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.

 

Royal Navy Carriers, JSF Slashed

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Put EODAS on it.


(or get the F-35)




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Major Lee Gassole
 


after quite a bit more reading into the entire Sea Typhoon concept , i must reluctantly agree with you , anything can be achieved with time and alot of money - but in the case of the Typhoon - looking at the `final` proposals it would have been a franken monster with pods and periscopes


no , ditch the white elephant called F35 and buy Rafale.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
According to what I read in another forum the MOD denies any cuts and said the the F-35 will fly off both carriers.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Dear Mr Hughes,



Thank you for your email of 26 October to the ‘Ask a Minister’ portal in which you raise a number of concerns in relation to the ongoing viability of the UK ’s Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) programme. Your email has been passed to me to respond as the desk officer within the MO D ’s Equipment Capability Secretariat responsible for the JCA programme.



May I begin by addressing the point you raise about an announcement “that the second carrier the UK needs, is to be used as a commando carrier”. I should clarify that the Government remains fully committed to the manufacture of two Queen Elizabeth (QE) Class aircraft carriers and that no such decision to use the second vessel as purely a commando carrier has been made. The QE Class carriers are a core component of the overall Carrier Strike Programme and a cornerstone of future UK defence policy. Notwithstanding their primary role as aircraft carriers, we have always planned to use the QE Class to cover the Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) role when HMS OCEAN is in refit.



Moving on to your concerns about the rising cost of the JSF programme. We do not recognise any accusations that the costs of the JSF programme have grown. The UK contribution to the US led JSF development programme was fixed at a cost agreed in 2001 and has not changed since. In the production phase, which the programme has just entered, costs of aircraft which have been placed on contract are in line with of previous estimates and are reducing as greater numbers of aircraft are placed on order. We regularly review our equipment capability requirements through annual planning rounds and also at major investment decision points. The last time the JSF requirement was considered was in January this year, at which point it was demonstrated to represent the best value for money solution to meet the UK ’s future Carrier Strike capability requirement.



Finally, on the point you raise about Typhoon acting as a maritime asset. I should begin by making clear that Typhoon, in its current configuration, is not able to operate from a carrier. You may wish to be aware that an extensive study into which aircraft could meet the Carrier Strike requirement was conducted in 2000, and was later refreshed in 2008. These investigations looked at a number of different aircraft options, one of which was Typhoon, and the outcome and subsequent evaluations, all concluded that JSF best meets the UK ’s requirements, on both capability and initial acquisition and whole life cost. Major factors include the stealth advantage that JSF has over other legacy aircraft and the significant cost growth and capability trades which would have to be made in order to convert a land based aircraft into one able to operate from the sea.



I hope my comments above are helpful and assure you that we strive to ensure that our capability requirements are appropriately prioritised and that the equipments we select to meet these requirements demonstrate value for money through life.



Vikash Patel
MOD Equipment Capability Secretariat – Ops1



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Sounds like that is definitely the offical line, but I'm sure the Times would not publish an article without sufficent backing.

The second section on the JSF is so British I fear it may be lost on our cousins from overseas. The mere mention of reviews of the relevancy on the JSF is a suggestion that it is either currently or will shortly be under another review, and that sufficent alternate options are being considered.

With any other country in the world, I would be reasssured by the huge costs already spent on the project, but in the UK especially under this govt they would waste £4000 spent yesterday to save a quid tomorrow.

Jensy



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join