It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DoD Says It Could Build F-35 Without UK

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well it might be me, but I still think that navalyzing the Gripen is pure fantasy. If the UK cancels its naval JSF purchase, then I see only two ways :
-the "expensive" way : navalyzing the Typhoon
-the "scandalous" way : getting the Rafale

Or should UK go the cheap route and buy the MIG-35 ?


When it comes to navalyzing the Typhoon, an obstacle is the lack of recent experience in this domain, i.e. a conventional naval a/c as opposed to a VTOL which as a very different way to "land" on the carrier.

That said the final decision should be political, i.e. :
- the European solution with the Rafale : we European have a common defense strategy
- the British solution with the sea Typhoon : we British keep a national industrial capacity
- the US solution with the JSF : US are our friends and we stick with them whatever happens




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Wooo, hoe did you know I was from Maltby, have I said it before or are you related to Derek Acorah?
Whereabouts in Maltby are you from, and have you moved away now?



yeah mate you told me before in your 'save the millers' campaign
- i won't say where i live incase theres storkers on here
but not far from the queens



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Well, you know by now I love a good discussion and despite skippy's cunning plan to divert me with temptation, I will resist it and plod on


It is my belief that the 150 aircraft required are the total UK buy to replace all Harriers, not just the RN's Sea Harriers, so its not related to the fact that the new carriers will be bigger, just that all STOVL operations are organised under the umbrella of Joint Force Harrer and I do belive that if the F-35 is ordered by Britain it will be ordered in full to maintain the JFH strategy, just having the RAF use it makes no sense under the defence policy, it has to be both services or neither. In my opinion, of course.

Thats why I think the Rafale will only be orered if the F-35 is abandoned altogether by the UK.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   


i won't say where i live incase theres storkers on here but not far from the queens


yes, I'll be equally vague and tell you I'm a bit nearer to the Stute.


So not far away at all, How wierd we're chatting on here! I'd best remember never to be nasty to you or you might walk up the hill and smack me one


Echoblade;
I think the Gripen could be Navalized perfectly well if the will and funding was there. It would probably be easier than the Typhoon with that chin intake to think about. Not that I think it will be, just that it is possible.

You touched on the lack of experience, thats a decent call. The last time the UK carried out the task of modifying a CTOL fighter for deck ops was the F-4K Phantom in the 1960's. Yes, I know the Phantom was already Carrier based but it needed to be extensively modified to be able to fly off our ships, this was done by Hawker Siddeley and the last one before that was the Sea Vixen, although the Buccaneer was designed for carrier ops from the start. The one thing these all have in common is that they are very old and the engineers and designers involved are long gone.

I agree that the 'common sense' option is the Rafale but (a) this would bring about the end of JFH, how much do we want to keep it? and (b) the common sense approach is always the last to occur to the MoD(PE).



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The US DOD should have been prepared incase Britain backs out of the JSF programme to start with.

The F-35 is a decent aircraft, shame if Britain dont get it but it would be a good point for the Eurofighter industry including the maybe Naval Variant.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Britain sees progress in F-35 tech transfer talks


Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Britain is more optimistic about the prospects of buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after crucial talks with U.S. officials over technology transfers went well, a British embassy spokesman said on Monday.

The sophisticated, radar-evading F-35 will cost an estimated $256 billion (146 billion pounds) for the 2,593 jets that the United States and Britain plan to buy.

Britain's top arms buyer, Lord Drayson, told a U.S. Senate committee last week that his country would be unable to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on buying the aircraft unless the United States gave it access to some of its classified technology.

Embassy spokesman Steve Atkins said Drayson had "extremely constructive" talks with top U.S. officials after his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee and progress had been made, although some areas still needed more work.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The US has no choice but to accept Britains stance and provide them the information they're asking for. Congress doesn't tolerate Pentagon budget overruns anymore, so the US can't build the JSF alone.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
See below extract. I think the Brits have a very, very good point.
Cheers



Lord Drayson: JSF Operational Sovereignty Is Vital for UK Defence Interests

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 14, 2006)

Lord Drayson, in his first visit to Washington as Minister for Defence Procurement, will today set out the UK's perspective of the JSF programme to the influential Senate Armed Services Committee.

Lord Drayson, who will be accompanied by Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Air Staff, will outline to the committee (whose members include Senators Warner, McCain, Levin, Kennedy, Clinton and Dole), the importance of the programme to the UK's future military capability and ability to make a significant contribution to future joint operations with both the United States and other Allies.

Lord Drayson said:

"Our aim is to ensure that future generations of UK and US servicemen and women can continue to stand shoulder to shoulder in pursuit of common goals. Increasingly we recognise that this will depend upon access to common technology. With its increasing complexity, and the growing importance of expeditionary fighting power, the necessity to share information and technology between our two great nations both in relation to JSF and more generally is ever more vital.

"Whilst I appreciate the concerns of some in the US about the issue of Technology Transfer, the British public expect their Government to equip our Armed Forces with the very best and I am determined to best represent the interests of our national security and our British Service personnel.

"The next key milestone in the programme, the signing of the Production, Containment and Follow-On Development MOU will commit the United Kingdom to the whole life of the JSF program. We must therefore be sure to understand the nature and balance of the obligations between our nations consistent with the principles of the agreements on JSF we have signed to date. Operational sovereignty, the ability to integrate, upgrade, operate and sustain the aircraft as we see fit and without recourse to others is of paramount importance.

"Let me state our bottom line. These issues are important to us because they enable us to make the judgement that the aircraft are "fit to fight" and we can send our airmen and women into action in that knowledge. This decision has to be one for the UK, indeed the British Government's responsibility to our Armed Forces, and their families, means that this judgement can only be made by the UK. If we do not have the information and technology needed to make that decision, then I shall not be able to sign the MOU. I recognise the consequences that would have on the UK's continuing participation in the programme.

"The UK Government will continue to work tirelessly with the US to resolve this problem once and for all. The UK committed to the JSF program at a very early stage and, as Level 1 partners, we remain committed. I hope that we can find a way which will meet our requirements for sovereign capability while protecting the US national security requirements.

"We have no reason to believe that our discussions with the administration will not be successful but without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms we will not be able to buy these aircraft. I am spelling this out because it is so important to make our intentions clear. I know the British can be accused of understatement."

Lord Drayson, commenting on the issue of the second Rolls Royce engine said:

"The F136 inserts an important competitive element to the JSF programme by providing an alternative choice for the aircraft engine both at initial acquisition and, importantly, through life, with all the monetary savings that this will offer us both. There is also the potential growth capability that the F-136 offers as a new generation engine. We believe the F136 engine will lead to lower through-life costs and deliver the best outcome for both our warfighters and our taxpayers.

"For these reasons and given the importance of the project to Rolls Royce, we expect, as a level 1 partner, to be properly consulted on decisions of this magnitude. As the Minister responsible for the UK defence industrial base, I still wish to see funding for F-136 included in the Department of Defense programme. This is something that I will be following up with the Administration this week."

During his 4-day visit Lord Drayson will also be meeting with senior officials from the Pentagon and State Department for discussions relating to our bilateral defence equipment relationship and will be making a number of calls upon industry, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing and BAE Systems.


BACKGROUND NOTES:

1. The Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of JSF is the aircraft selected by the UK to meet the Joint Combat Aircraft requirement.

2. JSF will form the "Strike" element of the UK's Carrier Strike capability comprised of JSF, two new aircraft carriers and supporting systems.

3. The UK is the only Level 1 partner in the US-led JSF programme. The other partner nations are Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
well that is straight to the point: the brits want the F136 engine AND they want `tech info` (the codes); failure on either or both accounts and they pull out completely.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Yes, Harlequin. I clearly misread this statement when I posted it up several days ago as there is a clear mention of the 'consquences for Britains continuing participation in the programme.

An industrial pullout by the UK would be much more serious for Lockheed than a mere refusal to buy it. It would not cripple it technologically of course, US industry is perfectly capable of filling the void, it would however induce serious delays and additional costs to the US that the programme might not be able to bear politically.

Even if this is resolved and the F-35 goes on, it will leave a nasty taste of what 'co-operation' brings on both sides of the Atlantic.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
If our Govt had looked after our aircraft Industry as well as France's did we wouldn't need to anyway.


And here in lies the fundamental difference between the US and Europe...

Just thought that interesting...

In any case, I think this is all just posturing and it will be resolved soon. The UK needs the JSF and the JSF needs the UK.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
This issue over source codes is about as ironic as the Soviets stealing pipeline control software during the Reagan years. Remember what happened? Mysteriously, some aspects of the Soviets pipelines went Boom.

Besides the point but that story is more myth than reality by someone who had to sell a book. The plan allegedly dates from January 1982, the explosion of the soviet pipeline from the summer of 1982, meaning the Russians would have needed to translate operating manuals and completed testing on test stands and in the field all in under 6 months, and got approval from the soviet bureaucracy in under six months. The time window just doesn't fit.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Instead of navalising the typhoon, wont it be a better proposition to stealthify the harrier which is alredy a proven carrier based VSTOL platform.

The Eurofighter is a 11 tonne whale, and i doubt if it can be "navalized" to take off from a short carrier without some major modifications and capability compromises.

Although the decision to consider the carrier based Rafale-M which is thousands of kilograms lighter than the Eurofighter makes logical sense, i doubt if France would be willing to submit 100% of the Rafale's technology and source codes(since the UK is particular about tech transfer) at the hands of the UK when airplanes sponsored by the latter directly competes with France and the Rafale in foreign tenders for multirole aircrafts.

Pertaining to technology transfer and the Eurofighter, i have a question : Do all the Eurofighter consortium counties have in their posession 100% of the Eurofighter's technology and source codes including the parts for which they were not involved with or responsible for during the developmental stages ?

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Interesting post stealth spy, however;




Instead of navalising the typhoon, wont it be a better proposition to stealthify the harrier which is alredy a proven carrier based VSTOL platform.


The huge exposed front fan and hot forward nozzles of the Harrier are both essential to its operation and make it virtually impossible to 'stealthify' it (good word btw).




Although the decision to consider the carrier based Rafale-M which is thousands of kilograms lighter than the Eurofighter makes logical sense


Although it is lighter than the Typhoon, you exaggerate badly stealth spy, it is actually 600Kg lighter, 10,460Kg compared to Typhoons 11,150Kg. Hardly 'thousands'.




Pertaining to technology transfer and the Eurofighter, i have a question : Do all the Eurofighter consortium counties have in their posession 100% of the Eurofighter's technology and source codes including the parts for which they were not involved with or responsible for during the developmental stages ?


Yes.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The huge exposed front fan and hot forward nozzles of the Harrier are both essential to its operation and make it virtually impossible to 'stealthify' it (good word btw).


Ahhh...yes i see.



With the Harrier ruled out, the naval variant of a 'neber intended to be naval' Eurofighter unlikely and technology transfer issues with the JSF, the Royal Navy is in a deep quandarry.

The best soultion seems to be the F-35 route itself. Perhaps a compormise agreement can be reached with the UK agreeing to the F-136 being ditched in exchange for some amount of additional technology transfer.

Or maybe, the US will agree to let the UK have downgraded F-35's (like the one described here
)with full tech transfer ?



Although it is lighter than the Typhoon, you exaggerate badly stealth spy, it is actually 600Kg lighter, 10,460Kg compared to Typhoons 11,150Kg. Hardly 'thousands'.


I beg to disagree here.
The Rafale-C weighs 9,060 kg and the carrier based the Rafale-M weighs some 480 kgs more than this, making the weight difference comfortably over a thousand kilos.




Yes.

Germany and the UK having acess to all of the tech its understandable, but does this include Spain and Italy as well ? IMHO it would be scandalous if it did


[edit on 29-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Your source is bloody wikipedia, it is little better than a glorified messageboard


My figures were taken direclty from Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft, 2004 edition.

I win


Italy and Spain;

Scandalous? I think it is scandalous that you would say this, we know what it is to trust our allies, uncle George lives in another country



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
If you want to think so ..
Officially Dassault has never announced the Rafale's true weight, and has only called it "10 tonne class". However german flug-revenue and american edefenceonline say Dassault insiders have revealed the figure to be the one i stated above.

Talking about scandalous deals, there is are some serious F-35 customer poaching attempts going on
by fellow greived parties.


Eurofighter offers strategic partnership to Norwegian industry
EUROFIGHTER is offering Norwegian industry a strategic partnership based on full access and exchange of technolgy. The announcement came during a Eurofighter press briefing in...

31-Mar-2006


jdin.janes.com...

Next Eurofighter customers ... Norway and Australia ???

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
That article about the Aussie F-35s is slightly misleading. They're going to be LO vs VLO. Ok, but as someone else said, who defines LO and VLO? What's the difference between the two? It could be that the US version has the RCS of a ball bearing, and the Aussie variant has the RCS of a marble. In the practical world, that's not enough to make a huge difference. It's not like the US versions will be able to fly through the threat area with impunity, whereas the Aussie versions would be shot down in big numbers.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Stealth spy



Officially Dassault has never announced the Rafale's true weight, and has only called it "10 tonne class"


OK stealth spy, fair comment. but if the figures have not been revealed then how can you be sure the 'insiders' figures are accurate? Especially when the the figures for both aircraft (even in Jane's) are marked out as being 'estimated approximate'?

I think this may be a case of you believing what you want again my friend, would that be correct?


Apart from which, accepting your figures for the sake of argument for a moment, you yourself put the difference at 'over a thousand Kg'. Again I say that this is a far cry from the 'thousands of Kg' of your original post.

I know I keep picking up on these deliberate negative slants you inject into these posts but then, you do keep typing them


1,000kg extra weight is not actually that bad considering that Typhoon is slightly larger than Rafale, has more installed power and carries a heavier load. I don't actually think it marks out an advantage or disadvantage in either direction because there are situations where the bigger heavier more powerful fighter is more attractive and there are situation where the smaller, lighter one makes more sense, I just feel that you have made out the Typhoon to be an 'overweight pig' when it is far from the truth.

However moving on;

I commented on the Norway situation a while ago in a thread about the F-35 (sorry, I am terrible at rememebring where I put things, in life as well as on here


This is not a new move, Norway has been courted by Eurofighter for many years, way back since the 1990's in fact. I find it odd that the country has full industrial participation in the programme without having placed an order. As I said back then, I await developments on this with interest because I can't actually see how its going to work at present. The Original presentations stalled when Norway suspended its fighter competition in 2000 but things seem to be gathering momentum again because of the general dissatisfaction with the F-35 among the partners outside the US.

In fact I have a question for you here, which relates to something I touched upon in another thread (somewhere). Given the serious doubts about buying the F-35 expressed by partner nations like the UK, Norway, Denmark etc how would you see an Indian purchase of the F-35, if it were to happen? In my other post I was speculating that if the world saw the original partners in the F-35 backing away from it then it would make it doubly unattractive for them to purchase, much as the world turned away from the F-20 in the 1980's.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Re: Rafale's empty weight, the figures I have are 9.1t for the C model and 9.8t for the M model.

For your comparison of the F-35 with the F-20 Waynos I don't get your point. The F-20 was not ordered by the USAF and then it had a unique weak point : it had no basis market to start production and achieve profitability before being offered on the export market. So the F-20 had to start with a huge export order, which didn't happen for two reasons, depending on the case : 1- export restrictions 2- order volume.
The F-35 on the other hand, as long as it is ordered for US forces, will offer the safety of a proven plane with (at least supposedly) unmatched technology. Then it will be attractive for a number of countries who do not care about being 100% independent technology-wise. Btw I read recently that Italy was very close to obtaining its assembly line, any news for that ?

Now for India... India will probably require its own assembly line to build its own planes, then technology transfer can be debated, if India is dissatisfied I don't see them hesitating long before purchasing the needed stuff (avionics and so on) form other countries. It depends on the order tally, the more you order the more you can negociate.

[edit on 2//4//06 by echoblade]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join