F-16.net

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2004 Posts: 13 Status: Offline

U.K. wants to pull out of the JSF and develop a naval Eurofighter according to the Sunday Times.

Quote:

Britain is threatening to pull out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a co-operative combat-aircraft project with America that is one of the largest military programmes in the world.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 06,00.html

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 31, 2005 Posts: 58 Status: Offline

(pure opinion)

The "sky is falling". Not really, but it sure makes good news. Conflict = news. No conflict = No story. Sometimes there are ulterior motives too when governments let things out.

I doubt GB will back out. My opinion does not matter stand alone. So I will explain why. Most of this is posturing and threatening right before the roll out begins is to ensure that the US delivers the non-dummied down version.

In 2006 the first assembly line manufactured JSF will be produced in DFW. Not long- It will go operational right around the same time EF goes operational in 2008. Since EF was delivered earlier but in a raw and unfinished state they both will go truly operational right around the same time.

GB does not want to end up with a lesser capable version. In the US there has been a lot of conflict internally about what we are willing to sell. Australia made this a major point of contention with the JSF project as well.

The US is the leader in radar, stealth and some other key technology. While we do share our stuff we often give others dummied down versions that still get the job done, but lack specific ECCM and other capabilities we see as a potential threat if the enemy got a hold of it. Hence our export AIM9, Stinger, AMRAAM, radars, even if it has the same nomenclature lack certain capabilities. India put our willingness to sell the "real good" stuff on the forefront of arms purchases. They even stated that outright. Basically, "Give us the goodies or we'll buy Russian/French".

This is all about ensuring the US is willing to deliver something the Brits like. Basically like India, “Give us the good stuff”. The US has had a lot of infighting about what they are willing to export. There was even talk of a lesser stealth export version which was not well received by the other partner countries. Britain has to much invested in money, to much to lose in capabilities if they back out of JSF. This is about pressure and getting the goods.

Red6

"Britian Out Of JSF" is a misleading title/statement. They are not out of it.

Red6 wrote:

The US has had a lot of infighting about what they are willing to export.

Many of you know that USAF export policy was my last active duty assignment.
Therefore, you can trust me when I say you have no idea Bang Head

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Funny though that these issues came up a very long time ago, and yet they still are not ironed out. The game isn't over yet. Be interesting. Not very much "opinion" there in the article. The fact remains that one side ( U.S. ) is squeezed for funds DOD wide, which WILL have an affect on FMS on what lives or what dies, and the other side, ( U.K. ) has an M.O.D. that thinks their whole mission is to see how many miltary units they can dispand, programs they can delay, and programs they can run on a shoe string. Plus they are hurting in any number of funding areas ( example, their airlift is ops tempo'd and stressed to the max ). I will believe a UK carrier when it goes on it's first voyage. Not until then.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

BAE systems wanted tech` access in the early development days of the JSF in order to carry out it`s share of the work. This access was granted. The US gov` is saying that BAE will have to ask permission for further access as the program develops. In other words, the US gov` is not going to make an agreement that gives BAE systems and other UK companies FULL technological access at THIS stage because they don`t need it....yet.
BAE just want a chunk of the follow on business during the JSF lifetime and are trying to secure a FULL agreement NOW. That way they can make business plans for the future.... I have always believed that this is more about economics as well as secrets sharing.
On the same note, BAE and RR have developed manufacturing techniques in their US subsidiaries. They are NOT allowed to transfer even THAT tech` to the UK. Techniques they came up with themselves because of export controls!!!!

It`s a bit of a mess but I have a feeling Britain will not pull out of the program.
Roscoe, please tell me if I am blowing smoke out my a*@! I am not asking for details, of course! Cool

Your kinda close Snypa.

The F-35 poses a number of issues to the UK:
1. Return of Investment. Technology was shared with the US regarding STOVL FCS that QinetiQ had been working on, as well as some UK specific stealth work that apparently proved useful (at a guess, I imagine its to do with intakes. One of Typhoons better acheivements vs its rivals is a very low RCS contribution from its intakes according to a few mazines I've read - useful given F-35 forward hemisphere requirements). Throw in a wad of money too. It'd be hard to explain all this to Parliment if all we got in return was a 'F-35 lite).

2. Capability. With SHAR gone there is a large capability gap within the FAA. Also, the F-35 represents a new set of capabilities over the RAF's current fleet (incl Typhoon). Penetrative Stealth is one, but even bigger is the sensor/networking capabilities. At an open seminar last year one of the UK project guys described JSF as being equivilant to a GR 4 with Raptor Pod and an F3's radar and JTIDS link thrown in for good measurea and yet still able to carry a war load on top of all that (and lets face it, the capabilities should be in excess of even that!). If all we get is a Harrier with internal carriage because all the good bits are being kept for the US versions then what are we spending our money on?

3. Access. I'm sure I'm not shocking anyone when I say that the RAF is different to the USAF! We have a number of UK specific weapons (paveway IV, ASRAAM, Brimstone, etc) and will no doubt develop more (although I can see SDB being of interest in the future). Although, at its simplest level, these weapons have MIL-STD interfaces the integration levels become vastly more complex very quickly. Also, out way of operating is similar but not the same. As such we need to be able to upgrade and operate the JSF as we see fit. With current aircraft, the RAF works with the aircraft DA but has access to what the modifications are. With the current state of play with JSF we face the likelly reality that we can only ask LMCO to integrate or modify something and then wait for them to do it without knowing what they've changed to meet our requirements. At an even more extreme (and unlikelly - I imagine there are a number of UK weapons on the 'to clear list') level we could be forced to buy US weapons systems for the JSF alone (AMRAAM-already in the fleet so not too bad, JDAM-bit of a backwards step compared to Paveway IV, Aim-9X - with ASRAAM on everything else why bother?) Snypa was close, and no doubt BAE and RR have their interests but the lack of technology access is a concern for the end user too.

None of the above problems need be show stoppers. But they can easily get out of control and produce the tension reported in the Times.
With the degree of intermeshing between the two countries (UK systems are on Raptor and US ones on Typhoon) its hard to see no such solution being produced.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Cheer up Safety`!!!
It could all end well. You are damn right we want some return on our investment. The RAF won`t have "second best" as far as technology is concerned, of that I am sure. We would rather go with a Naval Typhoon if we are offered the dumbed down version of JSF! LM, or Lock-Mart, want ALL the cookies in the jar. With all the international partners that started out with JSF, their work share would be significantly smaller if the US agreed to dole out all the future JSF work.

From a US perspective though, why should the Americans spend nearly ALL of the cash on the project, 80 percent must be US taxpayers $$$$$$, only to simply "give away" future revenue and secrets after doing most of the hard work? I perfectly understand the US position in cold hard terms....A simplistic way of sorting this out would have been to name the project instead of Joint -SF to say....American -SF!, "ASF". Then invite friendlies to participate in it on a controlled basis. All this wrangling might not have happened.We all would have understood it was a US project and they, in a poker sense, have all the cards from the outset. Instead, it started as a US hyped program as an international collaboration to attract investment to shoulder the financial burden. Now everybody is bitching!!!!

Safety, IF JSF exports to go ahead you can bet that ASRAAM will be added to its inventory from the word go as we aren't the only customer that uses ASRAAM as its primary defence missile... Australia does aswell! At the moment it is the only dogfight missile that can be carried internally. I seriously feel sorry for alot of european F-16 users; they have already selected the IRIS-T and are talking about F-35... I really can't see that missile fitting in the bay on the missile racks!!!

Oh and for those that don't know what the naval typhoon entails... this is the original list of changes when it was designed a few years ago...
- Strengthened main structure, especially in the wings.
- Double nose gear
- Conformal Fuel Tanks
- Tail Hook
- Strengthened Undercarriage
- Uprated EJ-200s (currently undergoing testing)
- 3D TVC - undergoing testing atm; needed in order to lower stall speed and angle of attack for carrier ops.

Smile

Andy

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

In the case of the JSF partner rules, workshare is based on efficiency of a service provider to provide the product not on each partner being given an equal amount of workshare. This of course gets on the nerves of politicians who are used to a jobs program like the Typhoon. Australia for example has racked up a fare amount of JSF sub contracts, UK a few etc. But if the plan is followed and politicians don't complain, don't expect each JSF parter to have anywhere near equal workshare. With our airframe numbers being cut, costs are only going to go up. If the JSF best value workshare explained above was axed to please politicos, expect the price to go up even more. Be interesting to see what payload the jump JSF really can carry when it flys. The 2001 fly-off of the cute little airplanes that looked like a JSF was all smoke and mirrors. Now reality is set in and they have to deliver an aircraft that has combat gear on it and all the real systems, that will perform. This project is like the high-wire circus act. Hopefully for a bunch of peoples sake it will make it across.

= = = =

Boff,

Typhoon has to have TVC to get aboard deck????? That is serious. Wouldn't want that failing and be out over water, not being able to get aboard.

Snypa - Sorry, my mate got back from Duxford with fresh pics of TSR 2 so I'm all depressed and techy and generally scepitical about the RAF getting screwed over (as much as I like the F-4)! It'll pass Smile

Boff - I was taking a VERY pessimistic appraisal of the JSF. UK stores (ASRAAM included)ARE due to be cleared on JSF during the various work apackages and I probably shouldn't have took the argument to such an extreme by making it sound like they aren't.

In general - Regarding Sea Typhoon (sorry, Typhoon N), and I'm probably preaching to the converted, a large chunk of those changes are due for Trance 3. the N specific ones being new u/c and arrestor hook (I guess the current one is a bit flimsy for continuous routine use!). The TV was suggested to IMPROVE carrier performance, I didn't realise it was critical but it gets back to the argument about modifying land aircraft to a carrier role doesn't it!

Lets make it clear - I like the JSF as an aircraft and think that the advertised JSF will offer a set of capabilities that UK forces need. I want to see it on the deck of the QE class one day (if not at FI2012!). But that's providing that its the F-35 that we signed up for!

Lol I think I should clarify what I meant as I did a poor job in my previous post...

TVC isn't needed to get one on deck; in the original plans it was an "option". The Typhoon can fly safely at the speeds needed to land on a carrier without it however, the Angle of Attack would be quite high even with the flaperons activating. Just an extra safety feature really; the current Typhoon is said to have excellent low speed handling characteristics.. it would just improve the pilots view while landing (instead of having to rely so much on the electronic aids).

On top of all that, combo'd with the uprated engines it would help counter all the weight disadvantages caused by the additional gear/strengthening to give it similar if not better performance than land based Typhoons.

Think of it this way, one of the major faults of the Su-33 is when carrier landing; during the final most critical seconds of the approach the pilot cannot see the carrier at all due to having to maintain a high-AOA!!!

Andy

I seem to recall various other schemes for fans blowing air across the flight deck and linking the FCS into sensors on the ship to compensate for ship movement! Lots of boffins looking at I guess.

Mind you, the carrier's planned back then were not as large as what is currently on the tables (50,000 displacement right now IIRC).

snypa777 wrote:

On the same note, BAE and RR have developed manufacturing techniques in their US subsidiaries. They are NOT allowed to transfer even THAT tech` to the UK. Techniques they came up with themselves because of export controls!!!!

BAE is a great example of export control complexity. Yes, BAE is a foreign company, but most if not all of the US subsidiaries were originally US companies with US patents and classified and/or sensitive product lines. When a company like BAE buys up these companies (Sanders in New Hampshire is a prime example), they have to agree to business separation rules. One rule mandates that all products are US owned and remain export controlled. In other words, they are foreign-owned in name only.

A bigger issue is the internal family squabble amongst the services. Without sharing details, each service has it's own ideas about what is sensitive and what can be shared. If it is stealth related, a common DOD export process kicks in to mediate. For anything else, it is a dogfight and there is no requirement to agree. An analogy might be one service giving data but no hardware, and another releasing hardware but no data. Guess what...bad news for us.
Another issue was a foreign company asking for a USAF technology that could theoretically defeat a Navy-developed weapon. I did not want to release it but needed the Navy's support to justify my decision (I did not have enough info about their system to make a solid argument). The USN response was that the USAF system under consideration was not their concern and to stop bothering them...even though I 'splained that it would render billions of Navy $$ worth of R&D, production, and fielding worthless. I had to take my policy recommendation to the boss without their supporting info...luckily I can blow smoke well and made a convincing argument anyway (Your welcome, Navy)

Made my life hell.

The best design I saw is what the germans did when they were flight testing the TVC nozzle thats going on the EJ-200... they used the X-31 as the test bed. (I'll stress at this point they did not use an EJ-200 just the nozzle).

They designed a new form of very short landing utilising the TVC... the X-31 was landing all the time in full autopilot... on the approach the aircrafts AoA was higher than the wheel clearance and travelling (IIRC) <100kts and only just before the aircraft touched down does the AoA drop enough for the back wheels to touch down.

Also during the tests designed for future aircraft (especially UCAVs) and to look at updates to Typhoon they flew it tail-less relying on TVC; something I have heard being talked about for Typhoon...

Here's a few pictures...

ESTOL landing :-

Tail-less flight :-

Andy

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Britain out of JSF