Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

snypa777 wrote:

Corsair, everybody IS fighting for a piece of the pie, that`s right. BAE chief exec` Mike Turner has just rubbished the Rafale idea, but he would, wouldn`t he!

One interesting note is that the UK may well end up with a surplus of Typhoon fighters. We are obliged to purchase the remaining fighters in the order. Foreign orders may take care of that though, we could just sell the surplus jets to a new customer.
Norway is considering pulling the plug on JSF. They signed some sort of agreement with EADS on Eurofighter some time ago. Spin off contracts I believe. They will be very familiar with the program and Typhoon is favourite for them, possibly. I think Norway has about 60 F-16s they will be replacing at some point. There is nothing definite about them pulling the ripcord on JSF OR a replacement though. Perhaps a Norwegian or two can comment?

The problem with a Typhoon M is the visibility issue, some people believe. The canards get in the field of view with the AOA used on a carrier landing? I talked to someone whom has sat in a Typhoon cockpit, they said that you can only see the tips of the canards anyway so I don`t know where the visibility thing comes from....

On the tech` transfer issue. I know the issue covers stealth tech` etc, but I believe it is a bit of a red herring in one respect. This source code issue...

The Trident missiles that go faulty are returned to the US for servicing. Might be the same for TLAM. The UK doesn`t have the source codes for TLAM or C-130 J. I wouldn`t have thought we have codes for Trident or any of the other systems. Truth is I am not certain but it seems unlikely. Do you think the French will give us source codes for Rafale? I think not. Same problem different aircraft. Like you said Corsair, it may be all about business.

Hopefully, the RAF won't be selling 2nd hand Typhoons in ten years. Like the RN did with the T-23 Frigates? On the otherhand Stealth is clearly the way to go. I wouldn't be surprise to see the UK expand it JSF buy further down the road. Maybe even purchasing a small number of F-22 Raptors. While some claim its just to expensive. Well, the RAAF is purchasing "4" C-117's for 2 Billion (US). So, would a dozen Raptors be worth 2-3 Billion??? Possibly! As for the Rafale being purchased I just don't see it. First the UK would have to build the CVF's with arrest gear and catapults. Which, she doesn't want and may not be able to afford regardless. Which, leads back to a Naval Typhoon. The cost to convert it to naval use would be just to great. ($$$) So, for better of worse the UK is stuck with the JSF. In my opinion "BETTER". It will be far superior to either type............... Very Happy

F-16.net Sponsor

thats what you say Wink

IF we decided to get F-35C's then yes it would be better than a Naval Typhoon. However with its weight issues, slightly smaller weapons bay, lower visibility, and poorer (compared to the SHAR) instantaneous VTOL capability. I would say a Typhoon N is a better option than the F-35B... stealth is good and the future however it isn't the be all and end all of an aircraft. Then again with the development costs of the N would be close to what the F-35 will cost, it depends which one has the largest list of plusses. Thats why the Rafale offer has credibility due to it being already developed and ready to go as it were.

There is a strong case for having arrestor wires atleast (similar to the russian way) on the QE class carriers in order to be able to carry Hawkeyes.. in support of this, Northrop Grumman are in the process of investigating if the Hawkeye can be ramp launched (bare in mind these carriers are only a few feet shorter than the US carriers and are actually wider!). With the French definately building a QE class carrier with a Catapult, the integration problems will have been largely seen and solved helping to keep some of the costs down for the RN.

Then again, whats the betting if we pull out of JSF (if atleast partly) Boeing get straight in their with a F-18E offer.

Andy

EDIT: doh just repeated my previous post lol... damn you hangover.

Personally, I would prefer th CVF equipped with catapults and arresting gear. While the sortie rates are much better for the F-35B (STOVL). I think the combined range and payload of the F-35C (CV) makes up for it. Further, as you stated. A AWACS Type (i.e. Hawkeye) could also be employed. Which, clearly offers much more capabilities! Then of course the RN could cross deck with American and French Carriers. The list goes on and on........... Idea

The Merlin ASaC7 and the E-2 Hawkeye are not the only options for AEW. The V-22 Osprey could be the best choice, if by 2012-2015 the reliability problems get completely solved.

It has VSTOL capability, so there would be no need for catapult or arresting gear only for AEW, and it's range and ceiling are much better than those of the Merlin.

If the CVF gets cut as so many projects before, it would still be possible to use less expensive [Link pending approval] TM class carriers with the V-22 AEW and F-35B JSF.

The only career path for V-22 will be that of a widow maker, many times over.

A flat denial from both sides...No Rafael for the Royal Navy..

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish ... 005376.php

"A British Ministry of Defence spokesman dismissed the speculation."

I am always a bit put off whenever I see that particular line in an article. Which spokesman? I agree that the UK IS committed to JSF. I believe all the issues will be resolved in the form of a compromise on tech` sharing. What form that may take is anybody`s guess! I loved the Dassault man`s comments, The UK NEVER buys French or European!" A healthy dose of French realism...!

ISB, V-22 for the RN? No thanks, it looks a maintenance nightmare and more dangerous than the early Harriers! The latest RN sea kings, the MK7s with the latest radar kit , Link 16, etc, while not having speed or ceiling of the OSPREY can scan out to almost 200 nautical miles and has excellent capability. The Merlin has 5 hours endurance on two of it`s engines with one shut down and a great radar. my preference is for the Hawkeye of course! We need a CTOL carrier for that bird though...unless the ski-jump trials on the Hawkeye worked out ok? I think the E-2C would be the most expensive option though.

Are you sure? The E-2C is fully developed. However there are no current customers for an AWACs V-22....

So the UK would have to front 100% of the development costs aswell.

Andy

boff180 wrote:

Are you sure? The E-2C is fully developed. However there are no current customers for an AWACs V-22....

So the UK would have to front 100% of the development costs aswell.

Andy

Yes Andy, I am not so sure! Think about our UK JOINT force mentality...
I have seen figures of $50 million per unit for the E-2C, $70 million per unit for the V-22, forget how precise the figures are, or are not however. I can`t include costs for development, maintenance, training etc..

I was thinking in more general monetary terms. An AWACS V-22 can be based anywhere there is a patch of concrete, grass or beach. The V-22 is more suitable to our, the UK`s JOINTERY ethic. A naval V-22 could provide airborne cover for far flung RAF aircraft in theatre if an E-3 isn`t available. In fact you don`t even need a navy if you have V-22 AWACS, you can fly it and use it anywhere. If the V-22 has some load capacity even with a full AEW fit it can be used for other duties, shifting vital personnel, equipment. Overall it could be more "cost effective" than buying some very specialized E-2Cs, which is a great aircraft.

It may give added capability over what the E-2C can do. If you have one aircraft type that can do several jobs, you can save money by cutting other assets. My god, I sound like an MOD spokesperson! Sorry!!! Having said all of that, the V-22 is currently a poor machine that needs a LOT of improvements, or needs to go over to AMARC according to some folks!!! Laughing

I thought the AWACS capability had already been done on the V-22? I am sure I have seen a picture of it with a triangular radar gizmo on it? I know a picture does not constitute a "proper" AWACS ship and I wonder how far advanced an AWACS is? The US has already stumped up $16 billion for development...Of course I would rather see the E-2C in UK service, only because the V-22 is a dog at the moment. Just some things to stew over....

Speaking as someone who's always been an advocate for American hardware (and not too keen on the French gear), as a British taxpayer I say stuff the F-35 and buy the Rafale M. We can do without STOVL. We've been missing out on the catapult action for too long.

Interesting thread with IMO some excellent comments. Let me throw in a couple more thoughts:

Rafale may become a good aircraft but for the UK purpose it should not be considered as an off the shelf purchase. It cannot carry or fire any british weapons and, as noted above, it's avionics are not all compatable. Add to that the well known issues with it's lack of power (and therefore payload/range performance) and with it's radar which barely works and you have to factor in considerable extra (brit) money to get it up to UK standards.

Usually the advocates for Seaphoon assume R&D funds can be redeployed from the F-35 program to Typhoon. I do not think that is possible. I think the UK is contractually obligated to make a full F-35 payment regardless of whether any production orders are placed. If I am correct, then Seaphoon development would need 100% extra money to be found.

Also the common opinion is that the UK will be contractually forced to buy all 232 Tyhoons. That's a story mostly pushed by RAF sympathisers and not quite accurate. Whenever Tranche 3 negotiations start (in a couple of years?), the UK can negotiate for a smaller buy. It would merely have to give up workshare to the other partners so their work is not diluted. What's the problem in that?

V-22 AEW was the result of a UK request for a quick look into the possibilty. Boeing spent about 12 weeks and a couple engineers and the end result was a brochure distributed at Farnborough that's had a lot of internet exposure. But that is all the work that has been done - a brochure.

Another misconception about V-22 is it's size & performance. It's cabin volume is no bigger than a Merlin and loaded with AEW kit, it's performance would not be anything like the bare airframe numbers quoted here. It's also unpressurized which imposes ceiling restrictions.

Lastly, I don't think many would disagree (not many in the UK MoD for example) that a conventional carrier F-35 (F-35C) with Hawkeyes, would be the very best military solution. But what they've consistantly said in public is that solution has less british industrial content, is availably too late to meet the Invincibles out of service dates, and makes the ship a whole lot more expensive than STOVL. Not the answers we like to hear i.e. money & jobs outrank military effectiveness but not suprising either.

And double, treble, yes, Dassault would never give Rafale technology to Bae and yes, the UK would never buy Dassault.

While I'm here and at it:

When a journalist says sources (original article says sources close to French MoD), it means he/she made it up.

When someone says software codes instead of software code, he/she/it doesn't know what they are talking about and can be safely ignored. The plural of software code is code. In particular this nonsense about requiring US approval to operate JSF is some idiot journalist that heard the word codes, immediately thought of James Bond entering numbers to stop the missile from firing and then jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that JSF needed some secret set of numbers to work. Security access codes and software source code are two very, very different things.

cheers

Personally, I don't see the Royal Navy opting for the Rafale under any conditions. Really, the CTOL (CV) F-35C is a long shot at this point. Also, with the UK researching a AEW&C Merlin. We may not see a RN E-2D Hawkeye either? So, I would say F-35B very likely and the Rafale very unlikely. With the F-35C somewhere inbetween.........IMO Confused

FLY NAVY

Quote:

Also the common opinion is that the UK will be contractually forced to buy all 232 Tyhoons. That's a story mostly pushed by RAF sympathisers and not quite accurate. Whenever Tranche 3 negotiations start (in a couple of years?), the UK can negotiate for a smaller buy. It would merely have to give up workshare to the other partners so their work is not diluted. What's the problem in that?

You missed the major reason for the full procurement of Typhoons. Contractual penalties.

If we don't purchase Tranche 3 and hence forth not out full 232 like we signed for in the MoU; we have to pay huge penalties to the other partner nations. Analysts currently put this figure at approximately 3 times the cost of purchasing the aircraft and flying them for 10 years! Hell just buy them, take the earlier A/C out of service or rotate them in storage like they do with the Apache's, that'd still be cheaper.

Let alone Economic impacts... the final assembly line at Warton would have to close after the Saudi order has been fulfilled, thats a loss of jobs, which is baaad for the economy, which is bad news in the papers for our Government.etc

Andy

Corsair, as with all your posts I think you are dead on.

The Marines were under some pressure from the Navy to switch some of their F-35B orders to the C. Not unreasonable given that the Marines do and will continue to have an important role off CVN decks. But the Marines don't want to see STOVL orders diminish and more questions about the value of STOVL (it has enough critics already). Their priorities are crystal clear: STOVL then CATOBAR. So their answer I thought was rather smart. They said, good question but impossible to answer right now, let's get both variants flying so we can make an informed judgement based on their performance i.e buzz off and we'll talk in 5 years time.

The reason I tell this story is that I think the Brits will follow right along. If the marines decide to cut their STOVL orders to a minimum because that variant doesn't look that great in practice, the UK will follow. My understanding is that switching orders from one variant to another down the line will be allowed under the MOU's being negotiated right now. So the door is open.

Andy. I think you are very mistaken. I think the current EF agreements, which by the way can be renogotiated at any time, do not have penalty clauses. What they state is that each country's workshare is guaranteed based on orders. So the UK gets thirty something percent or xx billion pounds of work based on a full 232 order. The other partners get guarantees based on their orders. So if the UK changes it's mind and drops from 232 to a lower number. the UK would have to give up UK work to the other partners to keep their workshares untouched. Yes, this would hit Bae very hard and jobs would be lost but the UK would not be out of pocket. It would mean that the remaining UK orders would probably be built in Spain or Germany.

I'll be happy if you can show me that I'm mistaken. I've read a great deal of nonsense about these "penalties" in the enthusiast's press e.g. AFM & AI, but from industry & goverment sources, a different picture.

RonO....

I below quote Adam Ingram, then Minister of State of Defence; in January 2005, appropriate part in bold.

Quote:

Under the international collaborative production arrangements for Typhoon, manufacturing work has been allocated between partner nations in proportion to their respective numerical requirements for the aircraft. Cancellation of the United Kingdom's Tranche 2 order would necessitate re-allocation of workshare to partner nations in order to re-balance these proportions and the UK would be required to compensate the other nations for the extra costs incurred, up to the total amount the UK would have paid had we not cancelled the order.

In addition to these costs, the cancellation of Tranche 2 would result in a failure to equip the Royal Air Force with a key element of its future fighting capability, a significant loss of UK manufacturing and an associated loss of jobs and skills across the industry

The analyst data I was referring to is from the highly respected weekly industry journal (not really a magazine) called Flight International. Even if those are incorrect the statement above atleast shows its going to cost the tax payer the same, whether we have them or not! And I would argue the economic repurcussions, not to mention possible closed bases and thats impact that cancelling them would cost more even with the lowest estimations.

Andy

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Rafale for the UK - Is it possible?