F-16.net

Veteran Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 471 Status: Offline

That and Britain and France have a history of not liking each other. I'm no expert on European politics, but I think the Brits would want France to be the last place they went for a plane. Somebody (namely a Brit or Frenchy) please chime in. The JSF is their best option and they know it. They are just doing some political arm twisting to get what they want.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 659 Status: Offline

Purplehaze wrote:

Bottom line is we will provide the UK with what ever is needed to support this program. This I am sure of as they really are our only ally in todays world.

Sorry should be Major Ally

This is why I can't see a major cut in the JSF Program. Just way to much riding on the F-35. The more the partners and the larger the orders. The cheaper it will become. Very Happy

<<From a political point of view............not likely>>

You can't be so sure about that....The French are already a big player in the UK defence market...Thales is the second largest defence contractor after Bae Systems.They will build the new carriers for the RN and are already involved in high-tech projects such as Astute class submarines and so forth..
The Brits have chosen the French as partner in UAV project instead of Northrop Grummans more advanced and proven system so why not the RAFALE for the RN? I think it is an option...

<<Bottom line is we will provide the UK with what ever is needed to support this program>>

We sincerely hope so !

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 659 Status: Offline

duplex wrote:

<<From a political point of view............not likely>>

You can't be so sure about that....The French are already a big player in the UK defence market...Thales is the second largest defence contractor after Bae Systems.They will build the new carriers for the RN and are already involved in high-tech projects such as Astute class submarines and so forth..
The Brits have chosen the French as partner in UAV project instead of Northrop Grummans more advanced and proven system so why not the RAFALE for the RN? I think it is an option...

The French designed the CVF's. Yet, the UK is going to build them in there own yards. Really, a mute point regarding the Rafale as the RN/RAF are going to get JSF's! Cool

Something worth remembering is that Eurofighter team left France on their own because France was pushing for a lighter carrier based craft*. Going back and buying the French aircraft would thus cause all kinds of questions to be asked.

Plus, no one is still quite sure what to do with Tranche 3. Lots of ideas but no final specification as yet, and some say no real need for those last 90 airframes. As such, making the UK share of tranche 3 a navalised variant might make some sense, especially to the UK industry.

But, I don't think it will come to that. The UK can't afford to NOT be on the JSF programme and the US can't afford to lose the only level 1 partner. Some compromise will be reached.

-Stick

*asking for 50% of the workshare and full control of the project probably wasn't the greatest of negotiation tactics either...

Newbie Joined: Mar 20, 2006 Posts: 9 Status: Offline

The navalized Typhoon will very expensive, wont be optimized for the role and probably wont be ready at time.

IMO, the UK should anyway split the 150 airframes acquisition between the Rafale M and the F-35B JSF. The F-35B JSF is a good choice for the RAF requirements, but the Rafale M is much better for the FAA. The joint RAF/RN requirement has no sense. The F-35B is being optimized for the CAS roles, defined by the requirements of the USMC. Neither it's dynamics, BVR missiles range, range or payload are good, and it's becoming clear that it's stealth characteristics wont be exceptional either at air defense suppression.

The F-35B is not a good choice to protect the fleet, deep strike missions or provide air superiority, where the Rafale is better suited. By 2012-2015 the Rafale will have AESA radar and other improved sensors, Meteor missiles, better engines, CFT's, and many other improvements. The F-35B will never supercruise, improve range, have low RCS with external weapons or reduce it's wing loadings.

The Rafales for the UK could be built by BAE Systems from kits which wont increment the costs by much and will give BAE access to service the fighter. And the engine could be a modified version of the Eurojet EJ-200, which would represent an important share for RR. There is enough time for that. RR already took a huge blow by the cancellation of the alternative GE/RR engine for the F-35. Instead of one smaller lift engine, they would be producing two big engines. And Thales could perhaps build the second French carrier in the UK.

The $2B gives the UK the right to produce some parts of the aircraft, which would allow RR and BAE to recover the investment. The estimations are that the F-35 is projected to cost around $100M, and there would be huge saving with the Rafale M. It will be around $3B savings on replacing 80 F-35B's with Rafale M's. $3B is enough for another air carrier. Don't know why, but my guess is that two catapults and arrested landing equipment wont be a problem.

It may be enough to upgrade of the Harrier GR9 fleet with the Blue Vixen or Captor radar in order to add AMRAAM or Meteor capability, which the RN will not have with the retirement of the Sea Harrier. Add some submarines or some additional Type 45's destroyers or another ASW air carrier. Or simply save tax payers some money.

Quote:

Neither it's dynamics, BVR missiles range, range or payload are good, and it's becoming clear that it's stealth characteristics wont be exceptional either at air defense suppression.

Dynamics? BVR missile range not being good? Stealth not exceptional? Certainly you are making up your own performance figures for the aircraft, Radar, missiles, and RCS.

I'm anxious to hear how you have inside information for an aircraft that hasn't flown yet, with some of these figures being classified anyway.What has been released for the stealth so far is that it is second only to Raptor. BVR missile range not being good? With the AMRAAM and / or Meteor along with the APG 81 why? Please tell. Rolling Eyes

etc. JL Raleigh NC

Newbie Joined: Mar 20, 2006 Posts: 9 Status: Offline

If the speed and height are lower, the missile goes shorter. Is it correct? The Australians have reported that the F-35 can't supercruise, probably because the aircraft uses less exotic, less expensive, materials than the F-22A. The Rafale M is more than 2TM lighter than the F-35B JSF. The lack of range has been critisized too. The ceiling, climb rate, wing loading and thrust/wheight is much better in the Rafale M.

The Meteor is somewhat bigger than the AIM-120C, are you sure it will fit inside the F-35B? And, so far, it will be used by the Saab JAS-39 Grippen, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale. As the things go with the British missiles, I wonder how will the Meteor be integrated. Direct energy weapons? Have yet to be seen.

Finally, it has been reported that the F-35 RCS LO technology covers only certain radar frequencies because of cheaper RAM's or construction.

Elite Joined: Jun 29, 2005 Posts: 781 Status: Offline

In its current configuration, the meteor will not fit in the weapons bay, and must be carried externally.
But the meteor is not much bigger than Amraam and is designed to use the same rails the difference is the fact that the control fins petrude out further due to the air intakes. Giving it a wider profile. Infact, its slightly shorter than the aim-120.

You can compare the two here:
http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary/media/Default.asp?MediaID=6960&CategoryID=
http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary/media/Default.asp?MediaID=6963&CategoryID=
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0978340/L/

But of note is that the only wvr missile being integrated for internal carriage is Asraam, the Aim-9x will be only carried externally.

Andy

Britain Sees Progress in F-35 Tech Transfer Talks

By ANDREA SHALAL-ESA, 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 March 20.
The sophisticated, radar-evading F-35 will cost an estimated $256 billion for the 2,593 jets that the United States and Britain plan to buy. Britain alone would likely spend $25 billion to buy and maintain its F-35 aircraft over the next 40 years, according to the Pentagon.
Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. is the prime contractor for the F-35, and Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp., was chosen to build the plane’s initial engine.
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 improved 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 work.
"We are more optimistic that we can find a way through that will meet our requirements, and look to move forward now with greater confidence toward the next key milestone in the program signing of the MOU," he said.
Drayson met with Pentagon and State Department officials during his week in Washington, including the U.S. Defense Department’s chief arms buyer, Kenneth Krieg.
"It was a productive meeting," said Krieg’s spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin, noting the two men met and spoke frequently.
She said the United States had provided more information on technology issues "than ever before" to Britain, given its large role in funding development of the new fighter.
Britain has committed $2 billion to developing the fighter, more than twice the money provided by the other seven international partners working on the F-35 with Washington.
Irwin said U.S. officials would continue working with Britain and its other partners on the technology transfer issues, with an eye to wrapping up MOU negotiations in June, allowing national reviews ahead of a December signature.
Overall, she said, more than 1,000 technology transfers related to the F-35 had been approved, but there were "still a small number that are still under review."
On Monday, Fitch Ratings raised Lockheed Martin’s debt ratings to "A-minus" from "BBB-plus," citing the company’s stable outlook for some of its largest defense programs, cash generation and financial flexibility. http://staging.defensenews.com/story.ph ... &C=america

Elite Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1093

isb wrote:

If the speed and height are lower, the missile goes shorter. Is it correct? The Australians have reported that the F-35 can't supercruise, probably because the aircraft uses less exotic, less expensive, materials than the F-22A.

Just out of curiosity, how do "the Australians" know what the capabilities are of an aircraft that has yet to fly?

Good news!

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=1633313&C=america

Newbie Joined: Mar 20, 2006 Posts: 9 Status: Offline

Hmm... <whatever weak argumentation> + "it has to yet to fly", wont make a discussion of interest.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2832

UK as a top level partner contributes 2 Billion.

Cutting down the engine vendor to one saved 2.5 Billion over the life of the program.

The U.S. taxpayer gets hosed for about $240 Billion if not more ( if you figure in all the different "colors of money" not in the program per se but to keep it sustained in other indirect ways.....

Mean while, many other war winning items that really make the USAF powerful are going to seed. Pretty sad story. I need upgraded C-5s, EB-52, J-UCAS, Tankers, E-10, A C-130 roadmap of sustainment that looks like it wasn't written by a crackhead. More flying hours, B-1 upgrades, And numerous, numerous other things that add real value ( people programs etc ). This is what makes USAF powerful. Not buying an airframe that will do work we can do other ways.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Britain out of JSF