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.

 

UK to cut JSF numbers!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Hi

Found this at janes defense website:

www.janes.com...

So the UK looking at cutting JSF number to 85 to 100 planes, from the proposed 150.

So if I have this right. The uk would field 2 aircarft carriers with 25 jsf per ship. a training sq with 12 and 12 spares.

Is an active force of 50 aircarft enough? or would the uk buy more at a later date?

Any thoughts?




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
theres a whisper on pprune that they might not even order that many



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
the jsf whilst a wonderful aircraft is lets say (an off the shelf aircraft) The engine is british technology and I live close to BAE and from the information that i have i can tell you the JSF is not really wanted or needed by us.

There has been a dispute with the americans because we have told them that as soon as we get the plane we are ripping out there software and using our own....they aren't happy because we will not give them our software



We won't let them have aour helmets either


Also the MOD and BAE ar concentrating on the carrier version of the EURofighter a much better peice of technology.

And for all you americans out there ever wondered why your planes have two tail fins?

Because your engineers don't know how to deal with heat!


I have witnessed the first JSF finished in the uk and i also have aquired a medal from a head engineer on the JSF he gave it to me for my new born son...ill try to get a pic up in the next few hours.

The JSF is not something the British are going to waste there money on....

Rule number 1 always stay ahead of the competition




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

The engine is british technology and I live close to BAE and from the information that i have i can tell you the JSF is not really wanted or needed by us.

One engine option, apparently on the brink of cancellation, the F-136, is about 40% British, 60% GE. F-135, on all flying pre-production aircraft, are Pratt & Whitney.


There has been a dispute with the americans because we have told them that as soon as we get the plane we are ripping out there software and using our own....they aren't happy because we will not give them our software

No, British are not happy because they will likely not get full technology exchange from the U.S.


We won't let them have aour helmets either

Already have your helmets. Most of it is U.S and Israeli.


Also the MOD and BAE ar concentrating on the carrier version of the EURofighter a much better peice of technology.

Rubbish.


BAE Systems, manufacturer of the RAF’s Eurofighter, has been asked to produce a study into whether it could be flown from the carriers, which are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Flying Eurofighter from the new carriers would require pilots to learn a completely new skill of landing conventionally at sea — a task likened by experts to a “controlled crash”.

It would also require the Eurofighter fuselage to be strengthened, the attachment of an arrestor hook to stop the aircraft on landing, and protection against saltwater erosion.

The BAE Systems study, carried out earlier this year, determined that the aircraft could be built to land on carriers without major difficulty.


The MoD said “marinising” Eurofighter had been looked at as an option but “JSF remains our optimum solution to fly off the carriers”.

www.timesonline.co.uk...


So all they need to make this idea happen is:

1. MoD allocates funding for BAE to redesign the Typhoon aircraft.

2. BAE redesign the Typhoon aircraft for Naval CATOBAR operations.

3. BAE builds some test examples of this aircraft and then spend a heap of cash testing the new design.

4. MoD forks out the cash for the remaining 88 aircraft left under the Trance 3 contract.

5. MoD forks out the cash for the design, modification and testing of the catapult/arrestor systems needed for CATOBAR on their new, yet to be built, but already contracted for, aircraft carriers.

6. Re-train RAF/RN pilots in CATOBAR operations.

The alternative?

Simply proceed as currently intended and save costs with a slightly reduced F-35 order...

Gee, I wonder what they'll pick?

Besides, Eurofighter is not technologically better than F-35. It's only superior in a couple of ways, and highly inferior in others...


And for all you americans out there ever wondered why your planes have two tail fins?

Because your engineers don't know how to deal with heat!

Planform alignment. Look it up some time.


[edit on 2/11/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I can tell you with good authority that the ONLY reason the JSF has two tail fins is beacuse of heat !!!

And if thats the only reesponse you can bang out i REST my CASE



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ian990003100
 


I think that you are wrong on several counts.

I would like some source that states that the Brits are looking at developing a naval varient of Typhoon because that will not happen. There were studies undertaken by the MOD into a marinised Typhoon in the late 90's and some talk a couple of years ago following the spat over technology transfer, but developing a naval Typhoon has never started.

There is always a "threat" to the naval F35 by procurring Rafale or even the F18.

Regards



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
WTH do tail fins have to do with heat?
NOTHING, that's what. Twin fins allow you to have better performance at high alfa. You get more weight from the twin fins, but it lets you perform better when you're at a high AOA during combat. That's the reason they have two fins.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ian990003100
 

How about not letting national pride get in the way of facts, or else you speak out your arse, AGAIN. It's called PLANFORM alignment, LOOK IT UP. But wait, I forgot, you didn't do that last time, so I'll yet again so the research FOR YOU.


Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure. For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles.

WIKIPEDIA



If they had a single vertical stab? Well then you have a massive RADAR reflector.

Oh yeah, read my first post again. It's editted.

[edit on 2/11/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
BAE has a very stringent disclosure of information rule within in employment.

Without giving too much informatian away I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that you are wrong.


The British Helmets which we fly with are 100% different to the american counter part.

American's really really need to smell the coffee.....With out the UK your two bit off the shelf plane would never have seen the light of day.

I have already stated i have information regarding the JSF and of the carrier version of the typhoon.

You stated that the americans would not give us the full technology....

HELLO its been built in samlesbury!!! HELLO Samlesbury

We even had to send our test pilot over to fly it because you aren't capable.

the engine is a british design and a british engine.

It5 goes to show when the americans during the recent conflict in the gulf fly at 30000ft to drop a bomb in a newer aircraft to our harrier flying at 30ft and not getting blown up!!!

Later this evening i will be meeting with a top engineer and designer from BAE as they want to piss themselves laughing at this thread.

The engineer had to practically redesign your entire plane due to the desing being flawed.

Just one to think about....we are building JSF we are building Eurofighter

we have even started the carrier version of the JSF

hmmmmmmmm.......

I wonder what else we have been building.....British design has always led the technological world we were even leading the space race!

I think if you all remember back the americans ran an experiment to see if they could hide there stealth bomber and flew over the lakes! we had two tornados follow it


Im not going to post anymore until i have spoken with these guy's tonight and if you guy's have vent or skype we can have a real laugh and ill call you up!

then you can argue with the techs!



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   




the likely option in the event of F-35 being canned

[edit on 2/11/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Well you're partially right anyway. They're building the aft fuselage and empanage at Samlesbury.


The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site, using the latest in advanced design and manufacturing technology.

The aft-fuselage and empennage will be shipped to Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant in the summer of 2005, where they will be joined with the wing and forward fuselage from Lockheed Martin and the centre fuselage from Northrop Grumman. Assembly of the initial F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant was completed at the end of 2005.

www.globalsecurity.org...

They're developing a new helmet there as well.

As for the test pilot, you're right a British pilot is flying the F-35, but it has NOTHING to do with us "not being able to". The British military has more experience with the Harrier than the US does, that's all. And being that they're partners why NOT have a British pilot flying it.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
come on lets all have a real sensible chat on vent or skype.....

this guy is really cool and he openened my eyes.

up to you guy's.

I can't give his ID away but ill tell you this if it wasn't for him JSF no fly



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
If we are reducing the number of f-35s on order then if means that our already underfunded armed forces and losing not only what we have but also what is to replace them.
Having said that, I have never been a fan of the 35 and always felt that a navalised Typhoon would be a good idea. Either that or Rafale Ms where are in effect what would have resulted in france had not least the Eurofighter programme and a carrier aircraft had been built.

Jensy

P.S The new carrier'S' will probably become the new carrie'R' as a result of this......



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

BAE has a very stringent disclosure of information rule within in employment.

Why are you telling me this? Do you think I care? What company doesn't have strict disclosure rules? If you even knew an engineer, why are you posting there information on a forum? Hm?


The British Helmets which we fly with are 100% different to the american counter part.

Yeah, and what difference does that make? On The F-35 the HMD is primarily Israeli and American, that includes the helmet the RAF are going to be using too.


American's really really need to smell the coffee.....With out the UK your two bit off the shelf plane would never have seen the light of day.

ROFL.

Without BAe systems, Lockheed would and could, just contract another company. Without the F-35, well, your 'friend', would not have a job.


I have already stated i have information regarding the JSF and of the carrier version of the typhoon.

There have been only studies in the feasability of turning the Eurofighter into a carrier variant. They have NOT launched it, they have NOT developed it, nor is there any funding for CATOBAR, or even ANY of it. If the F-35 gets cancelled, then it is actually more likely the Rafale would get funded, before a navalisede Eurofighter.


You stated that the americans would not give us the full technology....

HELLO its been built in samlesbury!!! HELLO Samlesbury

They're building and designing the aft fuselage and empanage at Samlesbury, you know, the twin vertical stabilisers. Besides, the structural elements have absolutely nothing to do with the classified elements of the JSF - those are in the way of sensors, VLO, and software, most of which BAe would not have any access to.


We even had to send our test pilot over to fly it because you aren't capable.

Well, first of all, last time I checked the United Kingdom had more than one test pilot. Second of all, John Beazley, Lockheed Martin, flew the F-35 for the first time, all the pilots for the F-35 are American, but ONE. Test pilot who flew the F-35B for the first time was Graham Tomlinson, - a former Royal Air Force Harrier pilot now employed by BAE Systems. So far, the F-35B has done nothing the F-35A has not done.


the engine is a british design and a british engine.

No, ONE engine of TWO engines is FORTY PERCENT British, which itself is likely to be CANCELLED. Do you even bother to spend 15 seconds researching the garbage you've been posting?


It5 goes to show when the americans during the recent conflict in the gulf fly at 30000ft to drop a bomb in a newer aircraft to our harrier flying at 30ft and not getting blown up!!!

You've been wrong on every single point, so what does that show exactly? What does altitude have to do with anything? Besides, flying high is more fuel efficient, so you can stay up there for longer.


Later this evening i will be meeting with a top engineer and designer from BAE as they want to piss themselves laughing at this thread.

Laughing at yourself, Ian? I mean, what is this, a 'I have more connections than you' thread? How immature, and that's even if it's true. I doubt someone who knows 'top engineers' is going to have the maturity of a 12 year old.


The engineer had to practically redesign your entire plane due to the desing being flawed.

More BS AGAIN!!!

So, a single engineer, redesigned an entire plane? A job of maybe, a few thousand people? What planet are you on? This is not Microsoft Flight Simulator. Furthermore, the problems with the JSF stemmed from electrical systems, which, some parts like the flight control system, were partly designed by BAe. Had there of been a problem that were fixed by BAe, then the problem would of been CAUSED by BAe too.

The ENGINE problems are with the F-135 designed and manufactured by PRATT & WHITNEY. It is possible other elements were redesigned by BAe or Rolls-Royce, that's what they're paid to do. Once we gave them the concept, it's not Lockheeds job to design everything for them.


Just one to think about....we are building JSF we are building Eurofighter

Well if you spent 15 seconds searching this I wouldn't need to tell you. Parts of the JSF were contracted to Rolls-Royce and BAe. These include a small work share of a second engine choice, the rear fuselage, lift-fan, and a part in EOTS. Most are going to be built at Lockheed Martins plant at FORT WORTH, these include RAFs jets. Some European planes may be built by Alenia in Italy, however.

Similarly, many parts of the Eurofighter were developed, or even manufactured in the USA. And these include Weapons.


we have even started the carrier version of the JSF

No, all versions of the JSF were primarily designed and led by Lockheed Martin, developed in UNISON with the other F-35 varients. All versions of the JSF are assembled at Lockheed Martins plant in FORTH WORTH, perhaps some in Italy by Alenia.


I wonder what else we have been building.....British design has always led the technological world we were even leading the space race!

Britain would presently be roughly on parity with the rest of the Western world in technology, and that includes the United States. Likely behind in stealth, sensors, and manufacturing, actually. Space race? Yeah, because everyone knows that you guys have been to the moon and beyond. Ever even launched a single rocket that's launched a satellite?


I think if you all remember back the americans ran an experiment to see if they could hide there stealth bomber and flew over the lakes! we had two tornados follow it

Stealth design is designed to minimize radar observability, it cannot eliminate it. What this means is, detection ranges are reduced, not eliminated. So yes, there is no reason to doubt stealth fighters and bombers have been intercepted many times. However, given a Russian Tu-160 came within 20 miles of your coast, undetected, I wouldn't exactly brag about it, it makes you look like a fool.


Im not going to post anymore until i have spoken with these guy's tonight and if you guy's have vent or skype we can have a real laugh and ill call you up!

then you can argue with the techs!

SURE! I have VENTRILLO and TEAMSPEAK 2. Come on, post the server details and time here. My microphone broke but I can still type it.


Infact, get him to register on ATS. Does he have MSN? What about an email?

[edit on 3/11/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


according to flight , the F-136 has shown to be more reliable than the F-135 (at this stage) - and is ready for flight testing'


"So far, the F-35B has done nothing the F-35A has not done"

its done tethered hover tests - something the A really can`t do


www.pointniner.com...




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I always will LOVE that photo.
always a pleasure



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Iff the UK cuts down the number off F-35's or even rejects it, then the following planes could get the job on the new UK carriers.

First the planes who are off the shelf and perform similar roles.

1: Rafale M.

2: MiG 29K.

Planes also off the shelf but not being in the same class.

1: SU-27K/33.

2: F/A-18 SH.

Some planes who could be alternatives but takes time to develop.

1: SU-35BM-K.

2: EF Typhoon N (Navalised).

3: F-16 Block 80N (Navy)

4: MiG 35K.

5: Gripen NG-N.

But cutting the number off F-35's or even total rejection would cause that the Planes that are being bought, would be strained much harder due to working harder and longer.

Not buying it would be dangerous for the UK Aerospace industrie's due to reliance and commitment to the JSF/F-35 project.

Other side off the coin are the massive strains that the F-35 purchases would be on the MoD's anual budgets. Escerbating recent problems.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
If they had a single vertical stab? Well then you have a massive RADAR reflector.


Sorry, but that is a bad conclusion at best.



If the aircraft sides are vertical, then you have the same planform alignment.

You will have problems with corner returns if you don't have significant anhedral/dihedral on the wings/elevators. But that is not the result of the vertical fin.


Having a vertical fin does not automatically induce large radar returns.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


anything russian is a no no - would not ever happen; the Gripen would need a redesign similar to , but more extensive , than a proposed `Sea Typhoon`; The F-16 has never been used from a carrier and even though it has a hook , its designed for the emergency `cable,cable cable` call rather than the thump on a deck - whilst the cable could stop the plane , the rest of the parts wouldn`t take it kindly , undercarraige collapsing being one.

F/A-18 or Rafale-M then - and the Royal Navy have been spending quite a while over at NAS Landivisiau

[edit on 3/11/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


Vertical stabs on the F-35 would ruin planar alignment. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join