Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st July 2004 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm serious about this, if the yanks can't play fair, screw em.
Phil, ever seen Yanks play fair? If you do, please call me, I MUST see this!!
By: - 1st July 2004 at 19:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
awe...you fair people :rolleyes: This about "yanks" is all ok....now i've seems to remember a few posts back about blah blah blah of self righteousnesss, how this is a airforce/military forum, not politics, blah blah, blah. :rolleyes: Interestingly, UK haven't even start to construct the carrier yet (heck the inservice dates for those are 2012 and 2015 assuming all went well), which by the way would take another few years to become fully operational....and F35 is already late? Give you five years of pilot training on land with the actual aircraft still means that the F35 should be there on time when the carriers are fully operational. Seems more like the British carriers are late...and then there's the rafale. Don't you think when you start to build the aircraft carrier then it's still not too late to decide if the F35 is late. Like you said, you can always buy the Rafale....later. :rolleyes:
By: - 1st July 2004 at 19:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
awe...you fair people :rolleyes: This about "yanks" is all ok....now i've seems to remember a few posts back about blah blah blah of self righteousnesss, how this is a airforce/military forum, not politics, blah blah, blah. :rolleyes: Interestingly, UK haven't even start to construct the carrier yet (heck the inservice dates for those are 2012 and 2015 assuming all went well), which by the way would take another few years to become fully operational....and F35 is already late? Give you five years of pilot training on land with the actual aircraft still means that the F35 should be there on time when the carriers are fully operational. Seems more like the British carriers are late...and then there's the rafale. Don't you think when you start to build the aircraft carrier then it's still not too late to decide if the F35 is late. Like you said, you can always buy the Rafale....later. :rolleyes:
You didn't even bother to read the article in Phil's link did you? There isn't even a mention in it about delivery dates or late-running programmes.
By: - 1st July 2004 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is such a **** deal , what were the guys thinking when they signed it? i thought BAe would atleast get part of the owner ship rights since its one of the pivotal companies. and a 50 years ? i mean the UK cant do upgrades on its own or maintain the aircrafts ?? come on!
By: - 1st July 2004 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale or.... 150 aircraft maybe even enough for a navalized Typhoon ? Maybe tranche three will be a navalized version ? I'm shure the green party of germany would love it. No additional purchase to replace the Marine-Tornados in 2012. Just tranche three redirected to the Marine. But on the other hand, those greens think shurely the redesign is for free...
Next question: are all those £2bn already spend ? I would assume yes. £2bn !! g-sus, for that much money the Typhoon would have been navalized, and we wouldn't have to decide between the integration of Meteor/HMS and Brimstone/Stormshadow now. :eek:
Edit: Even if this article is partly true, GB will stick to the programme, like all those 'surprised' international partners. In the end it's nothing new. Look at the history of the Abrahms Tank and the Leopard 2. The U.S. proposed a joint project. In the end, we got now in our German tanks some (partly miserable) U.S. systems, while the U.S. decided to go only for indegenious systems. Oh, and of course, we had some tech-transfer from Kraus-Maffay-Wegmann to GD. (For free, because we had had this joint project...) :rolleyes:
By: - 1st July 2004 at 22:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You didn't even bother to read the article in Phil's link did you? There isn't even a mention in it about delivery dates or late-running programmes.
and i quote...
"Lord Bach, who claims support from the Bush administration for the UK's stance and to have made progress on the JSF issue, said also that delays in implementing easier transfers of technology from the US to Britain meant delivery was "now long overdue" and "the frustration we feel and the message it sends are counter-productive".
I guess "...delays...delivery was "now long overdue"" just somehow gets filtered out. Well let me double check my "English" with you "English" people, some of the points in this article are basically....blah blah blah, the US dissed us, blah blah blah, how can we deal with them the way we like it, blah blah blah, it is our money, blah blah blah, they're dragging their feet to give us what we want, blah blah blah, hence the delay too, blah blah blah....sure, it is your money. The question is, you want Rafale technology? What is your Typhoon for? I guess Typhoon can sure use some Rafale technology if this is what you're trying to tell me...then, humm.... :rolleyes:
By: - 1st July 2004 at 22:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and i quote...
"Lord Bach, who claims support from the Bush administration for the UK's stance and to have made progress on the JSF issue, said also that delays in implementing easier transfers of technology from the US to Britain meant delivery was "now long overdue" and "the frustration we feel and the message it sends are counter-productive".I guess "...delays...delivery was "now long overdue"" just somehow gets filtered out. Well let me double check my "English" with you "English" people, some of the points in this article are basically....blah blah blah, the US dissed us, blah blah blah, how can we deal with them the way we like it, blah blah blah, it is our money, blah blah blah, they're dragging their feet to give us what we want, blah blah blah, hence the delay too, blah blah blah....sure, it is your money. The question is, you want Rafale technology? What is your Typhoon for? I guess Typhoon can sure use some Rafale technology if this is what you're trying to tell me...then, humm.... :rolleyes:
Well my Astrophysics friend.. it means that these South Western Yuripians mean that the Rafale > Typhoon in technology, its an admission on their part ;)
By: - 1st July 2004 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale or.... 150 aircraft maybe even enough for a navalized Typhoon ? Maybe tranche three will be a navalized version ? I'm shure the green party of germany would love it. No additional purchase to replace the Marine-Tornados in 2012. Just tranche three redirected to the Marine. But on the other hand, those greens think shurely the redesign is for free...
Next question: are all those £2bn already spend ? I would assume yes. £2bn !! g-sus, for that much money the Typhoon would have been navalized, and we wouldn't have to decide between the integration of Meteor/HMS and Brimstone/Stormshadow now. :eek:Edit: Even if this article is partly true, GB will stick to the programme, like all those 'surprised' international partners. In the end it's nothing new. Look at the history of the Abrahms Tank and the Leopard 2. The U.S. proposed a joint project. In the end, we got now in our German tanks some (partly miserable) U.S. systems, while the U.S. decided to go only for indegenious systems. Oh, and of course, we had some tech-transfer from Kraus-Maffay-Wegmann to GD. (For free, because we had had this joint project...) :rolleyes:
hum...of all the countries, Germany, Typhoon....what sarcasm, what shame.... :rolleyes: I dont' think many British feels so wonderful about German defense participations too...The point is, everybody will "b-i-t-c-h" to get what they want....and they should too, but to turn around and say...blah blah blah Germany :rolleyes:
By: - 1st July 2004 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well my Astrophysics friend.. it means that these South Western Yuripians mean that the Rafale > Typhoon in technology, its an admission on their part ;)
i didn't say that Big Mac, well :D ok, but not literally :D
Best of all, of all people, Phil...
By: - 1st July 2004 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why the Rafale alone? Cant the Typhoon be reconfigured for a Naval role?
By: - 1st July 2004 at 23:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why the Rafale alone? Cant the Typhoon be reconfigured for a Naval role?
Why not, but Phil wants Rafales because they are better...i suppose...must be the naval technology of the Rafale. You see, strengthening airframe structures and landing gears are such hard and high technology, the last time the British tried it was on the Buccanneer. They must've forgotten how to do it. :rolleyes:
By: - 1st July 2004 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cart before the horse. Given the UK politico's desire to keep cutting the military,.... it will be cut to one carrier... then none. Good Luck.
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 00:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The delay being referred to is that of technology transfer to BAES. Quite how the rest of totally irrelevant side issues figure into the equation, I have absolutely no idea. Nor do I care much to be honest.
The point of the whole piece and, I'm fairly sure, Phil's understandable attitude, is that goal posts are being moved and the UK is in danger of not getting what it paid for. Simple as that.
Fine, let the US be as protectionist and inward-looking as it wants. But do the SDD and R&D without the UK's £1.4billion investment.
Service - Navy, RAF
Description
Requirement and Background
In 1996, the UK began the formal procurement process to examine options for a Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA), to succeed the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier from 2012.
However, in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review White Paper, it was confirmed that the RN and RAF Harrier forces would be combined into a new Joint Force 2000. Therefore, the FCBA requirement was widened to include replacement of the RAF’s GR9 and T10 ground attack Harriers from around 2015, thus providing the UK with a joint land and sea based expeditionary air-power capability. To reflect this change, the programme was renamed Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) in 2001. FJCA is to replace current Joint Force Harriers with a multi-role fighter/attack aircraft. The word"Future" has recently been dropped from the title, the IPT is now known as Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) IPT.
The US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been identified as having the best potential to meet the requirement, resulting in signature of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2001 to enter the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase of the JSF programme as a Level 1 partner. The UK has thus committed some £1.4Bn to the US programme, while approximately £600M will be spent on non-SDD work. This was in the light of successful UK participation in the Concept Demonstration Phase of the JSF programme, which involved test flying 2 development aircraft types, the Boeing X32 and the Lockheed Martin X35. This flight test programme supported an extensive assessment of the ability of each contractor to develop and deploy a family of advanced strike aircraft to meet the requirements of the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the UK. Following the conclusion of this source selection process, it was announced in October 2001 that Lockheed Martin had been selected as Prime Contractor to take the programme forward. The UK participated fully in source selection.
It was announced on 30 September 2002 that the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of JSF has been selected to meet the requirement, in preference to the Conventional Carrier (CV) variant. The decision has been welcomed by UK industry.
Associated Equipment
JCA is closely associated with the CVF programme and there are also strong linkages with the Maritime Airborne Surveillance Capability (MASC) programme and also with the RAF’s Future Offensive Air System (FOAS).
General Characteristics/Technical Performance
On entry into service with the RN and RAF, JCA will be required to operate in all weathers, day and night missions for air defence of the fleet and of ground forces and for the offensive air support of ground forces, ranging from close air support to long-range air interdiction, as well as anti-surface warfare and tactical reconnaissance.
Key attributes of JCA in comparison to current Joint Force Harriers include:
*- Supersonic
*- Improved survivability
*- Internal and external weapons carriage
*- Improved supportability
*- Increased range relative to Harrier
Costs/In-Service Date (ISD)/Major Milestones/Quantities
Costs
It is currently anticipated that the total procurement cost of JCA will be up to £10Bn depending on the number of aircraft required. Subsequent costs will be determined by whatever through life support strategy we decide to adopt. This makes it one of the Defence Procurement Agency’s largest acquisition programmes over the next two decades
Major Milestones/ISD
*- 2001 SDD MOU Signature
*- 2001 Source Selection decision
*- 2002 Variant Selection decision
*- 2010: First aircraft delivery
*- 2012: In Service Date
Quantities
The current planning assumption is for up to 150 JCA.
Commercial Aspects
The SDD contract with Lockheed Martin was signed in October 2001. Its overall value is some $20Bn (£15Bn).
UK industry has extensive involvement in the JSF programme. BAE Systems is teamed with Lockheed Martin while Rolls Royce is involved in providing STOVL-specific items of propulsion equipment. Other elements of the UK aerospace industry will also provide key components for the JSF.
A prime contract has also been awarded to Pratt and Whitney to develop the main engine for JSF (F135). An interchangeable engine (F136) is being developed by General Electric and Rolls Royce, as a downstream competitive alternative to the F135
International Collaboration
The UK is the only Level 1 partner with the US in the SDD Phase of the JSF programme. Other international partners at Levels 2 and 3 are the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Australia and Turkey.
Future Contracts:* At the present time, direct contracts from the UK are not envisaged, but it might be worth considering contacting Lockheed Martin or lower tier JSF contractors such as BAES who may be interested in your capabilities.
Point of Contact* - jcaom@dpa.mod.uk*
Related Link - http://www.jsf.mil/
Last Reviewed:*June 2004
Last Updated:**May 2004
JSF issues might be worse, panel says
Lockheed Martin's F-35 joint strike fighter may be more overweight than previously known, according to the preliminary finding of a review that deepens the headache for program officials who are trying to cut costs and keep the aircraft on schedule.
The House Appropriations Committee said the problems "may be greater than previously recognized," particularly for the most complex of three F-35 versions -- one capable of vertical landings for the Marines and the British Navy.
Lockheed, which will build the F-35 in Fort Worth, is relying on the F-35 and the F/A-22, a fighter partially built here, for future growth.
The Pentagon in April said that the F-35's estimated cost rose 22 percent in a year to $244 billion, including purchases of 2,457 planes. Lockheed also delayed the first flight until 2006 to study ways to shed weight.
"The committee is concerned about the impact, if any, these new findings may have on program costs, schedule and ... the successful transition to production of all three F-35 variants," the House committee said.
Lockheed spokesman said that the company has more than 500 engineers working on weight-loss efforts for the Marine and Royal Navy version.
June 29th, 2004
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 00:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
see it's like I've been saying all along, the American's will take all the money to makwe sure no one else is able to afford anything that will compete with their equipment. They are Gorillas when it comes to putting things their way.
I'd like to see what happens when everyone pulls out of the JSF, especially if no one paying for them is going to get the full spec planes other than the US! I don't know about any other countries deals, but Australia's deal in this has a clause for pulling out and getting money back!
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 00:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How bout this..
if the Britannys don't like the JSF that much
they should go turn that Replica stealth fighter mock up into a real aircraft
case closed.
The Britannys keep their industry and keep their own 5th generation aircraft
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 00:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
see it's like I've been saying all along, the American's will take all the money to makwe sure no one else is able to afford anything that will compete with their equipment. They are Gorillas when it comes to putting things their way.I'd like to see what happens when everyone pulls out of the JSF, especially if no one paying for them is going to get the full spec planes other than the US! I don't know about any other countries deals, but Australia's deal in this has a clause for pulling out and getting money back!
The US will still go ahead with it or a replacement. On the other hand...these countries will then buy something, and most likely many will buy it later, which is where the actual investment is for. Now you don't have a bargaining chip to say "hey, we've paid this much for developing this, lower your price tag". Sure, you can buy other's, it's your money afterall. As to getting your money back clause, isn't that great? What is your problem then? :rolleyes:
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 01:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well then do what Vortex and I say- marinize the Typhoon and keep yer boys happy..
Now I love the Rafale but when you have a local product ready why import?
Might save some money though but then y'might as well go for the JSF...
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 01:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The poor Brits- dont have any backbone left anymore . Have to run to the Yanks for anything and everything nowdays. Sad state of affairs for one of the greatest powers of all time.
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 02:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hum...of all the countries, Germany, Typhoon....what sarcasm, what shame.... I dont' think many British feels so wonderful about German defense participations too...The point is, everybody will "b-i-t-c-h" to get what they want....and they should too, but to turn around and say...blah blah blah Germany
I didn't say the British should rely on German politicians, especially Social Demokrats and Green Party. The British should do this on their own, IF they really get an downgraded version AND decide to withdraw from the JSF. But I would not be surprised if exactly the same German politicians that didn't care about international reputation of their country, would take the chance to further reduce the armed forces. :cool:
By: - 2nd July 2004 at 04:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The poor Brits- dont have any backbone left anymore . Have to run to the Yanks for anything and everything nowdays. Sad state of affairs for one of the greatest powers of all time.
Flame. :mad:
Grow up kid.
(PS: Thank you to Karna for catching my Typo and making my post more meaningful) :rolleyes:
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 1st July 2004 at 16:27
If this is true:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/whitehall/story/0,9061,1248777,00.html
...............which, lets face it is a Guardian report. What say we pull out and buy the Rafale for the Royal Navy? Perhaps we could give it folding wings but otherwise its pretty much sorted as a naval fighter. I'm serious about this, if the yanks can't play fair, screw em.