Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

-77689755705287080691.jpg

-7768975570528708069.jpg

Ural_Taifun_V-day_parade_Yekaterinburg.jpg

Kamaz_Taifun_at_trials.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout

This is a discussion on Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; September 28, 2008 Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout Michael Smith BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 28th, 2008   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
zeven's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the united states of the world
Posts: 230
Threads:
Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout

September 28, 2008

Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout

Michael Smith

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk.

Studies have now been commissioned to analyse whether Eurofighters could be adapted to fly off the carriers.

If Britain abandons the JSF, it will be seen as a further snub to the Americans following Gordon Brown’s decision last week not to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Only a week earlier, during a visit to London, Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, had said he understood Britain would be sending more troops to meet what commanders say is a 10,000 shortfall.

The possible ditching of the JSF results in part from spiralling costs that have seen the price of the planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion.

Britain has already paid out £2.5 billion in preliminary costs but next spring must start paying for actual aircraft. At that point it is committed to the entire project whatever the price.

Once full production begins, Britain will be paying more than £1 billion a year for the aircraft, exacerbating the already dire state of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget.

“That has really concentrated minds at the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis. “Put simply no-one has the faintest idea how much this project will cost.”

The cost is only part of the problem. There is serious concern over the aircraft’s lack of firepower as it can only carry three 500lb bombs, compared with as many as eight on the Eurofighter.

There is also increasing frustration over the continued American refusal to share information on the technology involved.

President George Bush signed a deal with Tony Blair shortly before the former prime minister handed over to Gordon Brown, promising to share top secret technology with Britain.

The deal has still to be ratified by Congress and the Senate foreign relations committee has written to Bush warning him it will not now be ratified until the new president takes office.

There is consternation over the lack of information Britain is receiving on the aircraft and this country’s lack of input into designing its capability.

BAE Systems, manufacturer of the RAF’s Eurofighter, has been asked to produce a study into whether it could be flown from the carriers, which are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

The JSF is a short-take-off-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft similar to the Harrier aircraft that are currently being flown off the Royal Navy’s two old carriers.

Flying Eurofighter from the new carriers would require pilots to learn a completely new skill of landing conventionally at sea — a task likened by experts to a “controlled crash”.

It would also require the Eurofighter fuselage to be strengthened, the attachment of an arrestor hook to stop the aircraft on landing, and protection against saltwater erosion.

The BAE Systems study, carried out earlier this year, determined that the aircraft could be built to land on carriers without major difficulty.

A company spokesman would only confirm that the study had been carried out and that the MoD had seen the results which confirmed the aircraft could be adapted to fly off carriers.

Replacing JSF with some of the 232 Eurofighters the RAF is committed to buying would be attractive for the Treasury, which has always wanted to find ways to cut its £16 billion cost.

The deal committed all four major partners — Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain — to paying for all the aircraft they originally ordered even if they later decided to cut the numbers they needed.

The cost of the project, now running at close to £1.2 billion a year, is the biggest single contributor to the £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget.

Efforts to stave off the payments dragged the government into the controversy over the decision to call off a Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged bribes paid by BAE Systems.

The probe into the company’s £43 billion al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia was expected to examine the bank accounts of members of the Saudi royal family.

A £6 billion deal under which Saudi Arabia agreed to take 72 Eurofighters from Britain — earning the MoD a two-year payments holiday on its own aircraft — was dependent on the probe being called off.

That has only served to focus attention on the fact that when the payments holiday ends, Britain will be committed to a decade of paying well in excess of £2 billion a year for two different strike aircraft.

The additional measure of cancelling the military version of the Airbus A400 would only save a total of £1.5 billion but is attractive to the Treasury because it would cost nothing.

The aircraft has consistently failed to meet deadlines with manufacturer EADS admitting last week that it could not meet the deadline for the first test flight.

“The RAF and the MoD would prefer to enforce penalty clauses providing compensation for delays while continuing with the project,” said defence sources. “But the Treasury would happily bin it.”

The MoD said “marinising” Eurofighter had been looked at as an option but “JSF remains our optimum solution to fly off the carriers”.

A spokesman said Britain remained “fully committed to the defence trade cooperation treaty and we are working closely with the American administration to find a way forward.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4837746.ece
________________
//Zeven
zeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 226
Threads:
I dunno, i can't really see them doing it but it would be great if they could as CTOL carriers would give them so much more flexibility. I assume if JSF was cancelled it would also mean the RAF buy too?
windscorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 864
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeven View Post
September 28, 2008

Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout

Michael Smith

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk.

Studies have now been commissioned to analyse whether Eurofighters could be adapted to fly off the carriers.

If Britain abandons the JSF, it will be seen as a further snub to the Americans following Gordon Brown’s decision last week not to send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Only a week earlier, during a visit to London, Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, had said he understood Britain would be sending more troops to meet what commanders say is a 10,000 shortfall.

The possible ditching of the JSF results in part from spiralling costs that have seen the price of the planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion.

Britain has already paid out £2.5 billion in preliminary costs but next spring must start paying for actual aircraft. At that point it is committed to the entire project whatever the price.

Once full production begins, Britain will be paying more than £1 billion a year for the aircraft, exacerbating the already dire state of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget.

“That has really concentrated minds at the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis. “Put simply no-one has the faintest idea how much this project will cost.”

The cost is only part of the problem. There is serious concern over the aircraft’s lack of firepower as it can only carry three 500lb bombs, compared with as many as eight on the Eurofighter.

There is also increasing frustration over the continued American refusal to share information on the technology involved.

President George Bush signed a deal with Tony Blair shortly before the former prime minister handed over to Gordon Brown, promising to share top secret technology with Britain.

The deal has still to be ratified by Congress and the Senate foreign relations committee has written to Bush warning him it will not now be ratified until the new president takes office.

There is consternation over the lack of information Britain is receiving on the aircraft and this country’s lack of input into designing its capability.

BAE Systems, manufacturer of the RAF’s Eurofighter, has been asked to produce a study into whether it could be flown from the carriers, which are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

The JSF is a short-take-off-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft similar to the Harrier aircraft that are currently being flown off the Royal Navy’s two old carriers.

Flying Eurofighter from the new carriers would require pilots to learn a completely new skill of landing conventionally at sea — a task likened by experts to a “controlled crash”.

It would also require the Eurofighter fuselage to be strengthened, the attachment of an arrestor hook to stop the aircraft on landing, and protection against saltwater erosion.

The BAE Systems study, carried out earlier this year, determined that the aircraft could be built to land on carriers without major difficulty.

A company spokesman would only confirm that the study had been carried out and that the MoD had seen the results which confirmed the aircraft could be adapted to fly off carriers.

Replacing JSF with some of the 232 Eurofighters the RAF is committed to buying would be attractive for the Treasury, which has always wanted to find ways to cut its £16 billion cost.

The deal committed all four major partners — Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain — to paying for all the aircraft they originally ordered even if they later decided to cut the numbers they needed.

The cost of the project, now running at close to £1.2 billion a year, is the biggest single contributor to the £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget.

Efforts to stave off the payments dragged the government into the controversy over the decision to call off a Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged bribes paid by BAE Systems.

The probe into the company’s £43 billion al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia was expected to examine the bank accounts of members of the Saudi royal family.

A £6 billion deal under which Saudi Arabia agreed to take 72 Eurofighters from Britain — earning the MoD a two-year payments holiday on its own aircraft — was dependent on the probe being called off.

That has only served to focus attention on the fact that when the payments holiday ends, Britain will be committed to a decade of paying well in excess of £2 billion a year for two different strike aircraft.

The additional measure of cancelling the military version of the Airbus A400 would only save a total of £1.5 billion but is attractive to the Treasury because it would cost nothing.

The aircraft has consistently failed to meet deadlines with manufacturer EADS admitting last week that it could not meet the deadline for the first test flight.

“The RAF and the MoD would prefer to enforce penalty clauses providing compensation for delays while continuing with the project,” said defence sources. “But the Treasury would happily bin it.”

The MoD said “marinising” Eurofighter had been looked at as an option but “JSF remains our optimum solution to fly off the carriers”.

A spokesman said Britain remained “fully committed to the defence trade cooperation treaty and we are working closely with the American administration to find a way forward.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4837746.ece
im deeply skeptical of this as there were similar stories in 2006 with contracts for the CVF to approved. the Naval Typoon is a non starter the only option would be F18SH and the Raf. The story isn't saying anything new from what we have seen previously from MOD and press. The MOD has also put in a rebuttal in the article “JSF remains our optimum solution to fly off the carriers”
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #4
Super Moderator
Colonel
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,418
Threads:
Zeven next time provide some of your own commentary on the article you post or do not post at all.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #5
Banned Member
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
im deeply skeptical of this as there were similar stories in 2006 with contracts for the CVF to approved. the Naval Typoon is a non starter the only option would be F18SH and the Raf.
That makes sense to me as well - why take a chance on the cost of converting a Typhoon when there are similar capability aircraft already available? The only reason I can think of - is political / contractual, to the extent that the Typhoons are already ordered.

I wonder what it would mean for the F35 project if the UK pulls out? The UK seems to be moving in a different direction to Canada, for example, who just comitted to F35's, and are acquiring various US systems at the moment (helicopters, c17's, etc.) Does it still make sense to make a STOVL version of the F35, just for the US marines?
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #6
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 4,754
Threads:
You're making the mistake of taking the article seriously.

And what do you mean by moving in a different direction to Canada? Canada has recently bought such US kit as Leopard II tanks, & we've bought C-17s, C-130Js, Reapers, and a lot of US sensors, PGMs, etc. Both countries buy weapons from various sources.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #7
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
I'm sort of taking a wild guess here, but is it plausible to suggest that this article (and others of this sort) are intended to put some pressure on the US to be more willing to share the JSF technology, or possibly even negotiate a cost cut on it?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #8
Banned Member
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
And what do you mean by moving in a different direction to Canada? Canada has recently bought such US kit as Leopard II tanks, & we've bought C-17s, C-130Js, Reapers, and a lot of US sensors, PGMs, etc. Both countries buy weapons from various sources.
You are right. I guess Canada's interests are a bit different from the UK also, given the role Canadian companies are playing the the JSF project. And even Canada, has only ordered 65, instead of a speculated 80.

I guess this could be another "threat" type of thing by the UK, aimed at the US congress, or whoever it is who is putting up technology transfer road blocks now. The article seems to imply cost is the problem though - I guess the carriers development is going may put a strain on a number of programs, but it would be a bit of a shocker for the UK, a tier 1 partner, to pull out of JSF. For whatever reason, JSF is getting a lot of bad publicity at the moment though, maybe that's just normal due to marketplace competition?
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #9
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Threads:
What a lovely opinion piece made up without any hard evidence or facts.

This is nearly as bad as the Australia ABC news report

Even if a single F-35 costs more than a single Eurofighter the cost of adapting the Eurofighter to land on an aircraft carrier will make it more expensive by a Golden mile. Anyone who thinks it would be cheaper would have rocks in their head.

Plus the F-35 will most likely be cheaper per unit anyway.

Also the sortie rate from an aircraft carrier may potentially be slightly less using a small CATOBAR carrier. Not to mention the F-35B can land anywhere which is excellent for a sudden surge in sortie rate. Or long range missions it doesn't have to make it back to the carrier.
rjmaz1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #10
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 72
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjmaz1 View Post
Even if a single F-35 costs more than a single Eurofighter the cost of adapting the Eurofighter to land on an aircraft carrier will make it more expensive by a Golden mile. Anyone who thinks it would be cheaper would have rocks in their head.

Plus the F-35 will most likely be cheaper per unit anyway.
basically the article is saying the cost and capabilities of the F-35 is IRRELEVANT

Britain is in a hole and is REQUIRED to buy 232 EFs

they also HAVE to have something to fly off the CVF (where something = approx 138 planes) or their heads will roll

they don't want 232 EFs for the RAF, BUT since they have to buy them anyways, what if they converted 138 of the 232 to navalized versions?

here's the math they are looking at

case 1: 232 EFs + 138 carrier planes (F-35/F-18/Rafale take your pick)
370 total planes

case 2: 232 EFs + cost of navalizing EF + cost of adding catapults
232 total planes

while case 2 is undoubtedly more expensive PER PLANE, it probably has a lower TOTAL COST, which is all they really care about
irtusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 351
Threads:
For a start this article is by the Times. The same paper which barely 18 months ago annoucened the death of the RN without any hard facts in the article.

Secondly, the papers are out to get the Govt-so whilst they are not there to put pressure on the US, they are there to show the Govt is not very good with its Defence decisions.

Then there is the fact that Navalised EFs will cost more than F-35. Period. The RAF has need for 144 of the 232 EFs that the UK is buying. That leaves 88 Aircraft that are potential 'surplus'. Except they aren't surplus, because Tranche 3 will be better than the previous two Tranches (which the RAF will want to take advantage of no doubt) and having had a hard time finding attriton replacements for the Tornados those spare 88 will make a nice reserve/potential for Force expansion in the future.

Then we must also note that 88 does not equal 138, so more EFs would need to be ordered. Then we must also take into account that F-35 is replacing two Forces, the RAFs Harriers, and the RNs Harriers. The RAF is still going to need Harrier replacements in some form (whether they be F-35 or whatever) regardless of what goes on in Naval aviation (this of course presumes that whatever is bought for the Carriers can't do what the RAF wants......).

Britain is not in a hole. The Treasury is. Gordon Brown is. Defence spending has been ignored for too long. If the current Govt wasn't so tight when it comes to Defence and a bit more careful how they spent the Govts budget in general there is no hole, just a lack of political will.
ASFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #12
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 72
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
Then there is the fact that Navalised EFs will cost more than F-35. Period.
true, but it doesn't matter since they have to buy the EFs anyways

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
The RAF has need for 144 of the 232 EFs that the UK is buying.
i'm not sure what the RAF need has to do with anything

they'll just have to be grateful with the 94 they get (or however they decide to split it between regular and navalized version)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
Britain is not in a hole. The Treasury is.
and where does the money to buy military hardware come from? The Treasury

and the Treasury is out of money (that it's willing to give to the military )
irtusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 351
Threads:
No you are missing the point-232 EFs is nowhere near the amount of aircraft required for all the air combat roles in Britains Armed Forces. No matter what happens more planes will have to be ordered. It is a fallacy to think that 88 Aircraft can solve the blackhole in the Defence budget (a manufactured black hole caused by Govt neglect of the Defence budget). And it is fallacy to think that an expeditionary Carrier Fighter Force comes before the Defence of the UK-the original EF role. If the RAF needs 144 then it will get 144 before anything else.
ASFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #14
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 72
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
No you are missing the point-232 EFs is nowhere near the amount of aircraft required for all the air combat roles in Britains Armed Forces.
no, my point is the Treasury DOESN'T CARE how many aircraft are required

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
No matter what happens more planes will have to be ordered.
the Treasury would beg to differ

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
It is a fallacy to think that 88 Aircraft can solve the blackhole in the Defence budget
they don't think 88 aircraft can solve the blackhole

they just don't care if that particular blackhole EVER gets filled

not their problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASFC View Post
And it is fallacy to think that an expeditionary Carrier Fighter Force comes before the Defence of the UK-the original EF role. If the RAF needs 144 then it will get 144 before anything else.
it may well be that the split is 144 normal/88 navalized

the point is that they will have to figure out some way to split the 232 because that is ALL they are going to get. Period.
irtusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2008   #15
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,474
Threads:
Re:

Deleted

Last edited by weasel1962; October 19th, 2008 at 11:14 PM.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 PM.