I think there are big, recognised risks in continuing the F-35 program. It’s a program where the costs have risen again and again with no realistic certainty about how much more they will rise. To quote Sens from the F-35 thread May 24 on the forum:

I understand the point that is being made: overall capability of the US forces will be reduced unless projected F-35 procurement and operational costs are reduced. This applies to export customers, too: either increase your defence budget or reduce the number of F-35’s to be acquired or cut other capabilities to pay increased F-35 costs.

The UK order is too small now to be affected significantly by most increases in cost. For the US, a small change in price can pay for squadrons of aircraft, this isn’t the case for the UK. Lets also remember that the F35C costs are the “real” costs, the costs put forward by the other competing contractors are still the rose tinted costs, and are likely to rise in a similar manner too.

Can you list for us all these F35C risks? I stress the F35C risks, not the F35B or F35A risks. The F35B is of course on a 2 year lifeline with the axe above it, but the F35C and F35A seem to be doing reasonably well.

On a more “political fiction” note, it was suggested some years ago by a french Admiral that France second aircraft carrier could be entirely build in the UK if the UK decided to operate rafale M.
In terms of cost effectiveness and operational synergies I’ve always found this option attractive. But I know it won’t happen:)

That was a long time ago. The French do not have the money for a second carrier anymore.

define ‘main’. IN has ordered 45 Mig-29k’s(4 of them 2 seaters) and 40 NLCA’s.

even assuming you are correct, how does that make the sea gripen relevant to IN ?

Main as in first line, LCA is more of a LIFT second line aircraft.

strange how some people immediately consider “bias” some propositions. He simply pointed out that you could buy a platform that’s already operational, doing its job well, and could integrate anything you might have the idea of using quite rapidly (especially as some of the things are already integrated/planned to be integrated) as well as in UK forces.

Quicker delivery brings no benefit, in fact, it’s worse, since there is no money to pay for them right now.

what’s more, you’d have a platform with which you’d be fully independant in what you do, which, with the F-35, simply is not the case. Even talking about the “investment” is somewhat flawed, since you don’t get what you expected in the first place (be it as aircraft and the independance and sovereignity it’s supposed to bring you, or be it in jobs expected – it’s only matter of time before the US cut the F-136 for good, as they don’t have illimited budgets anymore)… so you keeping paying more and more to get still what you didn’t expect, basically, you’re saying, “well, since we wasted x billions, we don’t want to have wasted them for nothing.. so let’s keep wasting some more”… some may say, “since we’ve wasted so much already, why keep doing it? let’s use the money that we still have for something that’ll be worth it in the first place”

Says you. There is no solid Rafale UK workshare/jobs offer as of yet, so your conclusion that the Rafale offer is better is based on what exactly? Oh yes, an opinon from you that you think it would be better. Again, F35 is independent, and there is again no proof suggesting Rafale would be “more” independent other than again your opinion. In fact given the historical desire of the French to screw over Britain as much as possible, we could actually conclude that going French would be a terrible idea. France would love to kill off BAE 😉 If you are referring to the F35 source codes, do tell us exactly which modules the Brits are being denied access to. Last I heard the only issue was over the F135 engine control codes, as they don’t want Rolls-Royce getting their hands on them 😎

On the typhoon competition, you may be right, but again, there’s no naval version of it, so, what the FAA gets is obviously not going to be a typhoon

The FAA could get a naval Typhoon, but if I meant Typhoon naval on my list I’d have written Typhoon naval. What I meant was Typhoons for the RAF, and the RN get nothing or some UCAV down the line maybe.

I take it you haven’t heard of the NLCA.

The Indians Navy’s main carrier fighter aircraft is going to be the Mig-29, not the LCA though

Is the UK preparing a plan B to lower the cost risk of equipping and operating its forthcoming carriers? For those who can’t conceive of costs mattering where defence is concerned, the UK is building 2 carriers but plans to operate only one because of the COST.

If by abandoning F-35C in favour of Sea Gripen the UK could afford to operate 2 carriers instead of 1, the UK would have a far greater naval aviation capability. It would make sense to me for the UK MOD to fund SAAB to complete the design of the Sea Gripen in order to know how much such an alternative to F-35 should cost.

But that is simply not the case. If they wanted to lower the cost of CVF, they wouldn’t have delayed it intentionally for 2 years which made the cost sky rocket. There were never going to be 2 operational at the same time, 1 in reserve/standby and 1 at sea.

I would like the UK to dump the F-35 in any incarnation because I think it could prove prohibitively expensive to operate. LM has an abysmal track record of failing to meet F-35 program deadlines and cost predictions. SAAB’s track record with Gripen has been exemplary.

I presume that if the UK government funded Sea Gripen development, it would receive some royalty from SAAB on sales of the aircraft. I wonder how many Sea Gripens could be sold to “new [aircraft] carrier nations”. What new carrier nations might there be in the next 20 years?

F35C is flying. Gripen N isn’t even on a drawing board. F35C is much lower risk, regardless of track record.

I disagree…

The RAF should rationalise on a Typhoon only fleet once the Tornados are retired to bring the operating and purchase cost of the Typhoons down. Ditch the F35 altogether and focus on developing a top strike UCAV for the missions that are considered too risky for a 4.5 gen fighter.

For the FAA, just purchase some Rafales off the shelf, and integrate whatever short range IR weapon you want. The brimstone might even already be integrated by the french, and Storm Shadow instead of Scalp EG would be seamless. Purchase a couple E2C/D, and pool training (both for the Hawkeyes and Rafales) with the Aéronavale.
Nic

Does your Rafale/French bias have to come into every topic? :rolleyes: I do understand why you are so desparate for the UK to go Rafale though! I’ve no doubt BAE are quite aware of the marketing trick Dassault will be planning to play too, and so will be lobbying hard against the Rafale. I suppose one option could be to have a procurement made by the UK, but with a fund created of say £10 billion, which if Dassault used the contract to rubbish Typhoon, would be given 75% to the MoD and 25% to BAE systems, which should keep Dassault well in line 😀

I see no reason to go Rafale instead of F35C at this point. The UK has made an investment in the F35 and we should continue with it unless there are extremely strong reasons to change. All I’m hearing fan boys who like a different type of plane because of their nationality or whatever, and highly dubious cost comparisons based on opinions about non-existant aircraft or sticker prices.

I think Gripen would be enough for CVF as I can’t see us needing more than that!!!

I also think that we do need to role this ships not as fleet or attack carriers but as what I call CAH….Carrier Attack and Helicopter where the vessel can be reroled in a couple of hours for either helos, Fast jets or a mix…..

Nick

There is zero commonality with any of our main allies with Gripen, and commonality with the Swedish air force isn’t really very useful. Really all I see is people that “like” Gripen, but don’t seem have any reasons why it is a better choice. The idea of it being cheaper is flawed since it doesn’t even exist in a naval variant and could in fact be more expensive.

Whether or not it makes sense for the defence of the UK should not be determined by how the RAF is currently organised. It can be re-organised if necessary.

It’s determined by how the RAF will be organised in the future, and this aircraft will be taking on primarily a strike role, and Gripen is a poor strike aircraft in comparison to Rafale, F18E and F35. There is a small air defence element, and that element exists only in the Royal Navy service, not in the RAF. The RAF is putting in most of the cash. Gripen ain’t it. There is more chance of the F18C getting this order than the Gripen Naval. It approximately goes like this:

1. F35C
2. F18E / Rafale (level peggings)
3. F35B
4. F18C
5. Eurofighter
6. Gripen Naval
7. Tejas
8. Mig-29

I’d say it’s a bid to try convince the UK govt that there is an alternative to the F-35C.

If it comes in at significantly cheaper, is made in the UK, etc, would give it a chance of being considered. SAAB will have to move fast though, the UK has already ordered some F-35s, iirc?

It won’t happen, the F35C is now likely to form part of the Tornado replacement, and for that purpose Gripen is completely unsuitable. Remember this deal is going to be based largely on what the RAF want, the RN is the smaller partner in all of this, and the RAF have ZERO interest in Gripen, they’d sooner just go for more Typhoon as they can more effectively do the strike role of Tornado. Furthermore, Sea Gripen is very risky compared to F35C, navalising aircraft is never an easy task, and the MoD do not want to be lumped with Sea Gripen “issues” later down the line. If the F35C becomes unsuitable, the next in line are F18E and Rafale M, both are much less risky than the Gripen naval and are more capable than the Gripen.

I’m not saying there wasnt going to be a peace dividend…. all i was saying was that with smarter spending decisions, the 2011 BAF could be more towards 1990 levels…. somewhere in between?

As for sneering, I refer to a more global sneering at American equipment on this forum by various British and European posters… it was NOT directed directly at you PPP…. more to the kind of posters along the lines of “they still use leaf springs in cars” kind of top gear sneering at anything if its….AMERICAN!!! I mean realistically, are people going to continue to defend the stupid decisions taken by the British MoD and various governments?

How much money on Chinook HC3s that sat there for how long?

How much money was spent on the MRA4s?

How much on FSTA?

On the Wildcat?

Various armoured vehicle acquisition programmes?

how much of the money wasted on these and other programmes would it have taken to save JFH? Various warships of the RN? Various BA units?

There are other ways to keep jobs and capital in country while buying established systems and getting more for less(as long as its not attempted to integrate too many “systems” and “changes” to make the product “perfect”)

Local and licenced production?
Cost offsets?

It works for numerous countries….

Some money and skill is maintained in country….while making savings in design and actual cost of the product….which can be spent on maintaining capabilities and size….or the social programmes that are often the reason behind defence cuts in the first place.

Fair enough WRT to the sneering.

As for the other points, there are problems with many programmes but their domestic origin has little to do with it. The problem is within the MOD not the contractors, so if you want import something to fix the problem, import a new MOD and Civil Service!

Military facilities are hardly ever guarded properly, this goes the same in western countries too.