Are we pulling out of the JSF project

[Skywalker]

This Times Online Story seems to suggest that the Fleet Air Arm and the RAF won't be getting replacements for the Harrier.

If this is true, rather than sabre-rattling jouno's at work, then it is more evidence of a broken public purse and a crippled MOD.

Whether the RN would prefer the Super Hornet for their new carriers (unless they are cancelled too)I don't know - but various write-ups do suggest that it is a better choice...

... unless they could navalise the Typhoon!!!

At least the government have been able to put out numerous press releases saying that they may eventually consider scoping a purchase proposal to tender to armoured vehicles for the troops on the ground.

Edited by Skywalker on Sunday 28th September 21:46

[Cpn Jack Spanner]

Government would rather give the money to bankers as rewards for doing a lousy job.

[Eric Mc]

Navalised Rafales?

That'd make the French smile.

[Badgerboy]

They have already looked at navalising the Typhoon, and it's going to require a major upgrade of the landing gear, fuselage, and the installation of arresting gear. Top that off with all the sea proofing the aircraft will require....

Typically, it will be done to save cash, but only end up costing more than the JSF.

Super Hornets are one option, but then the carriers will need extra funding for the catapults and arresting kit. The Rafale is also another contender. (Personally, I reckon some Sukhoi's would be nice, but thats never going to happen! )

[Skywalker]

Eric Mc said:

Navalised Rafales?

That'd make the French smile.

Well, you do have a point.

Edited by Skywalker on Sunday 28th September 21:51

[Mojocvh]

Just do it NOW and get rid of that yank junk!!

[matmoxon]

Mojocvh said:

Just do it NOW and get rid of that yank junk!!

Oi, the JSF isn't "Yank junk", part of it is built in the UK, and afaik no we aren't pulling out of the JSF (haven't heard anything at work), if we did pull out of it, we'd have nothing to put on the two new aircraft carriers being produced, as there won't be any new Sea Harriers.

ETA, allot of the stuff about the Typhoon being navalised in that article is old news to me.

Matt

Edited by matmoxon on Sunday 28th September 23:13

[ninja-lewis]

Both the FAA and the RAF are looking for STOVL aircraft. From a naval perspective, STOVL has several advantages:

• it allows for higher sortie rates as well as operating in conditions that make CTOL impossible. Sortie rates are quite important especially when launching a number of aircraft as flight: for CTOL you have to drive the aircraft up to the catapult, attach the catapult, raise blast deflectors if necessary, launch the aircraft and prepare for the next launch; Harrriers on other hand can just line up behind each other and take off once the one in front is clear.
• Conventional landings on a carrier are incredibly difficult and require extensive practice to become proficient and remain current. A VL landing on a ship, on the hand, is not much more different from a VL on land. RAF pilots with zero experience of shipbourne operations could land on Hermes and Invincible straightaway during the Falklands.
• CVF have been designed for STOVL although fitted for but not with CTOL capability if we change our minds in 20-30 years time. We assume that by then EMALS will have been perfected. In the mean time, CTOL requires steam-powered catapults, which require huge amounts of steam on tap (such as an old fashion oil burner or nuclear reactor, neither of which CVF will use). Catapults and Arresting gear also require extensive modification to the flight deck and deck immediately below.
• We no longer have personnel experienced in CTOL flight deck operations nor the means of training them.

The RAF want the F35, preferably Dave B too. Dave B brings commonality with the FAA, not just with spares but because Joint Force Harrier personnel can continue to be deployed on either typically FAA/RAF deployments. In other words, the RAF get to continue to effectively control the FAA. Less cynically, F35B will replace the Harrier GR9 and some Tornado GR4s in the ground-attack role. It will also bring first day stealth capability; while enemy air defences are still operating on the first day of the war, its low observable characteristics and internal weapons carriage will make it less detectable than an equivalent Typhoon. Once air supremacy is gained and the enemy's air defence network is suppressed it can revert to carrying external weapons like any other tactical aircraft.

[FourWheelDrift]

Quite an apt sketch from John Bird and John Fortune talking about the new carriers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6h8i8wrajA

They can have the carriers but not the aircraft.

[FourWheelDrift]

Skywalker said:

... unless they could navalise the Typhoon!!!

Or resurrect the P1154 Supersonic Harrier project.

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.ht...

[Mr Dave]

If John MCCain gets to be the next US president, the project is likely to be scrappeed.

It will be over budget.

It has higher wing loading than an F104 Starfighter(fun times!)

Limited Payload options.

Americans do not want clients to be able to alter computer programming( ie we pay a fortune to get our missiles compatible)

Carriers could easily be configured to CATOBAR operations as they are designed for it and they havent been built yet.

Good information on this on the professional pilots rumour network (PPRUNE)

And on the Australian airpower site (which suggests that Dave may not be much use afterall.)

[bobthemonkey]

Mr Dave said:

And on the Australian airpower site (which suggests that Dave may not be much use afterall.)

Your talking about the Rand report, yes? The report which talked about seal clubbing? The one which featured Kopp, who at one seriously suggested that Australia Massively upgrade the old F-111s and is preoccupied by a fear of mass attack by Su-27s? Good rebuttal here: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008...

I've always thought that the CVF's should be outfitted with cats and traps straight out of the yards. Dave-C, would make some sense, if only as a truly stealthy strike platform, and make the bulk of the air wing up from Super Hornets, Rafales or Navalised Typhoons. I did see one interesting study which was a Rafale with the Eurofighter radar and cockpit setup.

The entire Dave programme will be scaled back, but not cancelled, not can I see a complete British withdrawal. I suspect Dave-B will see the fewest cuts as it is only version without a viable alternative. The air force wants more F22's and the Navy has more time to decide what to do, especially as the latest Hornets are becoming more common. Dave's A and C will be delayed, perhaps with C totally replacing A.