MickI have grave doubts as to whether BAE will ever produce another wholly-British aircraft again. Whether that matters or not is a moot point, though I’d be slightly saddened should that be the case.
Just a thought. Manned or unmanned though? Clearly, the days of manned all-British fighters are over now, but BAE appears to be heading towards the UAS route to retain any independent capability (and skills) for developing military combat aircraft rather than just being an equal or junior partner in multinational efforts for manned fighters (ie. Eurofighter and the F-35). Even Dassault seems to be heading that way now what with its lead on Neuron. It could be argued that BAE Systems seems to have the slight edge at the moment compared to what is on offer and in planning from the French defence aerospace industry in that sphere. The UK should have its own stealthy UCAV demonstrator in Taranis and the Predator/Reaper-type Mantis already flying when Neuron is scheduled to fly.
MickNot entirely true that further Reapers have been canned. Maybe not as many as the ten requested for the possible FMS, but Air Marshal Sir Barry Thornton (Chief of Defence Material (Air)) was recently quoted widely in the press (at an Air Power Association meeting) saying that the MoD has already agreed to purchase two more next year in addition to the attritional replacement.
MickWell at least Israel look on track with their order for 25 F-35As plus an option for 50 F-35Bs. DSCA today details possible sale through FMS. Also details for the first time a price — US$15.2 billion.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Israel_08-83.pdf
MickWell, UK could pull out as a ‘partner’, and buy it later as a customer, if it comes up to scratch. Meanwhile it should equip the carriers with catapults and arresters, and could explore other aircraft options.
Pulling out as a partner wouldn’t really mean anything. The UK has already committed the money to the development phase (and not £2.5 billion like The Times claims), is on the verge of ordering two early models for testing (contracts for lead-in materials have already been placed) and being a partner doesn’t commit anyone to buying. Hence why Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are still able to look at other fighters. I think also the UK did explore other options prior to signing an MoU in 2001 to join the development phase. Maybe delaying when the F-35 has full operational capability so that deliveries are more staggered might be the way to go (under current production proposals we wouldn’t get the last of our F-35s until the 2020s or 2030s anyway). Depends on whether we go for the full planned 138 aircraft. Would just mean the Harrier would have to soldier on slightly longer than planned if that is possible.
MickI never mentioned FREMM or its capabilities and it has nothing to do with PA2. And just saying it was because France wanted too excessive equipment or that they couldn’t afford it (period) when there were numerous other things going on, I am afraid I’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
As far as the F-35 story goes, I have to agree that its a non-story. The CVF and F-35 go hand-in-hand. The MoD won’t cancel.
MickDude, the french wanted one carrier the British two, they did not deserve 40% workshare. the real reason for PA2’s collapse (beyond the pathetic blame someone else whining) is probablt anchored in the excessive equipment fit being sought by the French navy.
Yeah I forgot about that, but I still think a full joint carrier project where a contract had been signed dividing up workshare and systems/equipment jointly decided and procured may have helped France continue with PA2. It would have made it extremely difficult for the French Navy to specify a higher level of equipment fit that pushed up prices and moved away from what both countries were trying to aim for (ie. keeping costs down) or postpone it. That’s why I still think DCNS have a valid point. But it just wasn’t going to happen like that and would have needed a lot longer timeframe to get to that contract. On top of that, and what I also forgot, concerns were being raised in all three services because they knew other projects and capabilities would be canned to finance PA2. Seems the same concerns are now starting to be raised here.
MickThe French didn’t demand anything. They made proposals (& construction in France was not one of them, only final assembly of blocks made in both countries – & BTW, final assembly there had considerable logic to it, since they have a dock which is both big enough & ready, use of which would have saved the money being spent on improvements to Rosyth), but there was no suggestion that they were anything more than a suggestion, not a demand. It was very clear that France accepted that it had to be a junior partner in the carrier project. The MN said so, even DCNS publicly accepted it.
If some people at DCNS are now being silly, so what? At the time, there was no hint of this – unlike Horizon. And the French government was absolutely clear that PA2 was postponed (maybe forever) for internal French financial reasons. DCNS may be choosing to re-interpret that in order not to annoy the people who they have to keep on the right side of if they’re ever going to get the chance to build another carrier.
You’re doing the same as DCNS; re-interpreting events in the light of the fact that something went wrong.
Demand was probably the wrong word to use, but the block “suggestions” that were floated (and allegedly submitted to the MoD with backing from the French government) would have still been quite a hefty amount of work (I think it was about 40 per cent). The DGA had publicly gone on the record that it wasn’t happy with what France was getting out of it industrially and that the original proposals would make PA2 too expensive. On top of that, various other ideas were floated, including joint manufacture of the propulsion systems, and at one stage I believe that construction at St Naizare was actually suggested.
From the British end, it had more than a whiff of the Horizon fiasco. Yes, it probably would have made economical sense, but it was a non-starter. Besides the UK was already moving on with the project and starting to order lead-in materials from late 2007, including for the propulsion systems. Workshare had already been decided and all that was required was that the manufacturing contract to be signed that was endlessly being delayed. It was pretty obvious that something was going on at France’s end on PA2 by then, long before Sarkozy announced that it was postponed in May 2008.
Personally, I don’t think DCNS (Poimboeuf) have made any silly statements and it is quite a valid point that has been made. A lack of co-operation on the British side (ultimately because it would not let France have what it was asking for in terms of industrial share) made it easier for Sarkozy to postpone PA2.
Anyway, getting back to thread. Maybe cancelling the CVFs and F-35s together would be the better option.
MickI have to say if given the politics behind a JSF pull-out (increasing costs, still no ratified agreement on the tech-share:mad:), Hornet should damn well be a no-go!
As it is just for us, there does not seem to be a great deal of point in navalising the EF. I certainly agree with the sentiment that the Rafale is the option. Maybe we could use it as encouragement to the French to do something more with PA2…..
I think buying Rafale on hindsight might have been a better option at the beginning to provide some commonality with the French, especially if they were proposing to develop their own carrier alongside ours. But even as F-35 costs started to spiral, any chance of buying Rafale were blown out as soon as French started doing a Project Horizon again, demanding a much bigger workshare on the carriers and construction in France even though it proposed only buying one. DCNS has already blamed Britain’s lack of co-operation (or moreso its lack of willingness to give France a bigger share of the manufacturing contract and influence in the design) for the postponement of a decision on whether PA2 will be built. If we bought Rafales now, we’d only be doing the French defence industry a favour. There would be nothing in it for us and I doubt a little bit of work on PA2 in return is that important when a significant number of the UK’s own naval shipbuilding workforce will be working entirely on its own on two carriers.
I still very much doubt that the UK will abandon buying the F-35. But I do see us buying less than 138 aircraft.
MickReading that article is like reading something like from 2006 when there were concerns about the Americans giving us access to the F-35 software source codes. The Typhoon Naval study again (I believe there was actually one in the late 1990s) whether we should opt for Rafale or the Super Hornet. I think there was even Saab floating the idea of a navalised Gripen at one point. It seems to re-emerge every so often. Where this story comes from, I have no idea, other than bringing up the old “UK can’t afford Typhoon TR3 as well” story again. Last time it was the Future Lynx, which now is beginning to look more safe. Now it is the A400M and the F-35. Personally, I can quite imagine the UK cutting its full planned order for 138 F-35Bs, but complete cancellation?
There is supposed to be an overall review of all defence projects being undertaken at the moment that would probably include the F-35. There has also been separate studies looking at alternatives to the F-35B to operate off the CVFs, including the F-35C. Even all the PR stuff for the CVF has been pushing it with F-35s onboard. Maybe they are looking at alternatives as a worst case scenario that a new US administration comes in and cancels it in favour of buying more F-22s, or that the partly UK funded F136 engine finally gets the chop. Maybe it’s easier to shelve buying the F-35 because UK jobs won’t be as much at risk from cancellation compared to the Typhoon given that its unlikely now that any UK orders would be assembled here. God knows what the bean counters are doing within the MoD at the moment to try and save money.
Agree that such stories only seem to be fuelling a growing fire that is becoming highly critical of the F-35 even before the development programme gets into full swing.
MickSo the USAF is looking to streamline about 100 undergraduate pilots straight into UAS training? Sorry but I couldn’t resist this:
MickFlightglobal.com = Flight International. World’s oldest aviation news magazine!
MickThe above article has been copied and pasted from JDW, and the original was followed by a powerful rebuttle from industry leaders.:mad:
It seems that the opinion piece has been doing the rounds minus the rebuttle on various forums and other websites. Perhaps the JDW online version did not include it (?), hence why it has been floating around like that. I believe that one of the authors is in charge of a Washington-based think-tank that has also published the article, crediting it to JDW, also without the rebuttle. Seems there has been a bit of a ****-up with this opinion piece somewhere along the lines that gives the impression that it is a stand alone article.
MickPossibly, but the countries that Bell refers to are Denmark, Norway, Australia (more erms and ahhs that anything else) and the Netherlands (who is unlikely to choose anything else now) mostly on the grounds of fears over cost rather than any percieved problems with the aircraft’s capabilities. That leaves the US, the UK, Italy, Canada, Turkey as well as Israel and Singapore still wanting to buy it plus a number of countries outside the programme who have expressed an interest. That leaves me with the conclusion that it is still very much wanted.
MickWhat I don’t understand is how this article comes to appear in a supposedly authoritative publication like Jane’s Defence Weekly as a so-called cover story opinion piece and also appears several days later in the often controversial American political rag called “CounterPunch” that describes itself as a “muckracking leftist newsletter”.
MickNo proper discussion about the aircraft, how it will be used, just a biased piece that views it as an awful outdated, underpowered and overweight dog featuring useless stealth features that will cost a load of money to buy and isn’t being tested properly before entering production. Reads like something written on a blog.
Sign In
