction in the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads. As it stands, TVC for land-based Typhoon is an option, not a requirement; and as yet the member states of Eurofighter have been reluctant to fund development of TVC because of cost.

If we could afford to develop TVC for Eurojet ourselves, surely we'd be equally able to fund the F-136 option for JSF; which is your current excuse for shit-canning JSF for the RN.


This is along with the Defense Procurement review ordered back July 2010 where the Naval Eurofighter was put back on the table due to the increasing cost and slipping delivery dates for the non existant JSF.

Which was superseded by the Strategic Defence Spending Review of October 2010 where the MoD reorganised its commitment to getting a variant of the JSF. Between July and October they clearly realised that the navy Typhoon was a non-starter and have dismissed it outright.

Press for the navy Typhoon at Aero India stated that it was now squarely aiming at India for its sole market now.

We've even seen quotes from people who work on Eurofighter in this very forum courtesy of Rock; declaring that navy Typhoon wasn't a prospect for the UK. This conversation with Rock took place in August; again after the procurement review.


Edit:- took me ages to write this and Rock makes a much better one right before I finish... :(

walker
Feb 17 2011, 16:00
Hi DM

Well as the US has started cutting the UK share of that contract, the contract breaking is all down to the US. The UK cannot be held responsible for the failure of the JSF project, that is down to US and the internal failures in the project that are causing costs to spiral and promised delivery dates to slip.

Even the US Air Force is sceptical that the JSF can be delivered and a recent report highlights that less than 50% of the code for its software has actually been written (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/02/07/AW_02_07_2011_p25-287076.xml) and is not expected to ready for at least another 4 years and that is only for US release. The UK is sitting at the back of the queue and assuming that the JSF does not have anymore major failures like the cracked airframes in the test aircraft that were reported this year the earliest we could now expect a JSF is 2020.

And this for a white elephant that has already reached 50% cost over runs, who knows what its costs will be by 2020, assuming it will be ready by then. The JSF is just too expensive for not much bang for your buck.

It just makes far better sense to use this opportunity created by the US decision to dump Rolls Royce, to switch to a tried and tested airframe like the already existing Typhoon. More importantly the UK is already committed to buying Tranche 3 of the Typhoon and switching that to a navalised version would nicely fill that commitment as well as save the UK Billions of pounds on the JSF white elephant.

Kind Regards walker

SgtH3nry3
Feb 17 2011, 18:09
@<hidden>: The USDOD and the US air industry has been trying to kill off as many European contracts since the Marshall plan.

Independency of external suppliers and licencors has been the priority of the United States military since the end of the Second World War. The (west of) EU is slowly reforming in to a single military bloc, it's aerospace industry is rapidly growing. It's obvious the US is doing everything to push it's own aerospace industry.

I haven't been following new developments around the extermination of external arms industry since 2006. But I do know the US has killed off most of the American-Dutch projects done by Stork Aerospace during the takeover by Candover. And a couple of years later they tried to deliver a final blow when the Dutch government declared they had doubts about the JSF.

I'm pretty sure the same is happening to Rolls-Royce at the moment. And that's why I'm glad to see the UK, Germany and France willing to cooperate more in the arms industry.

The Eurofighter may or may not cost more in maintenance, but the UK is already familiar with it. Not to mention they simulate their own economy.

DM
Feb 17 2011, 18:18
switching that to a navalised version would nicely fill that commitment as well as save the UK Billions of pounds
:j:

And where do you think the money to navalise the Typhoon comes from? Its not as simple as just slapping a different coat of paint on it. Huge segments of the aircraft need to be re-designed. And for a small order that would shoot the unit costs through the roof.

Tell me, are you really that dumb, or does your blind hatred for the us just lead you to post dumb things?

walker
Feb 17 2011, 19:35
Hi DM

I do not and never have resented or hated the USA, heck I even based a company there, but I do however resent your aspersions, which you seem to cast around with gay abandon in place of logical or reasoned argument.

I have however said as have many others that the JSF is a white elephant. If you are involved in its development then either grow a tougher skin or get out of the kitchen, even US representatives and Air Force Personnel think it is a waste of money. So I am not the only one saying these things.

I am from the UK my first duty in matters of national interest is to the country I was born in, and to ensuring its economy and security come first.

If you think that the UK does not rate this, then say it.

If the USA and the Lockheed consortium are failing to live up to their end of the JSF bargain and breaking their contracts, then it obviously makes sense for the sake of UK Jobs, the UK economy and UK security to take our money and invest it in the products that give the UK the best possible results.

I also understand that Canada want to swap to the Eurofighter because of the jobs it is set to loose due the USA and the Lockheed consortium renaging on contracts that were due to go to Canada.

Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems has said that much of requirments for a Navalised Typhoon are already there and that BAE and the rest of the Eurofighter group are actively engaged in its development for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon project.

Hense the interest from India.

BAE INTRODUCES A NAVALIZED TYPHOON OPTION

While the competition between six international aircraft manufacturers moves on, some of the competitors are already looking a step further, positioning their respective platforms addressing possible interest from the Indian Navy. The Super Hornet F/A-18E/F from Boeing and French Rafale from Dassault are already operational on board U.S. and French carriers, while the MiG-35 could be matched with the MiG-29K model the Indian Navy already operates. That leaves the Lockheed Martin F-16IN, Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon in a disadvantage.

Well… Things may change quite soon, according to BAE Systems. The company has anticipated this, highlighting at its display a navalized version of the Typhoon, utilizing few of the Tranche 3 features, such as thrust vector nozzles, conformal fuel tanks, and spoilers at the leading edge wing roots, designed to minimize landing speed. Unlike the Super Hornet and Rafale using catapult launch which requires significant strengthening of the landing gear and airframe, Typhoon is considered for ‘ski-jump’ equipped carriers only (like QE2 and India’s future indigenous carriers).

According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized Typhoon’ show the aircraft can takeoff and land with full mission payload, including two ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles, four BVR missiles, two short range missiles, a centerline fuel tank and two conformal fuel tanks – something no other navalized aircraft can perform. A navalized Typhoon will be new built aircraft, fitted with strengthened airframe and landing gear. The British decision to switch from STOVL F-35B to F-35C conventional take off Lightning could pave the road for reconsideration of use Navalized Typhoons by the Royal Navy, on QE-2 aircraft carriers...
http://defense-update.com/wp/20110210_naval_typhoon.html
As allways follow the link to the original text

If the Lockheed JSF consortium can not cope in a competetive environment then they are not a suitable aircraft supplier for the Royal Navy to use.

And for the UK a Typhoon option would also mean exports, both to India, Canada and any other countries that decide the JSF is too much of a white elephant.

Regards walker

DM
Feb 17 2011, 20:33
which you seem to cast around with gay abandon
Its the internet, home of gay abandon ;)


in place of logical or reasoned argument.
Kinda like what could be said about your naval Typhoon fantasies then?


I have however said as have many others that the JSF is a white elephant.
Never doubted that (infact, find where I said it wasnt and I'll give you a cookie). Show me a modern development/procurement project that isnt...


If you are involved in its development
Nope.


I am from the UK
So am I, what of it?


matters of national interest is to the country I was born in, and to ensuring its economy and security come first.
And the billions wasted on JSF and the cost on top of that in navalising the Typhoon would be money well spent? Out of interest, how much do you think it would cost to navalise the Typhoon?


If you think that the UK does not rate this, then say it.
We haven't rated in the aviation industry since Labour raped the TSR-2.


Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems has said that much of requirments for a Navalised Typhoon are already there and that BAE and the rest of the Eurofighter group are actively engaged in its development for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon project.
Ooooh, the head of PR said it, so it must be true :j: On one hand we've got all the internet/press PR, saying naval Typhoon is mere seconds away from being ready. On the other hand we've got Rocks' contact, who is a project manager on the Typhoon, and he lol's in your general direction. I know who I'm inclined to believe...

Do you believe everything you read on the internet? If you do, I've totally developed a cure for cancer, I've got various health services interested, but I need a backer. I'll have my Nigerian bank manger email you the details if you're interested. ;)

SgtH3nry3
Feb 18 2011, 08:17
:j:

And where do you think the money to navalise the Typhoon comes from? Its not as simple as just slapping a different coat of paint on it. Huge segments of the aircraft need to be re-designed. And for a small order that would shoot the unit costs through the roof.

Tell me, are you really that dumb, or does your blind hatred for the us just lead you to post dumb things?The biggest problem with a navalized version of the Typhoon is that the UK would be the only interested party.

France still relies on it's own aerospace industry, which I think on the long-term could be dangerous to them. Especially when competing with companies like the Russian UAC, the (West-)European EADS and the US Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.

Unless France, Italy or Spain (or India, even though they have other aspirations) with it's relatively small naval airforce will join this project, I don't think modernizing is a good plan at all. Not in these times of austerities. I doubt that the likely inevitable budget increases could never be justified.
They way it looks to me, the EF Consortium would be better off selling more regular Typhoons to armed forces of upcoming economics like the Balkan (incl. Greece and Turkey), Baltic states, Scandinavia, Brazil, South-Africa, Canada, etc.

As for TVC, I wouldn't count on it. Since the Tranche 3 project has been postponed, I'm afraid this just adds to the already expensive must-have feature list.
And the billions wasted on JSFDon't forget those billions were also used behind our (people and governments outside of the US) backs to kill off contracts like the F-136 and various Stork Aerospace projects (mainly VSTOL and software) in favor of Pratt & Whitney and Northrup-Grumman.

KilKenny
Feb 18 2011, 09:03
F-35B, silent Hornet and now... the navalized Typhoon. Oh my.

The ability with which the US&UK defense industry has managed to sell, not one, not two, but THREE different vaporwares to British governments, is staggering.

How much has the British taxpayer already spent on these vaporwares over those past years ?
And what do you have so far ?
Nothing...

How is it that everybody on this island seems to have his eyes riveted across the Atlantic, when proven solutions already exist less than 50 miles off their coasts ?

Make the future british and french carriers sister-ships.
Put Marine Rafales on them (there might even be enough money to develop the navalized two-seater version).
And let's start builing a european defence industry together.

But i'm fearing most Royal Navy senior officials would rather rot in hell than buy french gear.

Really it is amazing how thousand-years old atavisms can still ruin some pretty smart peoples' reasoning.

Which is not the case for some RAF pilots :
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/334383/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale.html

I'm not saying it's the best plane ever, but IT DOES EXIST, in this navy version... and is available for quick production and partnership. Has this option been seriously considered, ever ?

Tankbuster
Feb 18 2011, 09:07
But i'm fearing most Royal Navy senior officials would rather rot in hell than buy french gear.

Really it is amazing how thousand-years old atavisms can still ruin some pretty smart peoples' reasoning.



I fear you're right, but the Marine Nationale are not all that keen either.

RKSL-Rock
Feb 18 2011, 09:59
The biggest problem with a navalized version of the Typhoon is that the UK would be the only interested party...

That's part of what makes Walker's theory so funny. The UK government doesn't want the Navalised Typhoon. They never have. To cancel the F-35 would undermine the "special relationship" with the US and close a door for UK businesses into their markets.

The Royal Navy said they preferred the F-35 option over the Typhoon pretty much from day one as it gives them interoperability with the USMC and USN out of the box. Not too mention independence from the RAF and an aircraft that will still have an operational life 10+ years after the Typhoon's useable life expires.

The only way we would get any sort of navalised Typhoon is if the F-35 project is cancelled stateside first and the Indian's agree to share the development costs of both the navalisation and the TVC engine. Two conditions that i don't think will ever happen.

Industry gossip and rumours after the recent Aero India expo suggests that the naval capability is an "ideal option" intended to bring the growth capabilities of the Typhoon out above the Rafale's naval flexability. But a lack of carrier capability is not a deal killer.

After yesterday's phone calls I've gotten a proper explanation via email from my friend, the Engineering Design Business Manager.


...from what I have found out that article is just PR hot air. The engineering they are relying upon comes from the 2005 BAE study and its funding comes from the sales budget. Draw your own conclusions from that if you will.

Talking to [International Partnerships] would be your best bet but the general feel around here is that nothing will happen until the Indians sign on the dotted line...

There is no dedicated work being done in any design team at Salmesbury or Warton that I know of...

So I think that confirms it. Its just another hook to snag the MRCA contract... If it happens based on what I found for you last year it would cost at least another £22-27 million per aircraft if we converted all 150+ RAF FGR4s. Higher if they just give the RN 40 of them for conversion. And around £280 million on NRC [Non Recurring Costs] jigs and tooling... And trust me there is no budget for it and the RAF don't want it so it wont happen unless there is absolutely no alternative.

For a new build with a 200 airframe order, it would add about £8-14 million to the existing price per airframe and £280-£320 million in NRC [Non Recurring Costs] but you can probably add another £100 million due to the Indian's insistence that some of the aircraft be assembled in India. And about 10-20% of components as offset, something you know yourself will be virtually impossible. Their own composites capability is very limited.

So that's from the horse's mouth. While i do think the MRCA order would be fantastic for the UK's defence industry. It would certainly safeguard BAE Samlesbury and other EuroFighter related plants around the world, I don't think the Naval capability will come about. India is really the only customer. And as any air force will tell you, its a very expensive business being the first customer for a new design. Its entry into service can take many years. Far longer than originally planned.

Having read that MRCA requirements overview again and some press from the recent Aero expo I'm confident it will not happen. They asked for mature/proven types with growth capability. I cant see them overturning the existing Mig-29K contracts, and replacing them with Naval Typhoons. I personally only see this as a calculated PR move to kill off the only advantage the Rafale has over the Typhoon in the MRCA competition at this time. It maybe a bit cynical but unless India is willing to fund its development nothing will change its just a business manager's wet dream.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------


...I'm not saying it's the best plane ever, but IT DOES EXIST, in this navy version... and is available for quick production and partnership. Has this option been seriously considered, ever ?




Yes it was and it was discounted on several grounds

Unit Purchase Cost.
Rafale is very expensive to run. The French Navy are struggling to fund it and continue its development.
No technology transfer - Every export deal offer by France so far has come with massive restrictions or conditions.
No assembly or components are made in the UK at all. - Manufacturing offset is a huge part of aircraft sales.
Incompatible data and targetting systems.
Cost to adapt the UK's arsenal to work on it. (They refused everyone access to the software to integrate non French weapons themselves. You need to pay them for it)
Cost of buying French made weapons. (Paveway kits are cheaper than French LGB's)
Cost to bring the comms in-line with UK requirements.
Estimated time to bring Rafales into UK naval service: 2018 according to flight International and some tabloids a few years ago.

DM
Feb 18 2011, 11:07
Inb4 walker ignores the above post :j:

KilKenny
Feb 18 2011, 13:01
Yes it was and it was discounted on several grounds

Unit Purchase Cost.
Rafale is very expensive to run. The French Navy are struggling to fund it and continue its development.
No technology transfer - Every export deal offer by France so far has come with massive restrictions or conditions.
No assembly or components are made in the UK at all. - Manufacturing offset is a huge part of aircraft sales.
Incompatible data and targetting systems.
Cost to adapt the UK's arsenal to work on it. (They refused everyone access to the software to integrate non French weapons themselves. You need to pay them for it)
Cost of buying French made weapons. (Paveway kits are cheaper than French LGB's)
Cost to bring the comms in-line with UK requirements.
Estimated time to bring Rafales into UK naval service: 2018 according to flight International and some tabloids a few years ago.


That is interesting, thank you...

I'd thought the buying cost to be equivalent or just slightly higher than the Hornet, and as the Rafale is now an old design, the research and tooling cost should be covered by now for Dassault, even though the french army & navy bought much less planes than initially expected (on a side note, Dassault's claim at the time, that the Rafale's development was only on the comany's funds was quite comical).

After researching a bit, there actually seems to have been discussions in 2010 on this purchase between the British and french governments.

Would it be that the brits got such a bad deal ? I'm puzzled.
Dassault and the french government have all interests in giving the best conditions in this deal.

If i recall correctly, the Brazilians had obtained, in their aborted deal, all the technology transfer they wanted, and even their own production line. So i doubt the UK could get worst conditions (on the other side it's a much smaller deal). And the UK dont need all the technology transfers the Brazilians did...

The weapons & comms system upgrades are very probably a big part of the problem, so is the maintenance cost. On the other hand, the french navy has 20+ planes only, so that puts the development costs per unit off the roof... it would be a great occasion for them to mutualize the development of their future versions.

The delay is another problem, 2018 seems huge if the ships are to enter service in 2013...

Or maybe the french navy finally decided it was payback time for Merz-el Kebir after all... ;) (i can assure you they ARE still quite resentful...)

RKSL-Rock
Feb 18 2011, 16:41
That is interesting information, thank you...

I'd thought the buying cost to be equivalent or just slightly higher than the Hornet, and as the Rafale is now an old design, the research and tooling cost should be covered by now for Dassault, even though the french army & navy bought much less planes than initially expected (on a side note, Dassault's claim at the time, that the Rafale's development was only on the comany's funds was quite comical).

It depends on the logic you use I guess. When the French government offered the Rafale previously its either been part of a larger deal or came with rather hefty trade conditions. Ie you have to spend X Euros with French business within the next 10 years as part of this deal. This has proven to be a deal breaker with some nations. Libya took one look at the package that came with the Rafale and said no thank you. It seems that the conditions included being tied into buying French APC's, weapons etc when they came to replace their BTRs and other aging systems.

Defence deals are often very shady so the actual terms rarely surface in the public media. But, it has been suggested by the aerospace press that, the French government and Dassault are also seeking to recover the majority of their own development and support costs from export sales, rather than amortising them over the longer terms. This usually involves a premium added to the cost of each aircraft and a buy in fee. Which makes the Rafale even more expensive.

Add to that the "economy of scale" issues. As with anything else in manufacturing. Its actually cheaper to make larger batches of products. Place an order for 100 planes and it may cost you £50,000,000 a plane. Order a 1000 it may cost you £25,000,000. But the French have been accused - by some - of disregarding the scale issues and padding the price with premiums to pay for their own budget shortfalls. I doubt there is any real proof but the figures that get leaked about export offers don't always add up in the eyes of some industry experts.


After researching a bit, there actually seems to have been discussions in 2010 on this purchase between the British and french governments.
Got any links? I've seen the ones on the Wikipage but it doesn't really show any sources.

I ask because I was under the impression there wasn't a serious request made. Just the usual posturing and suggestions by the idiots in Westminster and Whitehall implying that if the US didn't stop dicking about with Technology Transfer laws there was an alternative to F-35 in Typhoon and Rafale. From what I understood at the time, the French replied with blank slightly confused looks. Almost as though it was news to them. And the mainline Aviation media regarded the news as a bit laughable.


Would it be that the brits got such a bad deal ? I'm puzzled.
Dassault and the french government have all interests in giving the best conditions in this deal.

If i recall correctly, the Brazilians had obtained, in their aborted deal, all the technology transfer they wanted, and even their own production line. So i doubt the UK could get worst conditions (on the other side it's a much smaller deal). And the UK dont need all the technology transfers the Brazilians do...
The Brazilian concessions were really only for the assembly lines. Airframes would have been made into kits and shipped for assembly. Only smaller C class parts would be made indigenously. It was one of the reasons it was 'aborted' that and the corruption claims. But it looks like the Gripen NG will be the brazillian F-X2 winner. Their offset deal is very impressive. And its not just limited to the Brazillain production run. It will include all future sales too. Which is very impressive for these sorts of numbers.

And here comes the economy of scale issue again. Unlike the Brazilian defence package deal, which included lots of other equipment not just the Rafales. We were only looking at, 30-70 planes (The RAF stated if F-3 was cancelled they would buy more Typhoons leaving only the RN requirement) it wasn't economic to open a new production line. It was the same issue for Libya, the production numbers make it very expensive. And unlike the Brazil we wouldn't be looking to buy any more French made kit. Which of course drives the price up.

The tech transfers would/could also be a huge issue. Historically (Airbus/Sepecat/Aerospatiale & Westland) the French have been very happy to accept tech from partners but very slow in reciprocating. The Rafale uses a proprietary and very novel but expensive composite forming technique. Something that produces very high quality and consistent very complex shapes. But so far they have steadfastly refused to license it to anyone outside of France.

Material tech is also subject to very strong limits. And Dassault have been the subject of claims by BAE, Boeing and Lockheed about the exact nature of their composites. Something the French governments are quick to dismiss and brush out of sight. So lots of gossip and conspiracy theories there.


The weapons & comms system upgrades are very probably a big part of the problem, so is the maintenance cost. On the other hand, the french navy has 20+ planes only, so that puts the development costs off the roof... it would be a great occasion for them to mutualize the development of their future versions.
It is a massive issue, especially when you look at what the UK MoD is doing with all UK assets. The entire range of comms kit is getting a lot of attention. Something I think Da12thmonkey can also verify.

Currently maintenance is a huge issue with the Rafales. Especially the engines. Its actually in the same levels as the 30+ year old Jaguar fleet. Reports vary but the average is for every single hour of flight time it needs over 30-35 man hours of maintenance.

Just for comparison (figures are from Sept 09 Flight International:
Mig-29k - ~25 hours
F-22A - ~25-35 hours (Its supposed to be less than 20 but they have serious issues with the engines and skins)
F-18E/F - ~15-20 hours
Typhoon - ~12-16hours

PLEASE NOTE: You should also be aware that there are in depth services at intervals after so many flying hours. These intervals vary between type and complexity. So do affect availability and cost.


The delay is another problem, 2018 seems huge if the ships are to enter service in 2013...

Or maybe the french navy finally decided it was payback time for Merz-el Kebir after all... (i can assure you they ARE still quite resentful...)
2013? We'll be lucky if we have a hull in the water by 2015 at this rate :)

I'm not sure who did the initial estimate, but i'm sure is wasn't the UK MoD. I think it was Flight international but the estimate in 2006 was:
1-2 years of legal wrangling to get out of F-35.
2 years to get the deal rolling
2-3 years to see the first aircraft come out of jig and on the flight line.
2-3 years for conversion and Type acceptance trials.
2 years for Operational Conversion
1 year before the first Squadron stood ready.

Worst case ~2018 which is when the CVF and F-35 should have entered service. Initial estimates by the press put the cost at £1.5 billion over the cost of the current F-35 contract due to legal issues. So probably not worth trashing the relationship with the US over.

walker
Feb 18 2011, 17:05
Hi RKSL-Rock

Any Relationship is a two way street, unless you think otherwise and would enlighten us.

The 3 Billion Dollars taken from the Rolls Royce consortium contract of the JSF project has kind of screwed the UK over and it is not the first case with the JSF project. A more recent estimate of savings to the UK of a switch a navalised Typhoon previous to that 3 Billion dollar Rolls Royce consortium contract being axed by the US was about 5 Billion pounds with the additions from this contract reneging by the US and the Lockheed consortium the savings to the UK of a switch to the navalised Typhoon as around 10 Billion pounds.

You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

Can I just double check, you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?

As others have noted in this thread, and is widely known from other sources, the US uses its governmental arms to enact and enable a degree of hegemony in its economic and business relations including I am afraid in the "Special Relationship" in fact a perusal of US opinion including that in certain sources, of the "Special Relationship" is that no such thing exists other than in the minds of certain people in the UK.

In fact the "Special Relationship" is largely seen by those in the US as a tool to maintain US national interests.

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Feb 18 2011, 17:49
Hi RKSL-Rock

Any Relationship is a two way street, unless you think otherwise and would enlighten us.
Oh hostility, great way to open a post.


The 3 Billion Dollars taken from the Rolls Royce consortium contract has kind of screwed the UK over and it is not the first case with the JSF project. As others have noted in this thread, and is widely known from other sources, the US uses its governmental arms to enact and enable a degree of hegemony in its economic and business relations including I am afraid in the "Special Relationship" in fact a perusal of US opinion including that in certain sources, of the "Special Relationship" is that no such thing exists other than in the minds of certain people in the UK.

Kind Regards walker

Ok you are really trying to mix two issues into one here but I'll try my best to reply constructively.

Specifically relating to the Engines.
In light of the UK's change from the F-35B to the C its not a surprise that the F136 was cancelled. Some people in the US are choosing to see the switch from F-35B to C as a slap in the face for the US. Others are being somewhat more pragmatic. The change has actually increased costs for the F-35B to the point that the USMC may not be able to justify it. As a result its made the bean counters and their masters take another look at the programme's finances.

When the JSF programme first started it was understood by all parties that either engine could be cancelled. The side by side development of competing engines was supposed to help drive each company to innovate and develop the best engine for the best price. Now given the threats by the UK, USAF, USN and partner nations to either cancel or reduce orders. And the huge spending cuts across the entire F-35 project the development of a 2nd engine is somewhat extravagant. Something had to go and one of the engines was very obvious candidate for cancellation.

Depending on how nationalistic you are, you could see it as a punishment handed down to Britain for "screwing over" the USMC and Lockheed over the F-35B. But rationally its a very logical move. And given the state of the world economy etc Cancelling the engine that is 50% non-American isn't a huge surprise. They want to keep the money in their own country as much as we do.

I dont see how you can say the money was "taken" from the General Electric/Rolls Royce consoirtium. That money that went into the F-136 development as part of a private finance deal with the UK and US governments. It was also part of the UK's Tier 1 partnership agreement. We agreed, when our government signed the contracts, to a certain degree of risk as part of that contract. Yes it sucks, some of my friends working at Rolls Royce may lose their jobs. But its not a surprise to any of them. Or many people in the industry. But it has been a terrible waste of money. This decision should have happened sooner but politics kept it alive and allowed the spending of even more money despite the finance guys saying "we need to chose an engine".

The decision was made for economic and practical reasons. It was horribly late coming but it needed to happen if the F-35 programme was to continue. Complaining about it when we cant do anything about it is just wasting time and energy.

Now the political bit:
I'll be honest, I don't really like the "Special Relationship" we keep hearing about. Its a bit too much like a Master and Dog scenario for me. Far too one sided for my tastes. Blair has a lot to answer for in my opinion. But, no matter how much I dislike it as a nation we are rather dependant on the US for trade and resources. No matter how you spin it our two countries are tied together no matter what happens in the short term. Personally I think we (UK) should be more involved in Europe. But that will take time.

And pursuing this line of debate is just taking us further off topic than we already are. ;)

walker
Feb 18 2011, 17:57
Hi RKSL-Rock

Actualy our trade relationship is primarily with Europe.


United Kingdom: Germany 14.2%, US 8.6%, China 7.3%, Netherlands 7.3%, France 6.9%, Belgium 4.7%, Norway 4.7%, Italy 4.2%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_imp_par-economy-imports-partners

By the way I must have been editing as you posted.

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Feb 18 2011, 18:01
Hi RKSL-Rock

Actualy our trade relationship is primarily with Europe.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_imp_par-economy-imports-partners

By the way I must have been editing as you posted.

Kind Regards walker

Either way UK-US trade is significant and this is really just picking at points. Its not really on topic anymore is it.

DM
Feb 18 2011, 19:11
If you are involved in its development
(Aimed at me)


you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?
I love it, anyone who doesnt agree with you that navalised Typhoon is the best thing since sliced bread clearly HAS to work for Lockheed Martin, right?

Awesome. :yay:

---------- Post added at 21:11 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ----------


You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

And you seem to forget that navalising the Typhoon won't be cheap.

Or can you please enlighten us as to how modifying the landing gear, re-designing the wing to fuselage connection brackets, incorporating a heavier rear sub frame for hook mounts, redesigning the centre frames and major structural strengthening throughout can be rolled up in the money already spent on tranche 3?

RKSL-Rock
Feb 18 2011, 20:17
Hi RKSL-Rock

Any Relationship is a two way street, unless you think otherwise and would enlighten us.

The 3 Billion Dollars taken from the Rolls Royce consortium contract of the JSF project has kind of screwed the UK over and it is not the first case with the JSF project. A more recent estimate of savings to the UK of a switch a navalised Typhoon previous to that 3 Billion dollar Rolls Royce consortium contract being axed by the US was about 5 Billion pounds with the additions from this contract reneging by the US and the Lockheed consortium the savings to the UK of a switch to the navalised Typhoon as around 10 Billion pounds.

You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

Can I just double check, you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?

As others have noted in this thread, and is widely known from other sources, the US uses its governmental arms to enact and enable a degree of hegemony in its economic and business relations including I am afraid in the "Special Relationship" in fact a perusal of US opinion including that in certain sources, of the "Special Relationship" is that no such thing exists other than in the minds of certain people in the UK.

In fact the "Special Relationship" is largely seen by those in the US as a tool to maintain US national interests.

Kind Regards walker

God when you do an edit you really do go to town don't you. All these editions were down to typos and Butter fingers!?!


Can I just double check, you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?
No I do not. And if you are suggesting i'm biased, don't bother. My own personal views on the F-35 programme are well documented in this very thread.

I have had precisely 4 contract business dealings with them and 4 job interviews but i have never actually worked for Lockheed directly.


You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.
OK I'm going to respond to that with a few questions. I know its rude but I find your lack of realisation and understanding to be unbelievable.

Do you realise what the Tranche 3 Commitment actually means?
Do you know/understand what a "Design Lead time is?"
Do you realise that a Design study does not equal a completed design?
Where do you think the money would come from to Navalise them?

And finally a statement:
The design changes required to convert the Typhoon to either a CATOBAR or Ski Jump capable aircraft are huge. So significant that it could not be done with the existing tooling.

The "design study" is not a complete set of detailed drawings required to convert the airframe. It is a simple over view document that looks at the existing design and tries to estimate the changes required to convert the design based on some assumed figures. There really is no practical engineering involved. just a lot of very informed guesses on the part of a few stress and dynamics engineers sat in the Tech building (Last I was there it was a large porta-cabin) at Salmesbury.

Seriously Walker get real. They don't have a set of plans ready to pop into a magical machine to churn out these Navalised Tranche 3 fighters. It takes time. For dog's sake when I worked at Salmesbury in '99 I was involved in assembling the first few forward fuselages and fins. Even then we were still actually designing the bits that went into them. And that was nearly 14 years after design had started. At times by the time we actually got a part it had been superseded. Sometimes twice. Any Navalisation design work would take at least 4-6 years to get out of CATIA and onto the machines. Let alone the assembly jigs. And without the MMRCA order the production lines will be ripped up and stored in late 2015.

I promise you unless the stars and planets align, the Indian's find a pot of gold down the back of the sofa and agrees to finance both the redesign of the airframe and the EJ200 TVC then it wont happen.

DMarkwick
Feb 18 2011, 23:13
If the MOD wishes to save a shitload of money then I wonder why they don't drop the ridiculous Trident system. :)

TechnoTerrorist303
Feb 19 2011, 05:55
If the MOD wanted to save a shitload of money there are a very large number of places they could do it. Unfortunately the people conducting the investigation into where cuts should be made have a vested interest in keeping their own departments.
Let's not turn this thread into an argument about whether we need to drop Trident or not...

I'm amazed that this thread is still going, I started it as a seemingly innocent post about an article I'd read...
I'm also amazed that Rock manages to get shit thrown at him in almost every thread he posts in.

DM
Feb 19 2011, 08:32
I'm also amazed that Rock manages to get shit thrown at him in almost every thread he posts in.

People don't like the truth, and Rock mostly posts it.

Disclaimer: I post "mostly" because I haven't done the relevant research in order to say "always" :P

LEGION7698
Feb 19 2011, 09:14
The other advantage of people disagreeing with Rock is that he then posts more info to back his side. It means we end up with info we otherwise wouldn't know about so thanks Rock I've found the info from you very interesting.

Regards,

LEGION7698.

Tankbuster
Feb 19 2011, 09:47
People don't like the truth, and Rock mostly posts it.

http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4759799/You-Want-The-Truth-You-cant-handle-the-truth.jpg

RKSL-Rock
Feb 19 2011, 10:29
...
I'm also amazed that Rock manages to get shit thrown at him in almost every thread he posts in.
Welcome to my world :D


People don't like the truth, and Rock mostly posts it.

Disclaimer: I post "mostly" because I haven't done the relevant research in order to say "always" :P
Cheeky git. :cool:

Baff1
Feb 22 2011, 12:09
Hi RKSL-Rock

Actualy our trade relationship is primarily with Europe.



Loss making trade doesn't count.

We trade at a defecit with Europe and a surplus with America.


The money we spend in the EU, is earnt in America. We make double our yearly trade deficit to the EU from trading with the U.S.A.



If we stopped trading with the EU completely (or employed protectionism) we would become richer. It is the single least important trade area we are partnered with. It's not just the one we could most afford to lose, it is one that we would actually most benefit from losing.

Of the markets that we sell to that we make money on... America is the biggest. Making it the single most important trading partner to this country.

walker
Feb 22 2011, 12:23
Hi Baff1

Could you provide a source for your statement?

Kind Regards walker

Baff1
Feb 22 2011, 12:29
Bah I could've about 30 secs ago!

After a handful of minutes searching, the best I had found were 2005 figures.

I didn't find any for this year besides the EU trade deficit ones, which are pretty easy to Google. Finding sources for Extra EU trade gaps was a lot more obscure.


But it's common sense really, once you recognise we have a trade defecit with the EU (and also China, Japan and Russia) it becomes obvious that we must be making the foreign currency we pay them with elsewhere.

The worlds largest economy, naturally, is the first place to look.

walker
Feb 22 2011, 13:45
Hi Baff1

Well I am sorry but your common sense is based in some alternate reality.

UK exports to the US is primarily sweet crude Oil, this is because the primary US supplier of crude oil is Saudi Arabia and the oil they provide is sour, lots of sulphur and other nasties that screw up the refineries. Historically the US refining industry is based on a West Texas Intermediate oil feedstock. Using Saudi Arabian oil in these refineries requires expensive major refits so they mix Brent Crude with the Saudi Oil to make it cheaper and easier to refine.

The up to date statistics of UK trade are available to all via the UK statistics office. As it is apparent you are not aware of this site or its navigation this is where you start:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=5518

You then need to compare our Intra Eu trade with the US portion of our Extra EU trade.

I do not know what your level of economics and business education is but you need to look at the time series data and the summaries.

To make it easier though you can visit this site which I linked before, but this a more complete set of stats on which to base your argument:
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/eco-economy&all=1

Then look at our trade balance with the US

Trade balance with US -$1,454,200,000.00
Notice the negative figure which kind of blows your argument out of the water.

This page gives a link to the Pink Book of the Balance of Payments which I think may be where your figures came from, they are the UK's Current account, remember you need the historical data to understand the full economics of a country, but for a UK statistics office page its reports are a little easier to understand.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=1140

If you want to argue off a single year then in 2009 we had a 3% positive balance of payments with the US
and 2% negative balance with the EU supporting your argument! but as the EU has over 50% of our trade and the US amounts to less than 20% the figures you are using are in need of adjusting. And as always you need to look at the figures over several years to get any meaningful data. And no matter how you work it in that year alone more than 50% of UK export jobs relied on the EU.

Here is the zip of the Pink Book for 2010 look at section 3.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/pinkbook2010.zip

This Wiki page will help you understand what a BOP is and is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

And from this you will perhaps be able to see why the figures you are perceiving are incomplete.

Kind Regards walker

Baff1
Feb 22 2011, 15:49
Hi Baff1

Well I am sorry but your common sense is based in some alternate reality.

I do not know what your level of economics and business education is but you need to look at the time series data and the summaries.

If you want to argue off a single year then in 2009 we had a 3% positive balance of payments with the US
and 2% negative balance with the EU supporting your argument! but as the EU has over 50% of our trade and the US amounts to less than 20% the figures are need adjusting. And as always you need to look at the figures over several years to get any meaningful data. And no matter how you work it in that year alone more than 50% of UK export jobs relied on the EU.


Kind Regards walker




Making a profit on 20% of our trade is more important than making loss on 50% of it.

In general we like the profits to be on the large figures, and the losses to be the small figures, not the otherway round.

There is no point of trading at all if you are going to make a loss. You would be wealthier if you sat on your arse and picked your nose instead.

Sorry if that's too alternative for you.
Sorry if that's a little bit over-educated for you.


I'm not intrested in paying people in the UK to make a loss for me. I don't need to employ anyone for that. I can do it all by myself.
If your job relies upon the UK making a loss, please apply for jobs with our competition instead. I'm sure they will be very grateful of your contribution even if we are not.

walker
Feb 22 2011, 15:53
Hi all

In the mean time and on the subject of the thread, the JSF continues to decline while the Eurofighter seems to be in the ascendant:

Battling US for huge deal, Eurofighter woos Japan
By ERIC TALMADGE
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 22, 2011; 7:04 AM

TOKYO -- In a deal that could be worth billions of dollars and determine one of the primary fighter jets in Asia for decades to come, European aircraft makers are trying to convince Japan to do something it has never done before - snub America.

U.S. planes have long been Tokyo's overwhelming favorite, but Japan appears to be wobbling under a strong sales pitch for the Eurofighter Typhoon, coupled with problems and restrictions that have made the American alternatives less attractive.

The stakes are high.

The contract is expected to be worth upward of $10 billion, and the chosen plane will be the showcase aircraft for Washington's chief ally in the region at a time when both China and Russia are modernizing their air forces. Going European, some analysts say, also could complicate future U.S.-Japan air defense cooperation.

Lobbying has intensified as Japan nears a long-delayed decision on what will be its next generation of fighters, or "F-X" fighters, after it retires much of its current fleet. The deal is expected to involve 40 or 50 new planes.

Because of Japan's close military ties with Washington, options such as the Lockheed F-35 and Boeing F/A-18 have long been the top contenders, and analysts say the U.S. advantage remains strong.

But the four-country consortium that builds the Eurofighter is benefiting from a tail wind created by the U.S. decision not to sell Japan what it really wanted - the stealthy F-22 "Raptor" - and by production delays and cost overruns that have shadowed the F-35...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022201393.html
As always follow the link to the original article in full

With so many export markets declining the JSF project and even the US slashing it and with so many preferring the proven Typhoon the cost of the navalised version will decline making it even more sensible for the UK to choose.

As it stands the JSF is far more costly than the Typhoon with additional customers and export money from them the navalised Typhoon is becoming the obvious choice for the UK navy.

Kind Regards walker

NoRailgunner
Feb 22 2011, 17:34
At Aero India 2011 Eurofighter and partner company BAE Systems unveiled for the first time more details about the studies carried out for the initial definition of the navalised version of the Typhoon....if you like read the rest of this press release on Eurofighter.com:
http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011.html


Its just talk and usual marketing blabla while all participants are still searching for their best deal...
Btw how many media/political "experts" are just lobbying? ;)

DM
Feb 22 2011, 20:38
With so many export markets declining the JSF project and even the US slashing it and with so many preferring the proven Typhoon the cost of the navalised version will decline making it even more sensible for the UK to choose.

As it stands the JSF is far more costly than the Typhoon with additional customers and export money from them the navalised Typhoon is becoming the obvious choice for the UK navy.

Herp-a-derp I'm gonna take something out of context and use it to back up my naval Typhoon wet-dream.


40 or 50 more jets for Japan (who dont have carriers, btw, so wouldnt need a navalised version) isnt going to drive the unit costs down enough to make naval Typhoon an option. Typhoons for India, who, as Rock has explained would want to manufacture large portions of their jets indigenously, are not going to drive the unit costs down enough to make naval Typhoon an option.

How are you not understanding this walker? Are you that ignorant or do you just choose to be?

It is kinda funny how you continually ignore the real questions being asked of you walker, and just keep posting the same PR drivel. Are you going to contribute, or are you just going to keep regurgitating the PR spiel from the EF site?

TechnoTerrorist303
Feb 22 2011, 21:14
Naval Typhoon isn't happening nor is it likely to happen.

Hans Ludwig
Feb 23 2011, 04:10
Funny enough, I'm talking to this chick from Vladivostok, Russia that has a brother that works or worked for Sukhoi as some analyst. He even said that it would be stupid for Europeans to do anything with the Typhoon. He said they often laugh at how "impotent" the Typhoon/Eurofighter is. He said if it was so great, why are the Russians, Indians and Chinese producing fighters closer to the F22/F35 than the Typhoon?

I need to get in touch with him to see if he would join in the conversation.


From the perspective of airframe optimisations, the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for its two primary design objectives, which are supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds, with no obvious concessions made to the secondary objective of strike. The low wing loading will confer excellent climb performance for the installed thrust, and the the delta configuration lower supersonic drag, in comparison with the F/A-18. The low wing loading is not optimal for low level strike profiles, but the gust sensitivity will be alleviated by the large sweep angle and the use of artificial stability and canards. The airframe is rated to +9/-3G at an undisclosed combat weight, pylon G ratings have also not been disclosed.


The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn. Eurofighter claim the engine has a supercruise capability, although the duration of possible supercruise has not been disclosed. As the engine is technologically of the same generation as evolved teen series engines, expectations that it can deliver the kind of supercruise performance provided by uniquely designed supercruising powerplants like the US F119 and F120 are difficult to accept.


An experienced F/A-18 pilot who flew the Typhoon simulator commented to the author that the aircraft's manoeuvre/handling performance did not appear to be a dramatic improvement over the F/A-18, and rudder authority at high AoA did not match the F/A-18.


Published detection range performance for the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph (Su-30MK upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers would suggest that a Typhoon loaded with external stores could be successfully engaged within the 50-65 NMI envelope.

SOURCE (http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html)

RKSL-Rock
Feb 23 2011, 09:39
Funny enough, I'm talking to this chick from Vladivostok, Russia that has a brother that works or worked for Sukhoi as some analyst. He even said that it would be stupid for Europeans to do anything with the Typhoon. He said they often laugh at how "impotent" the Typhoon/Eurofighter is. He said if it was so great, why are the Russians, Indians and Chinese producing fighters closer to the F22/F35 than the Typhoon?

I need to get in touch with him to see if he would join in the conversation.
Because its actually inservice and costs about 50-60% less than "Stealth" to own. :eek:

And given the feedback from various Test pilots and stories of mock dogfights with F-22s, SU-30MKI and Mig29s its actually a very capable aircraft. Far better than its critics would lead you to beleive.

BUT it does have its limitations. And if Eurofighter are to be beleived, they are working on them too.


SOURCE (http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html)
Look at the date. The original articles comes from 2000. Before the actual Typhoon flew. At that point there were only the 7 Prototypes flying. The production aircraft were rather radically different in capability, performance and handling.

There are a few stories about the credibility of that site elsewhere too. I'll try and find some links when i finish work. But I - personally - think its not very accurate assessment. It just seems to be a rehash of all the criticisms ever leveled at Typhoon with no stats or facts... It makes no mention of any of the US, Norwegien or Japanese test pilots that have flown it. They published gushing reviews of its capability.

SgtH3nry3
Feb 23 2011, 11:28
Don't forget that the Typhoon is only the first generation of Eurofighters. The consortium and the Typhoon at the moment are more like a sort of compromises.
The consortium is more or less a forced joint venture between air industries that already worked just fine.

But for a first-generation Eurofighter design and being commonly agreed-on 4.5th (rather than 5th) generation jet fighter it's really good. Especially when it is able to compete with 5th generation jet fighters.
It would obviously do a lot better if Dassault (and Saab) were in the consortium. And I hope for us Dutchies that Stork Aerospace could be a part of the Eurojet consortium.

I think we'll see the true potential of Eurofighter on their 6th generation (stealth multi-role) jet fighter design, which AFAIK would be their 2nd design.

RKSL-Rock
Feb 23 2011, 13:47
Don't forget that the Typhoon is only the first generation of Eurofighters. The consortium and the Typhoon at the moment are more like a sort of compromises.
The consortium is more or less a forced joint venture between air industries that already worked just fine.

But for a first-generation Eurofighter design and being commonly agreed-on 4.5th (rather than 5th) generation jet fighter it's really good. Especially when it is able to compete with 5th generation jet fighters.
It would obviously do a lot better if Dassault (and Saab) were in the consortium. And I hope for us Dutchies that Stork Aerospace could be a part of the Eurojet consortium.

I think we'll see the true potential of Eurofighter on their 6th generation (stealth multi-role) jet fighter design, which AFAIK would be their 2nd design.
I'm not sure what you mean by their 2nd Design? After the 3rd Tranche deliveries and unless EuroFighter wins the Indian MMRCA competition thats it for any major design changes. Any other changes will be in the form of software updates and maybe a mid-life-update package in 10-15 years.

I've not seen anything about any future products from EuroFighter past the Typhoon. :confused:

Baff1
Feb 23 2011, 14:22
Aren't we expecting the next generation of fighter plane to be unmanned?

I would have thought however that Typhoon will see an extended period service. I would expect over it's lifetime to see upgrades of various sorts. Radar systems, engines, and stuff that hasn't been thought of yet.

Perhaps nothing drastic enough to alter it's external profile but highly significant nevertheless.
Superior radar/detection technology for example has the potential to neutralise any stealth advantages other airframes may have to offer.

SgtH3nry3
Feb 23 2011, 15:17
I'm not sure what you mean by their 2nd Design? After the 3rd Tranche deliveries and unless EuroFighter wins the Indian MMRCA competition thats it for any major design changes. Any other changes will be in the form of software updates and maybe a mid-life-update package in 10-15 years.

I've not seen anything about any future products from EuroFighter past the Typhoon. :confused:With design I mean a full-blown design, a completely new aircraft. Not a design change.

Nobody hasn't seen new designs because the Typhoon is still being sold. When it reaches mid-life the Typhoon must eventually be replaced by a new Eurofighter.
That or Eurofighter would be bankrupt.

RKSL-Rock
Feb 23 2011, 15:33
Aren't we expecting the next generation of fighter plane to be unmanned?
SO the analysts say but thats 25-30 years in the future.


I would have thought however that Typhoon will see an extended period service. I would expect over it's lifetime to see upgrades of various sorts. Radar systems, engines, and stuff that hasn't been thought of yet.

Perhaps nothing drastic enough to alter it's external profile but highly significant nevertheless.
Superior radar/detection technology for example has the potential to neutralise any stealth advantages other airframes may have to offer.
That just the Mid-Life Update sort of stuff. Its common, take a look at the Tornado's evolution: Fatigue life improvements, new avionics, sensors and engine improvements. Not really anything major.


With design I mean a full-blown design, a completely new aircraft. Not a design change.

Nobody hasn't seen new designs because the Typhoon is still being sold. When it reaches mid-life the Typhoon must eventually be replaced by a new Eurofighter.
That or Eurofighter would be bankrupt.

Ah I don't think you realise what EuroFighter Gmbh actually is. It isn't really a manufacturer. Its just a management company for its partners (http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/programme-organisation/eurofighter-jagdflugzeug-gmbh00.html). BAE Systems and EADS and Alenia (Originally BAe, DASA, CASA and Alenia). Its just a legal "front" to manage contracts and sales.

Once the Typhoon contracts are complete it will be downsized and eventually disbanded just like Panavia was with the Tornado. Once that happens any support or after sales design changes etc will be handled by NETMA (http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/programme-organisation/netma.html) and the production nation. Eg all the Austrian Typhoons were sold via Germany. The Saudi Typhoon by the UK etc.

I seriously doubt there will be another EuroFighter product.

SgtH3nry3
Feb 23 2011, 18:32
Ah I don't think you realise what EuroFighter Gmbh actually is. It isn't really a manufacturer. Its just a management company for its partners (http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/programme-organisation/eurofighter-jagdflugzeug-gmbh00.html). BAE Systems and EADS and Alenia (Originally BAe, DASA, CASA and Alenia). Its just a legal "front" to manage contracts and sales.

Once the Typhoon contracts are complete it will be downsized and eventually disbanded just like Panavia was with the Tornado. Once that happens any support or after sales design changes etc will be handled by NETMA (http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/programme-organisation/netma.html) and the production nation. Eg all the Austrian Typhoons were sold via Germany. The Saudi Typhoon by the UK etc.

I seriously doubt there will be another EuroFighter product.How would companies like Finmeccanica (Alenia) and EADS DSS be able to survive without joint cooperations?

It is unlikely to see the same formation of suppliers and other stakeholders. But since Alenia went independent it really got itself in a shit situation, I don't think Italy would like something like that to happen. Not after the privatisation that didn't make but costed an awful lot of money. Same for Dassault, MTU Aeroengines, Stork Aerospace, etc.

I don't think any of the local governments would like to see that. They'd rather waste tax money to keep those companies to pay their employees with ridiculous projects.


If it weren't for that companies like NXP, Philips, DSM, Carned, etc would have disappeared.

walker
Mar 9 2011, 11:19
Hi all

Euro fighter have released schematics and a description showing the localised nature structural strengthening requirements for the Navalised version of the Typhoon. Their limited nature is contrary to the views expressed by others in the thread, that I suspect are based on an advanced catapult version.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/Content_Images/news_pics/Naval_Typhoon_cutaway.pdf

This version would suit the UK down to the ground as it would mean the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers would not have to endure the costly and time consuming catapult refit experiment that has been proposed as the method to allow the JSF to use them.

This comes as both the Italian Navy, Japan and the Koreans have expressed an interest in using the Typhoon.

Using tranche three of the already commited funds for the Typhoon would enable the UK to cut all funding to the troubled and behind schedule JSF project, that has already renaged on contracted work and technology transfer to the UK, thus breaking contract; and thus save the UK a considerable amount of money.

Kind Regards walker

DM
Mar 9 2011, 11:27
Herp-derp lets get swept up in more PR bullshit, rather than listen to the comments of people actually involved in the project :j:


This comes as both the Italian Navy, Japan and the Koreans have expressed an interest in using the Typhoon.

The Italians have 2 harrier-carriers and plan on a STOBAR carrier for F-35, the Japanese only have helicopter carriers and no plans for future carriers, the Koreans [gonna go ahead and assume South on this one] have no carriers and np plans for carriers.

Why do you keep citing these guys as potential customers for naval version when they are not. They are customers for the normal version, not some mystical navalised version...

RKSL-Rock
Mar 9 2011, 12:28
Hi all

Euro fighter have released schematics and a description showing the localised nature structural strengthening requirements for the Navalised version of the Typhoon. Their limited nature is contrary to the views expressed by others in the thread, that I suspect are based on an advanced catapult version.

Here we go again. Its PR material that makes it all sound a lot simpler than it really is.

If you think that PDF shows the actual limit of the design changes you are dreaming. Its true there would have to be two versions of Navalised Typhoon; Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR+) and Catapult Take Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR*). But changes aren't a simple as swapping out components for beefier ones. These "localised" changes have a huge effect on the components around them. And as a result the tooling and assembly.

+ Think Harriers and the current carrier the UK has/had
* Conventional naval aircraft with a nose gear catapult tow eg: F-18


This version would suit the UK down to the ground as it would mean the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers would not have to endure the costly and time consuming catapult refit experiment that has been proposed as the method to allow the JSF to use them.
Maybe it would have suited the CVF if we hadn't already committed to sharing decks with the French and the F-35C. STOBAR design is useless unless you have a ski ramp deck. And ski ramp decks are useless if you have a CATOBAR plane.

What "Catapult refit experiment"? The Electromagnetic Catapult design? Its mature technology. They've been using it on MagLev trains for 30+ years. (It is expensive though)


This comes as both the Italian Navy, Japan and the Koreans have expressed an interest in using the Typhoon.
Links to a credible news source for that please?

The Italian Navy claim in particular is farcical. They are fully committed to the F-35B. They even built a STOBAR only ship especially for it. Unless they are willing to commit another 3.2Bn Euros for another carrier of course.

Koreans - that's a new one on me. They don't even have a carrier! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Navy#Ships) And as far as I am aware or can find don't plan on buying one. Which makes it rather improbable they will want to pay for an expensive Navalised aircraft.

And let's not forget that Typhoon was rejected by them some time ago. They went with more F-15K and future upgrades are likely to be variants of the Silent Eagle concept.

Japan was a maybe for the land based Typhoon in 2007. But they stated they wanted the F-22 capabilities to combat China's rising numerical superiority. As usual though, politics and technology transfer are issues. But in July 2010 they compromised and switch to the F-35A. But it is true to say they haven't made their final decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Japan)

And lets not forget, just like the Koreans they don't have carrier or plans for carriers that could operate a Navalised Typhoon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_ships_of_the_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force) So I doubt your claim is based in any sort of fact either.


Using tranche three of the already commited funds for the Typhoon would enable the UK to cut all funding to the troubled and behind schedule JSF project, that has already renaged on contracted work and technology transfer to the UK, thus breaking contract; and thus save the UK a considerable amount of money.
If you look at the terms of the government's Tranche 3 Deal you will see that those funds cannot be used for anything else. But even if you could free them up and use them for something else in our cash starved economy it wouldn't cover the bill for developing and producing a Navalised typhoon.

And let's not forget... part of that budget is to upgrade the existing fleet to the Tranche 3 capability. You would be condemning the existing Typhoon fleet to obsolescence 5-10 years before its time.

Walker you need to learn to take a more cynical or pragmatic views of these PR articles. You're old enough to know that every sales pitch is 50% misdirection, 40% Showmanship and 10% lies. But of course the ratios change depending on how much the contract is worth.

walker
Mar 9 2011, 15:20
Hi RKSL-Rock

JSF is just an experimental White Elephant
The use of Tranche 3 as a Naval version, which are funds that are already committed and budgeted for; means we do not have to pay for the JSF White Elephant, simple as that.

Not only that but we do not have to pay and wait for the JSF catapult experiment.

Even its Stealth value is already being questioned with Russian and possibly Chinese technology able to detect semi stealth aircraft like the JSF. Heck even Iran is claiming to be able to detect such semi stealth aircraft. And it is obvious that the next step will be UCAVs so the next bunch of piloted aircraft are only a stopgap anyway.

It just makes far more sense to use an aircraft that is being produced in the factories already rather than rely on the JSF which is not yet at the factory production stage and that is based on technology that will not offer an advantage if and when it eventually gets produced.

JSF creates a Defense gap
As it stands the UK will suffer a defense gap of years because of the failures and slippage in the JSF project and at the rate the JSF project is slipping it could be a decade long defense gap.

Using a Navalised Typhoon would allow us to have an aircraft carrier with aircraft on it. Instead of waiting for the JSF as it continues to slip further and further behind schedule.

Economics
With the reduction of UK manufacturing input into the JSF project slashed down to fitting together flatpack kits from the US while an ever increasing portion of the maintenance goes to US firms, the balance of value to the UK has declined to where in, all honesty it is virtualy zero. The US has already broken the contract so it is perfectly reasonable for the UK to reassess its purchase position in that light.

A navalised Typhoon also opens up all those export markets of India, Italy, Spain, Japan and yes even Australia and Korea.

It just makes far more economic sense for the UK in terms of Jobs and maintaining UK manufacturing capacity to go down the easier Navalised Typhoon route.

Kind Regards walker

DM
Mar 9 2011, 15:39
JSF is just an experimental White Elephant
No more so than the navalised Typhoon, NO prototypes of which exist yet. Unlike JSF which has 13 airframes already built.

And no, the existing Typhoons do NOT count, since the airframes would have to undergo major redesign for navalisation.


The use of Tranche 3 as a Naval version, which are funds that are already committed and budgeted for
Except that all the cost of navalising them IS NOT PAID FOR. THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. How are you still not getting that?


means we do not have to pay for the JSF White Elephant, simple as that.
Which would cost us more money and jobs in the long run.



As it stands the UK will suffer a defense gap of years because of the failures and slippage in the JSF project and at the rate the JSF project is slipping it could be a decade long defense gap.
Eurofighter was originally due in service before the millenium. But we all know that European companies keep their delivery dates to the second, right?

Navalising the Typhoon would NOT be an overnight process. It would have to go through the same design committee and validation processes, and would take just as long as procuring JSF.


Are you still trying to be ignorant, or does it come naturally?

RKSL-Rock
Mar 9 2011, 15:54
I can't really say any more than DM already has.

Five minutes using Google and all your claims can be debunked or at best proven to be seriously out of date. Walker I realise that you desperately have to be "right" all the time but you have lost this one.

GIve it up and move onto the next conspiracy. This is going nowhere.

walker
Mar 9 2011, 16:11
Hi all

We all know that the capabilities of the JSF were compromised to make it a semi stealth aircraft buit the reality is that with Aerostat based detection systems the days of stealth are already at an end.

Iran now produces the biggest aerostats in the Middle East and it is obvious that they are placing their Kolchuga attenas on them and Israel is selling its version of the system to Pakistan. Other more advanced technologies exist in Russia and probably China.

So the JSF's one big advantage has disapeared. Now in terms of capability the Typhoon beats the JSF hands down whether that be in weapons load out or dogfighting.

Not only is the JSF a White Elephant it is based on a platform that is worse than the Typhoon.

If we check out the 5th Generation Fighter checklist we find that the JSF does not live up to the hype.
http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/0000012927f685fab40b574b007f000000000001-eurofighter-5th-gen-fighter-checklist.jpg?w=640&h=289

The JSF was only ever a poor mans F22 and a one trick pony and even that trick is old and stale.

The Typhoon is obviously the correct aircraft for the UK's Navy.

kind Regards walker

EricM
Mar 9 2011, 16:54
Since it's a topic about wild fantasy gun porn discussions...

By all accounts, the Brits should buy some Rafales. They are built in Europe, they are multipurpose aircrafts and they are already navalized. Oh and they look good...

(Don't shoot me...)

Being serious now, I'm clueless about it, so bare with me, but has it ever been considered ?

RKSL-Rock
Mar 9 2011, 16:59
@<hidden> Walker give it up lad. Its been done to death. And everyone but you seems to acknowledge that its never going to happen.


Since it's a topic about wild fantasy gun porn discussions...

By all accounts, the Brits should buy some Rafales. They are built in Europe, they are multipurpose aircrafts and they are already navalized. Oh and they look good...

(Don't shoot me...)

Being serious now, I'm clueless about it, so bare with me, but has it ever been considered ?

Eric, read a little further back. Its been covered in this very thread a few times.

EricM
Mar 9 2011, 17:00
Has it ? I must have skipped a few pages...

Edit : Found it...

walker
Mar 9 2011, 17:06
Hi EricM

Use the thread search top right below the page numbers.

Kind Regards Walker

Baff1
Mar 9 2011, 17:31
Since it's a topic about wild fantasy gun porn discussions...

By all accounts, the Brits should buy some Rafales. They are built in Europe, they are multipurpose aircrafts and they are already navalized. Oh and they look good...

(Don't shoot me...)

Being serious now, I'm clueless about it, so bare with me, but has it ever been considered ?

They sunk the Italian fleet with Fairey Swordfish and defeated the Argentine airforce with Harriers.

Rafales would do fine.

Quite frankly anything is better than nothing at this point.

Daniel
Mar 9 2011, 18:22
I think we should buy Harriers. They've got a pretty good track record.

Mach2Infinity
Mar 9 2011, 18:30
Off-topic


You do not win a modern war by "killing them all", that's rarely needed nor really possible exept you want to start a new holocaust. Even WWII was not won by killing all german soldiers "in the field". Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan...the only way the coalition could "win" it was to declare it won...but it is still going on.

The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin, derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban. A shipment was seized by "British special forces" according to Sky News today. Afghanistan is just another proxy war between Iran and NATO/U.S.

SgtH3nry3
Mar 9 2011, 21:41
;1871058']Off-topic



The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin, derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban. A shipment was seized by "British special forces" according to Sky News today. Afghanistan is just another proxy war between Iran and NATO/U.S.Not only between NATO and Iran, but the CSTO and especially Russia are involved aswell.

Only Russia is not clear on which side it wants to be. Either the side where Iran joins the CISFTA or the side of the NATO which should result in less heroin and cannabis problems in Russia.

Hans Ludwig
Mar 9 2011, 23:49
Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

"Analysis Yesterday the UK National Audit Office published (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx) a detailed report on the current status of the infamous Eurofighter combat jet – nowadays officially known as Typhoon. We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts and figures. The Eurofighter, almost unbelievably, is turning out to be even worse value for money than we had thought."

ARTICLE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/)

Spooky Lynx
Mar 10 2011, 04:12
Not only between NATO and Iran, but the CSTO and especially Russia are involved aswell.

Only Russia is not clear on which side it wants to be. Either the side where Iran joins the CISFTA or the side of the NATO which should result in less heroin and cannabis problems in Russia.
But amount of heroin and other drugs coming from Afghanistan increased after starting OEF. During Taliban rule it was significantly smaller than in 2001-nowdays. So we don't know what ISAF really does with drug problem. It seems like nothing.


The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin, derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban.
I doubt that they get much money from their plantations. I even doubt that they have ones. If it was so than they would have far more modern weapons and equipment (ATGMs, MANPADS, communications, sniper rifles, modern mines and explosive devices). Mostly they have 70-80's era soviet and chinese weapons.

walker
Mar 10 2011, 11:09
Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

"Analysis Yesterday the UK National Audit Office published (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx) a detailed report on the current status of the infamous Eurofighter combat jet – nowadays officially known as Typhoon. We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts and figures. The Eurofighter, almost unbelievably, is turning out to be even worse value for money than we had thought."

ARTICLE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/)

Hi Hans Ludwig

That is what the journalist says; not what the report says. I suggest people read the the report.
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=5cbfd09a-929d-4e8a-b210-a240f8767bc6&version=-1
In order to get a more accurate view than the sensationalist hook of a headline.

Interestingly the UK has now given up on the JSF as a stealth strike aircraft as it will not be able to carry either the Paveway or the Brimstone internaly.
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=7FF4E48C-44DC-4C61-9614-7F081820D70E&version=-1


MPR06: Reviews of the external missile systems for Joint Combat Aircraft resulted in the removal of the requirement for integrating internally mounted Brimstone (-£41m), Paveway II and III (-£1m) capabilities and some internal configurations of the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (- £49m). Further UK participation in the Joint Integrated Test Force to reflect UK acceptance into service strategy (+£20m).

The full UK Government report on the JSF, like the aircraft, is not available. But here is the US senate interim report. It seems to be already suffering from worse cost increases than the Typhoons 75%the JSF cost increases dwarf it at nearly 100% and it is still a decade away from completion. Note also the US airforce does not want it. It far prefers the F22.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Sullivan%2003-11-10.pdf

Per Unit cost of the JSF 110 Million Dollars Source (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/03/12/01.xml) to 135 Million dollars Source (http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/jsf-price-tag-jumps-to-135-million/)
Per Unit cost of the Typhoon 90 Million Euros Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon) to 86 Million Pounds Source (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/)

Do the math here is a currency converter:
http://www.xe.com/ucc/

Of course that does not include all the costs that is just the sticker price there are also the maintainance costs which now we will not be making the Rolls Royce engine for the JSF will all 100% go to the US. That is on top of the 3Billion that aborted project will cost; incedentaly most of that cost goes to the UK tax payer as Rolls Royce is a UK company and losses to its profits reduce the tax it pays in the UK. So there are no business or jobs benefit for the UK. So this means all the cash flows OUT of the UK economy.

For comparison we can use this more comprehensive per unit cost and maintenace cost comparison report from 2006 before the current cost increases on both projects
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense-aerospace.com%2Fdae%2Farticles%2Fcommuniques%2FFighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf&ei=esJ4TdHsAYaAhQewzejoBg&usg=AFQjCNG61EysJk1AMy-vHquV6j2vHqSqZA&sig2=Xw7Satwlx0gF9e40cOnLbw

No Matter which report you look at or which way you cut it the Typhoon is the more capable and cheaper option for the UK. It maintains more jobs in the UK and ensures the money is not adding to the UKs national Debt. Note we only just paid off the National Debt from World War II during the last administration. The UK spent five decades paying off Lend Lease and Gordon Brown used the Telecoms bandwidth sale to finaly pay it off. This JSF project will put it right back on again.

So can we stop the partial and partisan quotes now?

I suggest we all have a good read of those and digest!

Kind Regards walker

RKSL-Rock
Mar 10 2011, 12:37
That is what the journalist says; not what the report says. I suggest people read the the report.
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=5cbfd09a-929d-4e8a-b210-a240f8767bc6&version=-1
In order to get a more accurate view than the sensationalist hook of a headline.
Oh the irony of that statement is crushingly funny.


Interestingly the UK has now given up on the JSF as a stealth strike aircraft as it will not be able to carry either the Paveway or the Brimstone internaly.
http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=7FF4E48C-44DC-4C61-9614-7F081820D70E&version=-1
Systems like Brimstone and other seekers that require a lock before launch have always been an issue for the F-35. It's partly why the US is developing a new series of bombs with more complex guidance systems eg JDAM derivatives and GBU-39 SDB.

And as far as I know (and going off Jock Stirrup's comments in 2009) It was assumed that most operational RAF/RN configurations would require the use of pylons anyway. So I see the formal removal of the internal requirement as a logical cost saving. Albeit not a hugely desirable one.

To quote one of my mates in Whitehall, "Stealth capability is more of a nice to have. But the real draw [of the F-35] is that it's the only aircraft on the market that has a planned life past 2050."

Currently considering the threats and forecasted roles for the RAF and RN I don't think they are too bothered as long as it flies and drops bombs. Stealth is only about reducing detection ranges anyway. Its not some magic system to win wars.


The full UK Government report on the JSF, like the aircraft, is not available. But here is the US senate interim report. It seems to be already suffering from worse cost increases than the Typhoons 75%the JSF cost increases dwarf it at nearly 100% and it is still a decade away from completion. Note also the US airforce does not want it. It far prefers the F22.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Sullivan%2003-11-10.pdf
Welcome to the world of Defence contracting. Politics, poor management and corrupt officials and politicians, they all factor in the mess we call projects.


No Matter which report you look at or which way you cut it the Typhoon is the more capable and cheaper option for the UK. It maintains more jobs in the UK and ensures the money is not adding to the UKs national Debt. Note we only just paid off the National Debt from World War II during the last administration. The UK spent five decades paying off Lend Lease and Gordon Brown used the Telecoms bandwidth sale to finaly pay it off. This JSF project will put it right back on again.
I dont think anyone actually said the F-35 was better than the EuroFighter. We just repeatedly said the UK could not afford - politically or financially - to pull out. So the fantasy of a Navalised Typhoon for Britain was just that. A fantasy.


So can we stop the partial and partisan quotes now?
Really, where are the partisan quotes?


I suggest we all have a good read of those and digest!
Its nice that you are actually posting factual links now. Even if you still try and spin it to show something that isnt quite accurate.

Kind Regards

Rock

NoRailgunner
Mar 10 2011, 13:00
First: "Royal Navy buys Hornets notJSF..."
Second: "Navalised Typhoon for UK..."
Now: "...the Typhoon is the more capable and cheaper option for the UK."
In the end: "Its a conspiracy!!"

Meanwhile the 2nd F35 production JSF is flying around... :n:

Hans Ludwig
Mar 10 2011, 22:29
The RAF should invest in F22's. They are the only country at this point that can be trusted to prevent technology leakage. Because of this, I have no doubt the current law could be repealed or have a supplemental added with the inclusion of United Kingdom.

I'm sure the Brits could buy the F22 cheaper and add in their own engines, which might out perform or be more fuel efficient then the current ones. What the defense industry needs right now is competition.

Personally, I think the F35 is still a great concept. It's just over priced because the defense industry, not just in the US, but all over the globe no longer has real competition (i.e. Mig vs. Sukhoi, Boeing vs. Grumman vs. Locheed vs. Rockwell vs. McDonnell Douglas).

Baff1
Mar 12 2011, 15:25
UG!! F22's.
No thanks, mate.

You're all right keeping all that technology safe by yourself.


Zerg for the win.
We aren't fighting any high tech airforces.
We are fighting mud hoppers.

What we need is some el cheapo propellor driven close air support. Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

What we have is a supersonic jet interceptor on order instead.

We also need some new AWACs/submarine hunters/spyplanes and some transport planes.


A supersonic jet interceptor with stealth!!! No thanks.
You keep that.

Hellfire257
Mar 12 2011, 23:04
Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

That could turn out well. P-47 Thunderbolt anyone? :D

Daniel
Mar 12 2011, 23:06
Nah, armed Tucano. We can't afford A-10s, might as well get the next best thing.

Hans Ludwig
Mar 12 2011, 23:36
If you guys don't need an air superiority fighter, then why invest in two air craft carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class?


We aren't fighting any high tech airforces. We are fighting mud hoppers.

I would argue it was that thinking by the Chamberlain administration that led to the Spitfire coming online later than it should have.

Baff1
Mar 13 2011, 00:04
If you guys don't need an air superiority fighter, then why invest in two air craft carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class?



I would argue it was that thinking by the Chamberlain administration that led to the Spitfire coming online later than it should have.

Spitfire was an interceptor.
We have plenty of those online already.
We don't have all of what we need covered, but we do have that bit.


Apparently we need two aircraft carriers the size of the Nimitz so that the French have somewhere to land.

RKSL-Rock
Mar 13 2011, 00:05
If you guys don't need an air superiority fighter, then why invest in two air craft carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class?...

We need a multi/swing role aircraft. We don't need a "stealth elephant" that can't even share data with AWACS or other aircraft. (F-22s only have a radio. They don't have a working data link (Link 16 etc) even now after 6+ years of flying). And if reports of Typhoon vs F22 engagments are true, the Typhoon is just as capable if not "better-value-for-your-buck" than the F-22.

Despite all its flaws, Typhoon, once the tranche 3 capability comes online then we will have a pretty good (if a bit expensive) multirole aircraft.

And if we ever get the F-35C we may even have a half decent multirole naval air wing. We may even have a use for the CVFs.

Baff1
Mar 13 2011, 00:22
Nah, armed Tucano. We can't afford A-10s, might as well get the next best thing.
http://community.warplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/a29_super_tucano.jpg

Yes mate that would do.
I bet we have loads of qualified pilots for it already.

Imagine how much cheaper one of these is compared to a Predator drone.


**Edit**
Bugger that it's twice the price of a Predator.

Next!

Don't Skoda make planes?

---------- Post added at 01:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 AM ----------


.

Despite all its flaws, Typhoon, once the tranche 3 capability comes online then we will have a pretty good (if a bit expensive) multirole aircraft.

.

Do we really need multirole?
Are the Tornadoes not still good for a few years?

Hans Ludwig
Mar 13 2011, 03:04
We need a multi/swing role aircraft. We don't need a "stealth elephant" that can't even share data with AWACS or other aircraft. (F-22s only have a radio. They don't have a working data link (Link 16 etc) even now after 6+ years of flying). And if reports of Typhoon vs F22 engagments are true, the Typhoon is just as capable if not "better-value-for-you-buck" than the F-22.

"MADL Integration on F-22 May Slip: The Multifunction Advanced Data Link, planned for the F-22's increment 3.2 software update, is probably out until further notice, according to Lockheed Martin's F-22 program manager, George Shultz. Speaking with reporters last week at the company's F-22 plant in Marietta, Ga., Shultz said it’s not official yet, but "we’ve been hearing" that Air Combat Command "is moving toward delaying MADL." This data link is designed to give the F-22 the means of sharing data with other platforms without compromising its stealth cover. It is also planned for the B-2 and F-35. The reason for postponing MADL on the F-22 is the usual one: money. "The budget is strained," said Shultz. "We still have Link 16" in the F-22 software, he noted. The 3.2 update is still planned to include the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, advanced electronic warfare, geolocation, and electronic protection."

SgtH3nry3
Mar 13 2011, 09:05
"MADL Integration on F-22 May Slip: The Multifunction Advanced Data Link, planned for the F-22's increment 3.2 software update, is probably out until further notice, according to Lockheed Martin's F-22 program manager, George Shultz. Speaking with reporters last week at the company's F-22 plant in Marietta, Ga., Shultz said it’s not official yet, but "we’ve been hearing" that Air Combat Command "is moving toward delaying MADL." This data link is designed to give the F-22 the means of sharing data with other platforms without compromising its stealth cover. It is also planned for the B-2 and F-35. The reason for postponing MADL on the F-22 is the usual one: money. "The budget is strained," said Shultz. "We still have Link 16" in the F-22 software, he noted. The 3.2 update is still planned to include the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, advanced electronic warfare, geolocation, and electronic protection."But is it compatible with existing systems, i.e. Link 16?

RKSL-Rock
Mar 13 2011, 09:24
...

Do we really need multirole?
Are the Tornadoes not still good for a few years?

Tornados were due out of service in 2025. But recent estimates suggests that only 30-40 airframes would last that long. The larger part of the fleet would be stood down by 2018 at the latest. And given the government's recent habit of making stupid cuts Tornado is seen as a very expensive and maintenance heavy programme. It's ripe for cost cutting. So something needs to take it place. So that leaves Typhoon to pick up the slack.


"MADL Integration on F-22 May Slip: The Multifunction Advanced Data Link, planned for the F-22's increment 3.2 software update, is probably out until further notice, according to Lockheed Martin's F-22 program manager, George Shultz. Speaking with reporters last week at the company's F-22 plant in Marietta, Ga., Shultz said it’s not official yet, but "we’ve been hearing" that Air Combat Command "is moving toward delaying MADL." This data link is designed to give the F-22 the means of sharing data with other platforms without compromising its stealth cover. It is also planned for the B-2 and F-35. The reason for postponing MADL on the F-22 is the usual one: money. "The budget is strained," said Shultz. "We still have Link 16" in the F-22 software, he noted. The 3.2 update is still planned to include the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, advanced electronic warfare, geolocation, and electronic protection."

And it keeps slipping. The data link functionality was promised from day one. So far they have 2 F-22's with it. Both have huge problems with both software and hardware. So much so that they removed the capability from fleet wide updates FOUR times!


The reported problems they are having are:

On board Power supply. - The F-22 is so power hungry its having problems supplying everything. The generators have been upgraded 3 times but it's apparently still an issue.
Data transmission and reception detection. By its nature the Link16 system is a constant radio contact that would compromise the "stealth" characteristics of the aircraft. (You can detect any radio - even encrypted -transmission and the omni directional antennas needed are perfect radar reflectors). MADL was supposed to fix this but so far its not worked as designed in any form.
Hardware reliability and poor design - Reports suggested last year that the avionics packages are a tad unreliable with some having to be redesigned and remanufactured. Several sub-contractors have lost their contracts over these sorts of issues.
Airframe restrictions - The aircraft like many others use an avionics rack bay. Unfortunately the F-22's is very full, which means some boxes need to be combined. This is causing the contractors serious technical problems. According to the press none of these combined systems are coming up to spec.
Lockheed were also going to use the same MADL data-link system and hardware for the F-35. Due to the delays, failures and what has been quoted in the press as an "unsupportable design" they dropped it and are using a proven Link16 compatible device.

This one "black box" has apparently already cost the F-22 programme over US$380+ million in development costs. And in this climate of slashing costs some people have even dared suggest that the Raptor may have to cut the MADL design and go with the proven systems at the cost of other capabilities. (And I have no idea what those "other capabilities" are.)

Hellfire257
Mar 13 2011, 09:37
Nah, armed Tucano. We can't afford A-10s, might as well get the next best thing.

I meant THE Thunderbolt, not Thunderbolt II, you know, the Jug.

http://www.fightingiron.com/ShowsEvents/TOM2006-P47Strafing.jpg

Cheap? Yes
Reliable? Certainly
Survivable? Yes
Ground attack? Yes
Well armed? Yes

Perfect! :p

Daniel
Mar 13 2011, 11:47
Oh I realised that! I just really like the Tucano, and since the Thunderbolt II is arguably the best CAS plane going...

But yeah, P-47 would rock too!



Bugger that it's twice the price of a Predator.

Yeah, I wasn't going to mention that. :p

TechnoTerrorist303
Mar 13 2011, 20:35
...We don't need a "stealth elephant"...

I disagree, a stealth Elephant would be fucking awesome

RKSL-Rock
Mar 13 2011, 20:56
I disagree, a stealth Elephant would be fucking awesome

Is this to go with the Ballistic Llama?

jagheterjan
Mar 13 2011, 20:58
Elephants and ships don't match, everybody knows that. Ever seen an elephant in Navy dress?

EDIT: Behold the future of stealth naval livestock! (http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/07/16/giantduck1.jpg)

RKSL-Rock
Mar 13 2011, 21:12
Elephants and ships don't match, everybody knows that. Ever seen an elephant in Navy dress?

No, have you?

(This is getting pretty disturbing :D I mean an elephant wearing a navy dress. Unless its stood on its hind feet the dress wouldnt hang properly... :eek:)

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------


Elephants and ships don't match, everybody knows that. Ever seen an elephant in Navy dress?

EDIT: Behold the future of stealth naval livestock! (http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/07/16/giantduck1.jpg)

I can see a future addon there... :rolleyes:

TechnoTerrorist303
Mar 17 2011, 20:49
That's no moon...

Spooky Lynx
Mar 18 2011, 05:05
We aren't fighting any high tech airforces.
We are fighting mud hoppers.
Now you're fighting mud hoppers, but what if in some years those hoppers will recieve 4+ fighters and well trained pilots for them? During cold war we thought that we will fight only high tech armies but not some guerillas. And then 80's came...


What we need is some el cheapo propellor driven close air support. Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

Can't buy A-10 or Su-25?

Prydain
Mar 18 2011, 06:24
Can't buy A-10 or Su-25?
The UK wouldn't buy a dedicated aircraft of this type, because there isn't any reason to, it wouldn't make any sense.

Why would you buy an older airframe (presuming the production has been discontinued on both models) in place of newer and just as capable unmanned aircraft, that we already have, and the newer, more flexible and just as capable Typhoon, which we already have?

Aircraft with big auto-cannon on the front are analogous to the battleships of old, the pursuit for efficiency and cost-effectiveness will kill them in the same way too.

Hans Ludwig
Mar 18 2011, 23:38
Aircraft with big auto-cannon on the front are analogous to the battleships of old, the pursuit for efficiency and cost-effectiveness will kill them in the same way too.

Yeah, because the SU-27 and A-10 are so expensive to operate, repair and build. They have longer ranges than your WAH-64 and can bring more and heavier ordinance to bear.

Spooky Lynx
Mar 19 2011, 08:10
I should not say Su-25 is expensive to operate, repair an build. In Afghan war it became primary and most effective CAS aircraft because it is much easier to operate, repair and maintain than all-weather Su-17 armed with large amount of guided weapons. And it was much more effective than Su-17 in mountain terrain with small hidden targets. I suppose A-10 is the same. BTW, both of them even in basic versions can use guided weapons.

DM
Mar 19 2011, 08:24
Except they are.

While they may not seem expensive on the surface, its when you start looking at the support that things go wrong.

Older aircraft like the A-10 and the SU25 are very intensive on maintenance hours. If every hour of flight generates 10 or more hours of maintenance (as is common with airframes of that age) then it is not a cheap aircraft to operate. And thats why a lot of older types are retired - the aircraft might be perfectly good at what it does, but if it ties up all your line guys after every flight then its just not worth it...

Hans Ludwig
Mar 19 2011, 10:11
Except they are.

While they may not seem expensive on the surface, its when you start looking at the support that things go wrong.

Older aircraft like the A-10 and the SU25 are very intensive on maintenance hours. If every hour of flight generates 10 or more hours of maintenance (as is common with airframes of that age) then it is not a cheap aircraft to operate. And thats why a lot of older types are retired - the aircraft might be perfectly good at what it does, but if it ties up all your line guys after every flight then its just not worth it...


Built around two main criteria, survivability and ease of maintenance, the A-10 is a very well designed aircraft. Large maintenance panels on the sides of the aircraft provide easy access to the A-10's main systems. Since it had a generic airline propulsion system, two General Electric TF-34A's, engine repair and maintenance costs are still relatively inexpensive. In fact, the most expensive repair on the A-10 is a new paint job.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-maintenance.htm

Inkompetent
Mar 19 2011, 11:26
Also have to think about that if one is supposed to field for example A-10s you need a whole crew of mechanics and technicians educated on that particular airframe, spare parts for yet another type of aircraft, a completely (or at least partially) new pilot education, new munitions that the other airframes can't or usually don't use, expanded training for forward air-controllers, as well as possible expanded training for other troops and ammendments/changes to military doctrine.

To warrant all those extra costs the plane has to be fielded in large enough numbers, and be given a large enough role, and thus the question is if you get that much extra bang for the buck, compared to using fighter-attack airplanes to bomb the bajeezus out of the enemy the ordinary way (i.e. without FFARs, Mavericks and air-to-ground auto-cannons).

And speaking of the A-10 providing more fire power and range than a WAH-64 it is true. But a WAH-64 can loiter and provide reconnaisance in a way fixed-wing CAS can't. Even though their roles overlap on the battlefield, they don't do the same job.

jagheterjan
Mar 19 2011, 11:42
Ludwig, you might want to check the paragraph following the one you've quoted - having to re-design, re-tool and re-manufacture replacement parts when the original ones need to go to mx shop IS driving up mx hours quite a bit.

Anyways, talking the A-10 here is pretty pointless since the production line for the Hog has been closed since 1984, replacement parts situation isn't exactly great either and making the bird carrier-ready would very likely prove difficult enough to make it unfeasable.

DM
Mar 19 2011, 13:24
Built around two main criteria, survivability and ease of maintenance, the A-10 is a very well designed aircraft. Large maintenance panels on the sides of the aircraft provide easy access to the A-10's main systems. Since it had a generic airline propulsion system, two General Electric TF-34A's, engine repair and maintenance costs are still relatively inexpensive. In fact, the most expensive repair on the A-10 is a new paint job.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-maintenance.htm

Its nice PR fluff, but airframes as old as the A-10 are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Ink and Fail Cakes have already covered most of the reasons.

Most importantly tho, it doesnt matter if its cheap to fix, if you have to fix it for 10 hours after every flight. That one component that fails every flight might only cost a few $100, but if you have to replace or repair it after every flight, then the costs quickly mount up.

I cant find (nor can I really be bothered to find) a decent MMH:FH stat for the A-10C, but I'm fairly confident that something like a Predator would be lower and cheaper. (I'd comment on the Apache, but the design is just as old as the A-10 is... It does however have the advantage of a current production line)

Spooky Lynx
Mar 19 2011, 16:52
Except they are.

While they may not seem expensive on the surface, its when you start looking at the support that things go wrong.

Older aircraft like the A-10 and the SU25 are very intensive on maintenance hours. If every hour of flight generates 10 or more hours of maintenance (as is common with airframes of that age) then it is not a cheap aircraft to operate. And thats why a lot of older types are retired - the aircraft might be perfectly good at what it does, but if it ties up all your line guys after every flight then its just not worth it...
Speaking about Su-25, it takes rather small amount of time to fix it or to make afterflight check or prepare it to the next flight. By this parameters it was the best aircraft during Afghan war. And it may be operated from rather small and remoted airfields. And... it's still produced:D

Star Four One
Mar 19 2011, 17:02
UG!! F22's.
No thanks, mate.

You're all right keeping all that technology safe by yourself.


Zerg for the win.
We aren't fighting any high tech airforces.
We are fighting mud hoppers.

What we need is some el cheapo propellor driven close air support. Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

What we have is a supersonic jet interceptor on order instead.

We also need some new AWACs/submarine hunters/spyplanes and some transport planes.


A supersonic jet interceptor with stealth!!! No thanks.
You keep that.

You prepare for the enemy of tomorrow, not today. I sure would feel much safer flying into the target with Raptors in my package then ANY other A/C flying today.

PS: Coming home with everybody alive is also a bonus. :rolleyes:

S41

THEBLITZ6794
Mar 19 2011, 23:03
f35 was a joke. f22 is the shit really but we can just sweep the skies clear with them and put bombs on em

RKSL-Rock
Mar 19 2011, 23:42
has to be done....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1832273&postcount=56

Wave that flag baby!

Hans Ludwig
Mar 20 2011, 05:52
has to be done....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1832273&postcount=56

Wave that flag baby!

Europe - minus the UK - has never had any interest whatsoever in really having a defense force or one that could project power. Why should they when they have the United States having bases in Europe?

The defense industry, which is heavily subsidized by European taxpayers, is a tool that Keynesian economist use to control the economy.

RKSL-Rock
Mar 20 2011, 10:48
Europe - minus the UK - has never had any interest whatsoever in really having a defense force or one that could project power. Why should they when they have the United States having bases in Europe?

I'm not entriely sure what this has to do with the topic so this is sailing dangerously close to being so far off topic it might be unwise to continue. Maybe this should go in the politics thread.

But, there is a school of thought that the US should not have bases or a large presence in Europe and the Med. Especially since the cold war era is over.


The defense industry, which is heavily subsidized by European taxpayers, is a tool that Keynesian economist use to control the economy.
And the US defense industry isn't?

And to be honest that isn't actually true. Especially in the cases of Airbus and BAE Systems. You should realise that a lot of EU defence contractors were/are actually part owned by their respective governments. There were never any real subsidies. Low or zero rate loans to start projects yes. But they were always had to be paid back. Unlike the open book funding for US research contracts...1-5 year research programs that don't produce anything but a US$2.5 billion bill.

From my own personal experience actually working in both US and EU industries I have to say the US companies get far more overt and covert assistance from their government than any EU business. They seem to go so far out of their way to make sure any non US venture fails. I mean the EU nations don't overturn competition results because they lost. Nor do they rewrite the rules the 2nd time around to make sure only an EU contractor can win. KC-X is a perfect example. US101 is another one that got sabotaged. (I was amazed it was even allowed to start) They kept moving the goal posts so quickly its no wonder the costs spiralled.

Prydain
Mar 20 2011, 21:20
.....I have to say the US companies get far more overt and covert assistance from their government than any EU business......
...and they scream "socialism" as if it is an anti-American ideology at any attempt to help their people in any fashion. I suppose that can be saved for a politics forum or something though.

Hans Ludwig, the A-10 is never going to be put into production again, the UK isn't going to buy any and I don't know how we got from me saying that we have platforms that can do the job of an A-10 with more overall efficiency to bashing a helicopter gunship.

Modern deployments are expensive, aircraft have to be more generally capable than specific and the Typhoon is a great example of modern aircraft. When the most agile and advanced fighter aircraft can drop bombs and launch ground attack missiles, why bother having a separate aircraft that is specifically designed for a single task? In the last 5 years we have had the manned Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar and Typhoon all available and able to do the same task as the A-10, they have done it, so we don't need another burden.

Hans Ludwig
Mar 20 2011, 23:18
Hans Ludwig, the A-10 is never going to be put into production again, the UK isn't going to buy any and I don't know how we got from me saying that we have platforms that can do the job of an A-10 with more overall efficiency to bashing a helicopter gunship.

I never said anything about the UK buying them. I think you got me mixed up with the guy that actually suggested the UK buy the SU-27 or A-10?


I'm not entriely sure what this has to do with the topic so this is sailing dangerously close to being so far off topic it might be unwise to continue. Maybe this should go in the politics thread.


Yeah, because only people in the US think their stuff is the best.

Since I believe in the capitalist system, I had to show you why the Europeans don't really have a military and their equipment isn't all that great. I already mentioned why. So next time, check your left and right before you post a link that is only designed to flamebait.


has to be done....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1832273&postcount=56

Wave that flag baby!

RKSL-Rock
Mar 21 2011, 00:09
I never said anything about the UK buying them. I think you got me mixed up with the guy that actually suggested the UK buy the SU-27 or A-10?

But you seem to be supporting the idea all the same. Making justifications for it etc


Yeah, because only people in the US think their stuff is the best.

A view which, again, you seem to share.


Since I believe in the capitalist system, I had to show you why the Europeans don't really have a military and their equipment isn't all that great. I already mentioned why.

LMAO! You are funny you really are. European defense and aerospace industries account for more than 40% of the world's defense export spending. That's about the same as the US. The US even buys (and re labels) EU developed equipment because it's better than anything else currently made by them. BAE Systems and it subsidiaries, a UK and EU company, now contributes to about 7% of the US national defence spend. EADS, about 4% and growing and it would be growing a lot faster if the US politicians didn't keep blocking "free trade and capitalism" forcing the US armed forces into buying US made kit.

So European equipment isn't that great? Go do some real research before you make these sweeping and wildly inaccurate statements.


So next time, check your left and right before you post a link that is only designed to flamebait.

No not flamebaiting, just a reference to the frequent outcome of these debates. And to the fact that some people will not accept that the right tool for a job isn't always one that says "made in America" on it.

And lets not forget, in this particular and case considering the actual topic and the Royal Navy's requirements; Specifically that the aircraft must operate off an aircraft carrier. The F-22 or A-10 aren't even options are they.

Prydain
Mar 21 2011, 00:55
Europe vs America again? this will end well....

Europe buys from America and America buys from Europe, so no need for an argument that is against logic until either has a monopoly on the defence industry.

To the original point: I am wondering if the current action in the air over Libya justifies not binning some of the Tornados and opting to get rid of the Harrier early instead? I am also wondering if the F35 would be sidelined for such an operation if it happened 10 years from now since it seems it is about as multi-role as the F22 without pylons.

RKSL-Rock
Mar 21 2011, 12:40
...
To the original point: I am wondering if the current action in the air over Libya justifies not binning some of the Tornados and opting to get rid of the Harrier early instead? I am also wondering if the F35 would be sidelined for such an operation if it happened 10 years from now since it seems it is about as multi-role as the F22 without pylons.

Some mates and I were talking about this last night. I suspect a few people in the Tornado community lobbied hard for the chance to conduct these long range strikes. It does bolster the case for keeping the Tornados going until 2025. I doubt F-35s or Harriers could have conducted these raids especially not at these ranges. And given its lack of any real stand off weapons system (Storm Shadow was compatible with the later GR9s but it burnt silly amounts of fuel when carrying it) I can imagine a lot of people at Marham saying "we've proven we're better than Harrier and that we are needed".

The Typhoon community will be itching to prove themselves now too. As much as a abhor the loss of life in all this. The Libyan crisis is going to cause interesting ripples in the UK defence community.

Baff1
Mar 22 2011, 20:23
You prepare for the enemy of tomorrow, not today. I sure would feel much safer flying into the target with Raptors in my package then ANY other A/C flying today.

PS: Coming home with everybody alive is also a bonus. :rolleyes:

S41
Why do you think everybody would be alive?

The largest force is the one that usually wins.
10 Raptors < 80 Su's.

£ for £, Raptor will lose every battle.


---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------


Europe - minus the UK - has never had any interest whatsoever in really having a defense force or one that could project power. .
Nonsense.
Tell that to Sarkozy.


Other European countries with a long history of projecting power around the world are the Spanish, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germans, The Russians, the Italians..

Currently militarily deployed in foreign lands... The Dutch, the Danes, the French, The Britsh, The Germans, The Finns, The Swedes, the Lithunanians, the Italians, the Norwegians, the Hungarians, The Romanians, the Czechs, the Estonians and the Spanish, the Bulgarians...

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------


When the most agile and advanced fighter aircraft can drop bombs and launch ground attack missiles, why bother having a separate aircraft that is specifically designed for a single task? In the last 5 years we have had the manned Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar and Typhoon all available and able to do the same task as the A-10, they have done it, so we don't need another burden.

Because it is too expensive to mass produce.

If you only have a limited number of airframes, they can only be in so many places at once dropping bombs.

Having an ultra bad ass force that can win any battle against any other bad ass force is great up until you are faced with two opposing forces at the same time.
At which point since you don't have the numbers you can only hope to win one of the battles at best. The other you auto lose by not being there at all.
You have lost the war in the manouvre phase.

If one Typhoon costs the price of ten armed Cesna's, then with 10 armed Cesna's, 10 units of our infantry can call in air support at the same time, while with one Typhoon, only 1 can get support.

We sent 4 planes to Libya this week.
4.

I bet they were quaking in their boots when they heard the British were coming.
After 4 mid air refuels and and a 12 hour flight, they dropped a total of 8 bombs.

So if all 8 bombs got their man.... Ghafdaffi only has another 100,000 left. 4 Airframes, no matter how multi-role, isn't a war winning force.





Also there are running costs.
If you burn out your airforce from overuse, you need to replace it again quicker.
Why frazzle some pretty decent interceptors... instead of buying a cheaper platform that can perform the same role.

Saving the air superiority frames for the job that requires expensive machinery.


I can fit everything I can fit in the back of my hatchback in the back of my Lexus too. But it still worth having the hatchback.

Star Four One
Apr 6 2011, 22:37
Baff, you obviously have nill knowledge on not only the Raptor, but air combat in it's complete entity.
Regardless of numbers, if you recieve heavy losses in a/c without knowing where, or who shot at you; chances are you will not press the target.

Ask someone who has participated in DACT with a couple of Raptors, psychologically your feeling sick before you get off the ground. After the 15th kill call, you feel bummed out.

This isn't Falcon 4.0 Baff.

S41

Hellfire257
Apr 7 2011, 22:08
Until the EFA arrives on the scene... Either way, regardless of tech, a good pilot beats anything hands down. Hell, a good pilot in a Sopwith Camel could shoot down an F22. I also agree that 80 Sus could beat 10 Raptors. Lets break it down:

BVR - You can guarantee that a good proportion of the Sukhois will get past it and enter WVR.
WVR - Sheer numbers will overwhelm the Raptors.

The Sukhois also have IRST on their side.

Conclusion?
Lots of cheap(er) 4.5 or 4 Gen stuff will beat a limited number of Gen 5. Economically it makes sense. Furthermore, the design philosophy of the Sukhois means they are cheaper to maintain and have a overall shorter turn around time.

Baff is right.

Star Four One
Apr 8 2011, 00:38
Until the EFA arrives on the scene... Either way, regardless of tech, a good pilot beats anything hands down. Hell, a good pilot in a Sopwith Camel could shoot down an F22. I also agree that 80 Sus could beat 10 Raptors. Lets break it down:

BVR - You can guarantee that a good proportion of the Sukhois will get past it and enter WVR.
WVR - Sheer numbers will overwhelm the Raptors.

The Sukhois also have IRST on their side.

Conclusion?
Lots of cheap(er) 4.5 or 4 Gen stuff will beat a limited number of Gen 5. Economically it makes sense. Furthermore, the design philosophy of the Sukhois means they are cheaper to maintain and have a overall shorter turn around time.

Baff is right.

Wrong on ALL accounts.

Tell that story to ANY Viper or Eagle guy, and regardless of pride will tell you any bunch of punks flying Raptors will trash them. Great pilots are made because of the technology that drives them.

Really, this is garnering the most delightful smile..

You cannot engage something you cannot see. When your package is recieving rippling losses without any noticable threat, chances; and I mean probable outcome is to RTB.

We build jets based upon Quality, not Quantity - we use them within our Doctrine, which in the US's case is Integrated force multipliers.

Okay, heres the best part! Every single simulated engagement with Raptors without ROE restrict, have led to zero losses. It gets better, there not fighting PESA equiped high observable MiG-29's (Or any SU in Class; PS Ask the Indians how that went, Ha), there going up against Respawning AESA equiped Combat proven airframes with GCI. :rolleyes:

Two points of Bullshit I want to point out before I wipe my hands.

Economic's don't matter when slammers start to leave the bay.

Lastly, I'll bet my job, and girlfriend that Russian aircraft aren't cheaper to maintain. I wish we could have a Indian Pilot chime in on what they do after 10 hours of flight time.

Oh, Shorter turnaround time? Any CAN/US/Brit crew want to jump in and talk about their Alert status time in OIF, OEF?

We had higher sortie rates oversea's then back home. This is throughout all the squardrons.

S41

Spooky Lynx
Apr 8 2011, 04:19
Great pilots are made because of the technology that drives them.
O RLY? So why germans hadn't get air superiority with their Schwalbe's? And why some of them were shot down by propeller-driven fighters? And one more question: why outnumbered vietnamese pilots flying in older MiG-17 and early MiG-21 took some good scores against F-4s equipped with the latest advanced avionics and Sparrows and supported by AWACS?

Lastly, I'll bet my job, and girlfriend that Russian aircraft aren't cheaper to maintain. I wish we could have a Indian Pilot chime in on what they do after 10 hours of flight time.
They're really cheaper to maintain - just look at the customers, not very rich countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Venesuela. They wouldn't afford 4th gen heavy fighter if the plane is not really cheap and easy to maintain.

Every single simulated engagement with Raptors without ROE restrict, have led to zero losses.
Who were the enemies?

Hellfire257
Apr 8 2011, 17:54
Yeah, I'd like hard proof of that too. I find it difficult to believe, especially from various conflicting accounts with the Raptor vs. EF, mostly saying the EF punched above its expected weight. One source includes the BBC, but it still isn't primary.



The US Air Force has already begun to take delivery of another superjet, the F-22 Raptor.

This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US.

Star Four One
Apr 8 2011, 20:08
O RLY? So why germans hadn't get air superiority with their Schwalbe's? And why some of them were shot down by propeller-driven fighters? And one more question: why outnumbered vietnamese pilots flying in older MiG-17 and early MiG-21 took some good scores against F-4s equipped with the latest advanced avionics and Sparrows and supported by AWACS?

They're really cheaper to maintain - just look at the customers, not very rich countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Venesuela. They wouldn't afford 4th gen heavy fighter if the plane is not really cheap and easy to maintain.

Who were the enemies?

To keep this response simple, and with as few words as I can manage,

Creating a design from the ground up, late in a war that was being lost, and fielding it with enough numbers to tactically use them in engagements is not a easy practice. Then you have to have guys on the ground to repair, manage, and generally maintain a 'pig'.
As for Nam, everything starts from point A. In this case, new technology that has never been fielded or matured into a state that could decide the outcome of a engagement.
AWACS is another story all together. None were operating at that time, and our philosophy of air combat was in the grind. Hence the F-4G. Things were ALOT different back then.

Countries are always going to be committed to a/c that they note as being more proficient and loyal to their standards. Price of course is a selling point, but motives play just as big of a role. Look at Turkey with the F-35 "code" fiasco they tried to play off.
Next, the US is not a fan of selling to countries where their own equipement can be used against them.

Bet ya a Block 52 Viper has a higher operating percentage then a Fulcrum. I know, I've been with them.

Raptors kill their young, (Eagles, Vipers, Hornets, SLUF's, F4's, EF's etc..

S41

Prydain
Apr 9 2011, 04:18
Wrong on ALL accounts.

Tell that story to ANY Viper or Eagle guy, and regardless of pride will tell you any bunch of punks flying Raptors will trash them.Will they? You speak from experience I gather?


You cannot engage something you cannot see....Schadenfreude. Ignorance is pleasurable to me, reading your posts remind me of this:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/110401_0_WStandard.16-27.Mar28.Cover_.jpg
A Weekly Standard front cover titled "Once more unto the breach" with the delicious ignorance not only shown by the front page showing an aircraft that has not and cannot be used in Libya but with a broken, uninformative, story written inside rather than a report on events in any way.

Star Four One, for you, objectivity is yet to be learned.


[going on about buying A-10-equivalent aeroplanes]

Lastly, I'll bet my job, and girlfriend that Russian aircraft aren't cheaper to maintain. I wish we could have a Indian Pilot chime in on what they do after 10 hours of flight time.Aircraft become more expensive to maintain over time. The more types of aircraft you have the more spare parts, software technicians, mechanics, training staff, links with industry and other items/specialists you will have to pay for. Efficiency is gained by a multi-role aircraft being able to do multiple tasks, as aircraft have been able to do just as effectively as a separate specialist aircraft since the 80's. Only America, Russia and China have the capacity, along with willingness to do so will ever consider having specialist ground attack aircraft that does not offer additional flexibility.

Efficiency isn't gained by having a nice-in-theory/niche airframe like the F22 or A-10 taking large portions of expenditure and logistical 'capital' if they can only do one job and that job already has an adequate and comparably more efficient/effective suitor.

As for Indian pilots, my dad will be spending some time with the Indian airforce in an industrial and maintenance position in the near future, I'll ask him when he gets back, eh?

NoRailgunner
Apr 9 2011, 07:56
In 2009 the funding of further F-22 production was ceased by law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/business/29defense.html?_r=1&hpw

Some F-22 informations:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/

Star Four One
Apr 9 2011, 17:12
Will they? You speak from experience I gather?

Schadenfreude. Ignorance is pleasurable to me, reading your posts remind me of this:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/110401_0_WStandard.16-27.Mar28.Cover_.jpg
A Weekly Standard front cover titled "Once more unto the breach" with the delicious ignorance not only shown by the front page showing an aircraft that has not and cannot be used in Libya but with a broken, uninformative, story written inside rather than a report on events in any way.

Star Four One, for you, objectivity is yet to be learned.


Aircraft become more expensive to maintain over time. The more types of aircraft you have the more spare parts, software technicians, mechanics, training staff, links with industry and other items/specialists you will have to pay for. Efficiency is gained by a multi-role aircraft being able to do multiple tasks, as aircraft have been able to do just as effectively as a separate specialist aircraft since the 80's. Only America, Russia and China have the capacity, along with willingness to do so will ever consider having specialist ground attack aircraft that does not offer additional flexibility.

Efficiency isn't gained by having a nice-in-theory/niche airframe like the F22 or A-10 taking large portions of expenditure and logistical 'capital' if they can only do one job and that job already has an adequate and comparably more efficient/effective suitor.

As for Indian pilots, my dad will be spending some time with the Indian airforce in an industrial and maintenance position in the near future, I'll ask him when he gets back, eh?

Yes I speak from first hand experience. That is all you will know. I could be the boom operator for all it matters. ;)

One thing about these forums is it's filled with speculators and people who generally think they know what they are talking about, objectivity? Or experiences? Two different facids to convey.
I should probably just say in the future "Good job bud, you know what your talking about".

It is agreed a/c attrition can be "summed" up in the last part of your post. However, you were all over the map. Do you realize the labour involved in running constant operations of a/c over a extended combat deployment?

Russia in Afganistan is a perfect example of low percentage sortie rates. Hell, take Iraq who had the second largest airforce at one point. It's all fair game if you have the will to kill.

Before we go offtopic anymore, lets jump back on.

S41

Prydain
Apr 9 2011, 23:29
It is agreed a/c attrition can be "summed" up in the last part of your post. However, you were all over the map. Do you realize the labour involved in running constant operations of a/c over a extended combat deployment?I do not and thats why I have stuck to talking about things that can logically be discussed and argued on the back of available information.


Russia in Afganistan is a perfect example of low percentage sortie rates. Hell, take Iraq who had the second largest airforce at one point. It's all fair game if you have the will to kill.I don't see the point of saying any of this. As for Iraq, they had a chocolate airforce: It melts, it broke and it got eaten very quickly by an American.


Before we go offtopic anymore, lets jump back on.
We are talking about aircraft procurement....

Star Four One
Apr 10 2011, 00:04
I do not and thats why I have stuck to talking about things that can logically be discussed and argued on the back of available information.
I don't see the point of saying any of this. As for Iraq, they had a chocolate airforce: It melts, it broke and it got eaten very quickly by an American.


We are talking about aircraft procurement....

Hello Prydain,

You cannot 'logically' discuss something you know nothing about. 99% sortie rates were achieved in the last two wars in Iraq throughout multiple squadrons. With jets running up to 14 hours straight a day.

The very first day of combat flying, prediction was less then half of the airframes participating in packages would be lost. Iraq was still a threatening airforce regardless of how you spin the card.

Sorry, I joined this discussion based upon the Raptor being obsolete to a "good" pilot.

Carry on if you would like to discuss this further..

S41

Prydain
Apr 10 2011, 04:47
You cannot 'logically' discuss something you know nothing about.I'm glad we aren't discussing something that I know nothing about then.


Sorry, I joined this discussion based upon the Raptor being obsolete to a "good" pilot.

Carry on if you would like to discuss this further..You started talking about Russia in Afghanistan and Iraq, it isn't me changing the points of discussion, your flailing around injecting random sentences.

I think you think I should readily default to your position based on what you have written but your hardly convincing or at a position of infallibility.

TechnoTerrorist303
Apr 10 2011, 13:40
Every single simulated engagement with Raptors without ROE restrict, have led to zero losses.

I have it on particularly good authority that this statement is bollocks. I suspect it's more likely that the results just didn't get posted.

DM
Apr 10 2011, 14:12
I like how this thread has gone from walkers naval-Typhoon wet dreams to star 41's "omg raptor iz best!!1!!1!11!" e-peen dick swinging.

Meanwhile, the JSF procurement continues to bimble on, with the RN/RAF still set to end up with JSFs and not Hornets (as the OP would suggest) or Typhoons (as walker seems to enjoy pedalling)

TechnoTerrorist303
Apr 10 2011, 14:17
Yeah I started the thread in response to an article I'd read... I now have regular nightmares about the monster that it is in danger of becoming.

Daniel
Apr 10 2011, 16:22
Another Milestone reached:

CBL-kSCr4e0

Check the bird at 0:06...

RKSL-Rock
Apr 10 2011, 16:25
Yeah I started the thread in response to an article I'd read... I now have regular nightmares about the monster that it is in danger of becoming.

Ah don't worry mate its providing entertainment and a platform for flag waving for quite a few people.

Its one of those threads that should be stickied as an example of "teh internetz dizchats". :p

Star Four One
Apr 10 2011, 17:03
I like how this thread has gone from walkers naval-Typhoon wet dreams to star 41's "omg raptor iz best!!1!!1!11!" e-peen dick swinging.

Meanwhile, the JSF procurement continues to bimble on, with the RN/RAF still set to end up with JSFs and not Hornets (as the OP would suggest) or Typhoons (as walker seems to enjoy pedalling)

I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents into a forum with false statements. Obviously a nice majority here live a pipe dream.

Oh DM, have some respect.

@<hidden>
My comment about Afganistan and Iraq were in correlation to sortie rates.

@<hidden>

Raptors in unrestricted ROE's in DACT kill without losses. Now, thats not saying the oddball WVR kill occurs from a respawning red. Which to my knowledge has happened twice.

S41

TechnoTerrorist303
Apr 10 2011, 21:31
Raptors in unrestricted ROE's in DACT kill without losses.

Eh? Daventry town council operate Raptors now? I knew that they were cracking down on the wheelie bin thing but that's ridiculous.

I have to admit that I only have the information 2nd hand and my source is currently unavailable for comment as he's probably somewhere over Libya at the moment but that's how these things are...

Baff1
Apr 12 2011, 10:55
Baff, you obviously have nill knowledge on not only the Raptor, but air combat in it's complete entity.
Regardless of numbers, if you recieve heavy losses in a/c without knowing where, or who shot at you; chances are you will not press the target.

Ask someone who has participated in DACT with a couple of Raptors, psychologically your feeling sick before you get off the ground. After the 15th kill call, you feel bummed out.

This isn't Falcon 4.0 Baff.

S41
How well they score in Tom Clancy's Hawks isn't real a big intrest for me.




I know this about air combat, if you have a 4:1 numerical superiority you are ready to attack.

So if you want to give F22 away free.... we will take all you have to offer, but if you are intending to sell them for 8 times the price of the competion, I'll take 8 of the competitions instead please.

Raptors?
They aren't even going to get off the ground. They would provoke an attack on us simply by being too few in number to defend our borders.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------



You cannot engage something you cannot see.

When your package is recieving rippling losses without any noticable threat, chances; and I mean probable outcome is to RTB.

Actually, you can.

http://www.ebritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/stealth1.jpg

The most intresting capability of the F22 is not it's stealth, it is it's top speed. Supercruise.

If the enemy outnumbers you, you simply fly off. If you outnumber the enemy you engage.


Supercruise is what denied the allies air domination over Kosovo. The Serb had Foxbats. They had the speed advantage. So at the end of the war, they still had all their Foxbats.
Unfortunately they didn't have enough of them to control the skies. They were consistently outnumbered by inferior airframes.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------




Aircraft become more expensive to maintain over time. The more types of aircraft you have the more spare parts, software technicians, mechanics, training staff, links with industry and other items/specialists you will have to pay for. Efficiency is gained by a multi-role aircraft being able to do multiple tasks, as aircraft have been able to do just as effectively as a separate specialist aircraft since the 80's. Only America, Russia and China have the capacity, along with willingness to do so will ever consider having specialist ground attack aircraft that does not offer additional flexibility.

Efficiency isn't gained by having a nice-in-theory/niche airframe like the F22 or A-10 taking large portions of expenditure and logistical 'capital' if they can only do one job and that job already has an adequate and comparably more efficient/effective suitor.

[/SIZE]

Intresting read. Thanks.

While I agree with this, you can capitalise on this by using cross over airframes. Where the "multi-role" is military and domestic. Hence my example of Cessna. A model for which spare parts are commonly accessable and training is also commonly accessable.
Also the simplicity of these kinds of designs greatly limits the amout of training or support they require in the first place.
It is easier and cheaper to maintain a Cessna than it is a Eurofighter. Much easier. Much Cheaper.
Smaller ground crew. Smaller runway. Smaller hangar. Smaller training program. Smaller fuel bill. Smaller spare parts bill.

Lets face it, air cadets currently do this. It can be done pretty damn cheap.


The use of "training aircraft" as military frames also. Also capitalises on support and training costs.


As a point of history, we maintained specialist ground attack aircraft until very recently. The Harrier. (That of course is only the fixed wing variety we also field Apache's.)
If the price is right we will do so again.

Close air support is a military capability we place value on.

Hans Ludwig
Apr 12 2011, 23:57
Sorry to bust your bubble, like some many do to you on the TWI forums, Baff, but the MiG 25 doesn't have supercruise.

RangerPL
Apr 13 2011, 00:30
Not to mention the fact that the F-117 is old-generation stealth technology, it handles like a pig and is subsonic. When it opens the bomb bay, it has a radar cross section bigger than the freaking Empire State Building.

At the time of the shoot-down the F-117's technology was 25 years old. The Serbs shot down the F-117 by operating their radar on very long wavelengths, being able to see it for a brief moment and target it with a SAM. Additionally, they claim they saw it open its bomb bay.

The technology utilized on the F-22 is far more sophisticated than that on the F-117, there's a reason the F-22 doesn't have so many angles. It relies almost completely on RAM and not the funky design.


Supercruise is what denied the allies air domination over Kosovo. The Serb had Foxbats. They had the speed advantage. So at the end of the war, they still had all their Foxbats.
Unfortunately they didn't have enough of them to control the skies. They were consistently outnumbered by inferior airframes.

This literally made me LOL.

The part about "speed advantage" is complete bull. MiG-25 engines begin to tear themselves apart at Mach 2.8. The Foxbat can't even compare to a modern fighter, its radar uses vacuum tubes for Christ's sake.

Oh, and Yugoslavia or its successor states did not operate a SINGLE MiG-25 at ANY point during its existence.

Star Four One isn't entirely right either, but his information is not even half as ridiculous as yours. He is right about this though:

Baff, you obviously have nill knowledge on not only the Raptor, but air combat in it's complete entity.

America produced a fighter superior to all existing Chinese, Russian and European designs. Deal with it.

RKSL-Rock
Apr 13 2011, 00:35
...Supercruise is what denied the allies air domination over Kosovo. The Serb had Foxbats. They had the speed advantage. So at the end of the war, they still had all their Foxbats.
Unfortunately they didn't have enough of them to control the skies. They were consistently outnumbered by inferior airframes...

Erm since when did Serbia have any Mig-25s? ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence

The best bit of kit they had was the Mig-29A. It did have an very good radar but it didnt have the kind of radar/AWACS support the coallition had.

@<hidden> Star Four One

re your claim to the F-22's prowess. Like others have already said, the claims of its absolute capability is just come across as unsubstantiated nationalistic crap.

I know quite a few people in the US and UK defence industries that know first hand of several losses to "clearly inferior aircraft". Both in restricted and unrestricted DACT and both officially sanctioned and unofficial dogfights. I've even talked directly with Typhoon air crew that have flown in some of these exercises. Most are complementary but all say the same, "It's not a super weapon that the US USAF PR machine claims it is."

There are also lots of stories about the excuses for the losses too: "we left radar augmenters on", "the aircraft was outside the exercise area", "the Raptor team discontinued the exercise for safety reasons (they forgot to tell the opfor though)" etc. There are also claims that Raptors cheated in recent Flag exercises. Leaving the area and returning from another vector. And the BS..erm...PR machine rumbles loudly on...

To be honest, its all impossible to prove at this stage. I seriously doubt the USAF will ever admit to owning US$240 million flying lemons any way. Without real actual facts all our posts are just hearsay, blind patriotic flag waving and egos. So why don't we just stay on topic and stick with published facts and leave the e-pissing contest alone.

BasileyOne
Apr 13 2011, 06:36
at the end GB AF decided to buy F35A, instead both AV8 or F35B.

jagheterjan
Apr 13 2011, 07:20
Hate to burst your bubble, but the MoD chose the Charlie F35, not the Alpha. And wtf is this nonsense about the AV8? RAF and RN just phased out the Harrier.

BasileyOne
Apr 13 2011, 09:31
Hate to burst your bubble, but the MoD chose the Charlie F35, not the Alpha. And wtf is this nonsense about the AV8? RAF and RN just phased out the Harrier.

C's isnt come out soon, so, to fulfill units, few F35A's was odered.

jagheterjan
Apr 13 2011, 09:49
According to the 2010 SDSR, the MoD changed their JSF orders from the originally contracted 150 Bravo birds to from about 50 to a maximum of 135 Charlie birds and pushed EIS dates. There was never ever the option to go with Alpha birds. I'm curious to learn about your sources.

RKSL-Rock
Apr 13 2011, 09:52
C's isnt come out soon, so, to fulfill units, few F35A's was odered.

Erm... no they havent. The A would be utterly pointless in the currently planned 20 years defence strategy.

The F-35C will be operatred much like the Harrier was for Joint Force Harrier. So if its not carrier capable it isnt any use to anyone.

EDIT - Failcakes beat me to it.

Prydain
Apr 13 2011, 13:30
People like wtfisMIAwhichASAPisKIA shouldn't be allowed to vote. I mean wtf.

RKSL-Rock
Apr 13 2011, 13:34
People like wtfisMIAwhichASAPisKIA shouldn't be allowed to vote. I mean wtf.

Looking at his post history: New account with all 64 posts made in less than a day on varied topics I think we have a baby-troll in the making :D

TechnoTerrorist303
Apr 14 2011, 17:21
Looking at his post history: New account with all 64 posts made in less than a day on varied topics I think we have a baby-troll in the making :D

Yeah, I just read his thing about GAA... I tried at least, my brain hurt after 10 seconds and then my eyes started bleeding. As for buying AV8s I don't think that even our government is daft enough to phase out the Harrier only to buy an Americanised version. Fail... If it was a trolling attempt then even more fail.

Baff1
Apr 16 2011, 18:08
Sorry to bust your bubble, like some many do to you on the TWI forums, Baff, but the MiG 25 doesn't have supercruise.
Wow a cross forum troll!

Grats.

I hope you will be a little more intrested in discussing the topic and a little less intrested in Pwning Noobs than the average TWI participant. That community is in every way comparable with the CS kiddies.
Which is a shame.

I have yet to feel that I have had my bubble burst on the TWI forums.
It doesn't matter how forcefully you explain to me that I like STEAM, when I say I don't, I mean it.
It doesn't matter to me how much of a dickhead you think I am because I do not.

I've managed to learn the odd thing there, but mostly it's just over-confrontational types trying to mark their turf.


In this thread I hope that you will find people genuinely intrested in the subject matter and respect felt for those people with experiences relating to it that they are willing to share.





The MIG 25 has superfast high altitude capabilities. (Perhaps less impressive today than in it's hayday). This gives it the ability to close with it's targets and also to evade it's threats. That for me is the essence of supercruise.

The tactical advantage it offers in my eyes.

If the Russians don't call it "supercruise" but have some Russian word for it instead... so be it. What's in a name?


I do however stand corrected on the Mig 25's use by the Serbian airforce.
I'd been reading story about how the Serbian airforce has survived the entire Kosovo war and had found this quite surprising. I don't know where I read that and I will be hunting it down to go back and read it more carefully.
Thanks to all for the correction.



@<hidden>
I'm not intrested in whether or not the Raptor is the best fighter evar.
The Tiger tank was better than the T34.

But the T34 still won the war.
(You can substitute the word "Sherman" for T34 if that it makes it an easier pill to swallow).

The F22, no matter how uber, is not a intresting purchase for the RAF because it is too expensive.
Deal with it.
If you are giving them away we want as many as you have on offer.
If you are selling them... no thanks, we have other options.

Please don't feel that this undermines our estimation of the F22's capability in any way. Only it's ability to meet our needs. Price is the critical component in this equation.

If you were to contest that one Raptor is more effective than the comparably priced 8 Mig 35's I could buy instead... I would be laughing at you.

So for my money the Raptor would not only have to be the worlds best fighter... but it would have to be the worlds best fighter for the money. And that.... it is not.

Ultimately this is a no brainer decision. We have just bought a shed load of new fighters to fulfill the same role as the F22 offers. Clearly we aren't in the market to replace them after only their first week of operations. What we have already will do nicely thanks.





With regards to Stealth, it is my opinion that a greatly reduced radar profile is still a detectable radar profile.
As we saw with the F-117, once that radar profile had been learnt, it could be tracked and locked onto.

I think a realistic timeframe for that stealth radar image to be discovered and distributed by rival radar operators is one war.
So in Gulf War one, the F117 operated with impunity, but over Kosovo a couple of them got shot up.


While this clearly still provides an advantage on the aircrafts second deployment... it doesn't make the plane undefeatable.
I would also suggest to you that it's reduced radar image does not reduce it's detection range to inside of typical air to air missile range.
So while it may gain a manouvre advantage from it's stealth, I don't expect it to gain any particular dogfighting advantage from it.

Instead I feel it's greatest manouvre advantage comes from it's speed although I think they both compliment each other for this.

That is to be explicit, the ability to close into weapons range of an enemy and shoot at it. Or the ability to stay out of weapons range of a superior force and evade combat with it.

The ability to pick which fights it wishes to participate in, rather than how it performs in the fights in which it is engaged. (I don't have any real concept of modern day dogfighting... I expect it's got a lot more to do with the missile deployed than the platform it launches from or the pilot who thumbs the trigger).



I'm not sure what the advancements ot stealth have been in the last 20-30 years, but I expect them to be refinements rather than advancements. In fact I expect the F22 to have a greater radar proifile than the F117, but that for less of a sacrifice to it's performance. I think the refinements have gone in the direction of less stealth and more performance.

Thinner lighter polymers, more absorbant paints... that sort of thing.
I obviously wouldn't know eitherway, but that would be my guess.

Baff1
Apr 16 2011, 20:50
Erm since when did Serbia have any Mig-25s? ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence

The best bit of kit they had was the Mig-29A. It did have an very good radar but it didnt have the kind of radar/AWACS support the coallition had.



I watched a nice show about some NATO training execise in Canada.
The key to their simulation seemed to me to be the hunting down and destroying of the AWACs.

To this end they were all manouvering and afterburning and planning their fuel to get the enemy fighters out of position so they could get in range to attack it unopposed.

It was this show that leads me to value the importance of speed in a fighter. The ability to exploit any gap.
When it came down to the dogfight results... regardless of airframe, those armed with AMRAM consistently defeated those armed with Sidewinder. The missile was the only apparent decider.