UK to Cancel JSF???
Discussion
Looks like The Joint strike Fighter could be going the way of most transatlantic Joint projects. This looks to be due to the USA not wanting to let the RAF and FAA operate and service them independantly. Anybody for the Super Harrier???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4546742.stm
>> Edited by telecat on Wednesday 21st December 10:27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4546742.stm
>> Edited by telecat on Wednesday 21st December 10:27
I have just been watching the Defence Industrial Strategy Statement from the House of Commons - not looking good for UK! John Reid was saying that Typhoon and JSF will be the last fast jet programmes for the next 30 years(ie their service life)but they will be funding a technology demonstrator programme for UCAVs. They forsee the military jet business as a maintainance/upgrade service. Missile systems has had a large investment over the last decade with things like Storm Shadow but this will now be cut by 40% with only upgrades forseen again. He did say this will lead to inevitable rationalisation in the missile business(I thought we had already merged/rationalised all the main players - I have never been so rationalised in all my life!)and that future contracts may be "tempered" to UK/European suppliers to keep a strong infrastructure here - yeh, right, get that one past Mr Brown! There was loads more but this is the most relevant to me and who I work for.
The Air force version has it's head on the chopping block in the US as well.
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?t
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?t
cymtriks said:
That link mentions project delays, not a reluctance to allow the UK to operate the aircraft. Am I missing something here?
The problem is that the UK wants to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have. There are negotiations ongoing to try and come to an agreement on technology transfer but the USA will only do this if they know we have an alternative. At the moment we don't but I suspect someone somewhere is looking into launching Typhoons from carriers.
MarkK said:
..to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have...
Well we'll just have our flying tailplane technology back then thank-you-very-much, and the USAF can all pootle about at sub-sonic speeds again...
MarkK said:
That link mentions project delays, not a reluctance to allow the UK to operate the aircraft. Am I missing something here?
The problem is that the UK wants to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have. There are negotiations ongoing to try and come to an agreement on technology transfer but the USA will only do this if they know we have an alternative. At the moment we don't but I suspect someone somewhere is looking into launching Typhoons from carriers.
MarkK We have the same trouble with some of our sub-systems. We buy from the USA and if we try to get any export sales they jump up and down and say "oh no you don't because it's got our technology in it and we don't want you let that customer have it" and they then go in and flog some of their kit instead.
>> Edited by tonyvid on Wednesday 21st December 13:11
MarkK said:
That link mentions project delays, not a reluctance to allow the UK to operate the aircraft. Am I missing something here?
The problem is that the UK wants to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have. There are negotiations ongoing to try and come to an agreement on technology transfer but the USA will only do this if they know we have an alternative. At the moment we don't but I suspect someone somewhere is looking into launching Typhoons from carriers.
...levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have...?
Such as?
There's software I suppose.
By service and maintain do you mean just replacing parts and making our own spares? Is this a specific thing like stealth bits and pieces?
A lot of the engine is being designed here anyway at RR in Bristol
so some of the mechanical parts are already home grown.Alwys happens with these projects. The F-35 is too compromised. The US Navy really want a twin engined jet. The RAF, FAA and US MArines want a V/STOL jet and the USAF want a lightweight fighter ala F-16 with the latest technology built in. Result, at least three different specs. The mainteanance issue has to be a joke. How many other countries want to buy these things and would they want them going back to the USA for service?? (Even if it is only minor parts)
tonyvid said:
That link mentions project delays, not a reluctance to allow the UK to operate the aircraft. Am I missing something here?
The problem is that the UK wants to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have. There are negotiations ongoing to try and come to an agreement on technology transfer but the USA will only do this if they know we have an alternative. At the moment we don't but I suspect someone somewhere is looking into launching Typhoons from carriers.
We have the same trouble with some of our sub-systems. We buy from the USA and if we try to get any export sales they jump up and down and say "oh no you don't because it's got our technology in it and we don't want you let that customer have it" and they then go in and flog some of their kit instead.
>> Edited by tonyvid on Wednesday 21st December 13:11
tonyvid Can't make up my mind whether the US are arrogant and the UK are in the right or the US are very astute with their businesses and the UK are push overs!
cymtriks said:
That link mentions project delays, not a reluctance to allow the UK to operate the aircraft. Am I missing something here?
The problem is that the UK wants to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have. There are negotiations ongoing to try and come to an agreement on technology transfer but the USA will only do this if they know we have an alternative. At the moment we don't but I suspect someone somewhere is looking into launching Typhoons from carriers.
...levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have...?
Such as?
There's software I suppose.
By service and maintain do you mean just replacing parts and making our own spares? Is this a specific thing like stealth bits and pieces?
A lot of the engine is being designed here anyway at RR in Bristol
To be honest I'm not sure what "technology" is exactly (maybe that's what the problem is - the US won't tell us!).
I'm sure it will all become clear sooner or later.
The key to this whole issue is proving the UK have an alternative - until then the US have the UK over a barrel.
telecat said:
Alwys happens with these projects. The F-35 is too compromised. The US Navy really want a twin engined jet. The RAF, FAA and US MArines want a V/STOL jet and the USAF want a lightweight fighter ala F-16 with the latest technology built in. Result, at least three different specs. The mainteanance issue has to be a joke. How many other countries want to buy these things and would they want them going back to the USA for service?? (Even if it is only minor parts)
Exactly - modern aircraft are required to meet too many requirements to satisfy budget constraints. This results in a jack of all trades but master of none aircraft in some cases.
Gone are the days when the UK had Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado, Hawk etc... all being made to fulfill specific roles. Now we have an aircraft family being created from the same basic design to cover a number of roles.
tvrolet said:
..to be able to service these things in this country and to do this they require access to levels of technology that the USA is reluctant to let us have...
Well we'll just have our flying tailplane technology back then thank-you-very-much, and the USAF can all pootle about at sub-sonic speeds again...
And we'll have back the Jet engine technology we just gave them, ALL there jets were copies or developed from BRITISH engines
>> Edited by MartinD on Sunday 25th December 00:17
and have you seen NTSC TV system? it stands for "Never twice the same Colour" as it's simply SHITE, who said the yanks were any good at technology as it deffo aint true!, the yanks like to think they are good at technology when in fact they are 20 odd years behind as they are with pop music!
matchless said:
and have you seen NTSC TV system? it stands for "Never twice the same Colour" as it's simply SHITE, who said the yanks were any good at technology as it deffo aint true!, the yanks like to think they are good at technology when in fact they are 20 odd years behind as they are with pop music!
thats NTTSC
It would be a shame if the UK abandoned it, it seems to be the aircraft that fitted the needs and facilities built for the harrier (across services). Can we wait for a harrier replacement? The aircraft is 40 years old and even if they could develop a new aircraft in the same time as the Eurofighter has been developed (22 years since specifications where first laid on paper) it would have been in service for 62 years! Of course I’m not suggesting that it could actually be developed in 22 years since it’s not a very conventional aircraft.
Any ideas?
Any ideas?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff