Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy (Britain May Consider buying French Fighters)

[SABRE]

seems like Britaib is losing losing patience with the JSF program. About couple of years back BBC had reported British concerns over the JSF program. According to that report various British armed forces officials from Airforce & Navy believe that US & Lockheed-Martin are paying more attention to F-22 Raptor program than JSF. Some of them went ahead saying that if the project starts to take too long, Britian may be forced to consider alternatives.

(Note: the news is from Fab2006)



Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy


BRITAIN may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets for two new-generation aircraft carriers scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2013.

If the Government went ahead with the £5bn deal, it would mean cancelling existing US contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers and could cause a major crisis in Anglo-American relations.

The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, for crucial talks in London.

It followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and America on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, dogged by a row over sharing technology.

It is understood that Reid said he would consider the French offer. Even agreeing to give the proposal serious consideration could be seen as a major snub to the Americans, whose relations with the French on defence are strained.

The French offer follows America's continued refusal to agree to the transfer of advanced technology on the JSF - the jet being built in the US by Lockheed Martin with co-operation from Britain.

The Ministry of Defence has already paid the Americans £2bn for development. BAE Systems, Britain's leading defence contractor, which is a vital partner in the project, was hoping for about £14bn in development and production contracts.

The MoD declined to give details of the French offer, but defence sources in Paris confirmed that a lengthy conversation took place.

The American refusal to share technology means that if one of the JSFs needed repairs, the work would have to be carried out in America.

It would also mean British forces would not have the right codes to arm the planes if they wanted to use them for missions not approved by the Pentagon.

There is growing anger at the Americans' obduracy over technology transfer. Britain has now made it clear that without 'achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty' over the JSF, it will consider cancelling the contract.

Washington's reluctance to give up the technology to its closest military ally is fuelled by fears that Britain might allow foreign firms access to America's most precious commercial and defence secrets.

Faced by the the refusal to share technology, Lord Grayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, said: 'There has to be a Plan B. We need to make sure we have done the work needed to ensure we have an option.'

The MoD still hopes that the Americans will change their minds. Meanwhile, it is looking at its options. Giving consideration to the French offer could strengthen the MoD's negotiating hand with Washington.

The 60,000-tonne carriers planned for the Royal Navy are designed to have powerful catapults built into the deck. This means they are not restricted to the vertical take-off version of the JSF. They could fire conventional take-off JSFs as well as modified Typhoon Eurofighters.

The Rafale Marine is already in service and is designed for use on France's new carrier - identical to those being built for the Royal Navy.

The decision by Paris to buy the design of the UK carriers for their own second large carrier makes the French option more palatable.

The French jets cost about £35 million each and would be cheaper, if probably unpopular, with the forces.

Gerald Howarth, Conservative defence spokesman, said: 'This shows the danger of the American refusal to give us the technology. They could drive us into the arms of the French.'

Source: thisismoney.co.uk
Link: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=407244&in_page_id=2



Seems like Britian is either very serious or sending a signal across the ocean.

[Big-E]

Where have you been??? Tony Blair has already gotten all the tech transfers he requested. That's what you get for reading four month old news.:o

[Big-E]

......

[SABRE]

Well I have been a bit Preoccupied in my work, which is more importent.
But anyways, do u have the link to the news confirming ToT of JSF to Britian?

[410Cougar]

Here's a piece that I found about the Electric Warfare System from the BAE Website. The official site for the JSF project can be found at http://www.jsf.mil/index.htm and they update the releases as they become available.

BAE SYSTEMS DELIVERS INITIAL F-35 JSF ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEM
31 May 2006

NASHUA, N.H. – BAE Systems has delivered the first electronic warfare system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas.

The EW suite, provided by BAE Systems in Nashua, N.H., and delivered April 28, will serve as one of the key sensor systems for F-35 pilots, enhancing their situational awareness and self-protection through next generation threat identification, monitoring, analysis and countermeasures.

The two major assemblies that were delivered make up the heart of the fighter’s EW system, and will be used by Lockheed Martin in integration tests at its Fort Worth facility. “The entire system including apertures weighs less than 190 pounds, making it one of the lightest, most capable digital receiver-based systems in the world,” said Dan Gobel, vice president of BAE Systems’ Joint Strike Fighter EW program.

Gobel said integrating the EW hardware and software involved more than 10,000 discrete steps and noted, “Every major milestone has been met and the system tested extremely well, both in the lab and in flight test.”

The first 20 flight-ready versions of the JSF EW system are currently in the build-up and test cycles at BAE Systems. The first of these systems are scheduled to be delivered to Lockheed Martin in early 2007.

The delivered system, composed of electronic support measures and countermeasures hardware, is one of four already built by BAE Systems. Future blocks of software will follow in a “spiral development” fashion, providing increased capability as the Joint Strike Fighter progresses toward initial operational capability.

BAE Systems is responsible for the F-35’s electronic warfare systems suite and also is providing advanced affordable low-observable apertures and advanced countermeasure systems. BAE Systems facilities in the United States and United Kingdom are responsible for key areas of the airframe, vehicle and weapons systems, including the fuel system, crew escape, and life support system. The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 are being designed, engineered and built at BAE Systems' Samlesbury, U.K. site.

The company also has significant work share in autonomic logistics, primarily on the support system side, and is involved in the Integrated Test Force, including the systems flight test and mission systems. Additionally, the company is supplying the vehicle management computer, the communication, navigation and identification modules, the active inceptor system and the EOTS laser subsystem.

About BAE SYSTEMS
BAE Systems is the premier trans-Atlantic defense and aerospace company, delivering a full range of products and services for air, land, and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, information technology solutions, and customer support services. BAE Systems, with more than 100,000 employees worldwide, had 2005 sales that exceeded $28 billion.

For further information, please contact:
Marianne Murphy
BAE Systems
Tel: 603-885-2812 Cell: 603-315-1536
marianne.murphy@baesystems.com

DeAnn Baxter
BAE Systems
Tel: 703-907-8257 Cell: 703-967-3854
deann.baxter@baesystems.com

www.na.baesystems.com

http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2006/may/310506news1.htm

[Miles]

It is true that this is old news, but it still has not been resolved. I believe that Bush has recently said that he is in favour of the tech transfer, but the problem remains with congress as currently it is against US law for this to happen. Can't find a reference as it is late in this timezone and I am off to bed. Also, the timeframe for JSF seems to slip, which would not be a problem with Rafale.

It is possible that the UK does pull out of buying JSF, but even if it happened we would still be involved in building it for the US and others.

If it is cancelled then Rafale would make sense. The French left Eurofighter because no one else wanted it marinised (Doh!) To convert it now would cost a fortune, and be risky. Therefore we should just buy Rafale. But, if the UK were not to buy JSF then the government would probably pay a fortune to convert Eurofighter... Why? Well, for political reasons we have ordered twice as many as Britain needs. Therefore the government will be embarressed by over 100 Eurofighters being mothballed as soon as they are built. If they could be converted for carrier use, then that embarresment will be solved... even if the RN ends up with an aircraft that is not as good as Rafale, and costs far, far more.... :confused:

[adsH]

i think its something to do with the size of out sourcing to briton, we're (BAE's) already building a large part of the electronics EW and the avionics (correct me if i'm wrong). i think the issue may have arisen on the RR power plantplant.

[Izzy1]

BAE System's (Air Systems) Lead Workshare Elements on F-35 JSF/JCA include the rear fuselage, the main structure for both the horizontal and vertical tails and both wingtip areas on the CV variant.

Your correct in also pointing out that a very large percentage of the aircrafts EW systems are the responsibility of BAE Systems (North America). A lot of the logistic and system management packages are also being developed by the same division. BAE also has responsbility for the fuel system for the entire program.

In all honesty, from a personal opinion, you can see why some US manufacturers complain about work share, Northrop Grumman for instance.

[oldsoak]

BAe is not wholly British as in totally based in the UK. A lot of the contracts with BAe are not with the British based manufacturing end but with US companies purchased by BAe. Its a bit like saying buying a Ford means you are buying an American product when it is actually made by Ford at Dagenham, UK. A contract with BAe does not automatically mean money for the Brits.

[adsH]

BAe is not wholly British as in totally based in the UK. A lot of the contracts with BAe are not with the British based manufacturing end but with US companies purchased by BAe. Its a bit like saying buying a Ford means you are buying an American product when it is actually made by Ford at Dagenham, UK. A contract with BAe does not automatically mean money for the Brits.


I think some people here would be in a better position to explain who owns BAE, Primarily it is a british publicly trading company with a HQ in the UK, it trades and is listed on LSE, MOD owns a stake init they still have Overriding powers ie they can legally prevent takeovers. MOD is still the biggest Customer (I believe) I'd say its much like any-other american firm doing business in the UK or Europe! It just happens to have a different operating environment probably less cohesive when compared to other companies like GE, Motorola, IBM, Cisco, SUN Microsystems, Lockheed, Boeing.

I'd imagine any other Sub Trading Brand would be washed out ie re-branded when the Corporate Management decides the time is right to Shed off some Jobs and Integrate the capabilities and IPs.

[oldsoak]

This might be of interest - though off topic -

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/06/Navigation/177/207019/Not+so+British+BAE.html

[Big-E]

This might be of interest - though off topic -

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/06/Navigation/177/207019/Not+so+British+BAE.html

BAE thinking about ditching the poms and going American... we could definetly use all those high-tech jobs, there welcome anytime.;)

[adsH]

BAE thinking about ditching the poms and going American... we could definetly use all those high-tech jobs, there welcome anytime.;)


Don't think MOD will let all that capability move out of the UK! YOu can take the firm away you can't take UK MOD owned IP and research. You can't take british Capability away, once BAE moves out others will emerge they'll hire the personnel left over by BAe, MOD will provide traditional grants Research and Political support to sell British Equipment to our customers.

Then who cares baout BAE, BAE won't have all the British MOD IP the personnel that makes the Firm what it is. remember People makes firms.

Then you might aswell take the Name tag BAE and keep it in the US.

Whats British stays british mate !! regardless of the tag that represents it!

[oldsoak]

Don't think MOD will let all that capability move out of the UK! YOu can take the firm away you can't take UK MOD owned IP and research. You can't take british Capability away, once BAE moves out others will emerge they'll hire the personnel left over by BAe, MOD will provide traditional grants Research and Political support to sell British Equipment to our customers.

Then who cares baout BAE, BAE won't have all the British MOD IP the personnel that makes the Firm what it is. remember People makes firms.

Then you might aswell take the Name tag BAE and keep it in the US.

Whats British stays british mate !! regardless of the tag that represents it!

Bring back Avro, I say.
- and English Electric and Hawker Siddley....:p:
Well, BAe does seem to think its future lies not in Britain or Europe but in the US. They have the bigger budgets and if you want to get deeply involved, its easier if you are of Sam. Not much point in being the MOD's no1 supplier if the UK budgets are nowt.

[Big-E]

Don't think MOD will let all that capability move out of the UK! YOu can take the firm away you can't take UK MOD owned IP and research. You can't take british Capability away, once BAE moves out others will emerge they'll hire the personnel left over by BAe, MOD will provide traditional grants Research and Political support to sell British Equipment to our customers.

Then who cares baout BAE, BAE won't have all the British MOD IP the personnel that makes the Firm what it is. remember People makes firms.

Then you might aswell take the Name tag BAE and keep it in the US.

Whats British stays british mate !! regardless of the tag that represents it!

I wouldn't be suprised if they did move they would offer incentives to those that make BAE as innovative as it is to come to America. There are plenty of skilled laborers here to fill in the rest of the gaps.

If the UK doesn't stop cutting her defense budget the personnel will find themselves out of work.:o

[Whiskyjack]

I wouldn't be suprised if they did move they would offer incentives to those that make BAE as innovative as it is to come to America. There are plenty of skilled laborers here to fill in the rest of the gaps.

If the UK doesn't stop cutting her defense budget the personnel will find themselves out of work.:o

Not my area of expertise, but my impression is that BAE, is up there on the theory and runs behind in the practical due to funding.

Something like the AESA radar for the Typhoon, could be flying now if the funding was there.

Just to be clear I am not starting a platform discussion here I just want to know if my impression is correct.

[hot222]

Last years seems that US companies are almost "stalled" of new ideas/plans. I don't know if that is due funds, or funds that must be cutted down to support the all around the globle wars. BAE systems seems to be at the time the strongest company in the sector of mission avionics/equipement. That's why is working in JSF project. Not because UK want to buy JSFs (my opinion). UK is in Eurofighter project and usually uses its own fighters or European-made (Tornado).

Also it's seem right just to buy Rafales for Royal Navy, since they are ready to be purchased. No money to put for developement. No time to wait unitl JSF be ready. Since it is one of the stronger members of EU, that will work in UK's advance in terms of economy/political.

[Big-E]

Also it's seem right just to buy Rafales for Royal Navy, since they are ready to be purchased. No money to put for developement. No time to wait unitl JSF be ready. Since it is one of the stronger members of EU, that will work in UK's advance in terms of economy/political.

Rafales for the RN... What do you expect to put them on? :lol3

Considering their future carrier is decades from coming to reality don't jump the gun. JSF will be ready long before her new carriers are.

[hot222]

Rafales for the RN... What do you expect to put them on?

Considering their future carrier is decades from coming to reality don't jump the gun. JSF will be ready long before her new carriers are.
Decades?:confused:

Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy


BRITAIN may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets for two new-generation aircraft carriers scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2013.How many decades are until 2013?:laugh

[SABRE]

Well only 7 yrs to go, but thats considered as the "Beginning of the end of the decade"


To me the whole Rafale thing is just a political signal towards USA by UK. Otherwise UK can lease F-18E/F from US till the JSF is ready to be inducted. By showing interest in French aircraft, UK is probably convaying message to US that it can completely move away from American market if the slow pace continues & no complete ToT takes place.

[adsH]

Well only 7 yrs to go, but thats considered as the "Beginning of the end of the decade"


To me the whole Rafale thing is just a political signal towards USA by UK. Otherwise UK can lease F-18E/F from US till the JSF is ready to be inducted. By showing interest in French aircraft, UK is probably convaying message to US that it can completely move away from American market if the slow pace continues & no complete ToT takes place.


There's another reason, the French are using our CVF design to build there Second Carrier, the Integration cost would considerably be lower. We would get an instant capability rather then the longer wait and the higher JSF integration costs.

Traditionally the French are good partners, we work with them very closely so you see my point!

[Big-E]

How many decades are until 2013?:laugh

Both ships will not be finished by 2013 even if they stay on schedule. Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

[contedicavour]

Both ships will not be finished by 2013 even if they stay on schedule. Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

Well, on one side the French govt just said yesterday that the final decision on CVF contracts will only be taken next year. So 2013 becomes impossiblly short, even for the 1st ship.
On the other side, the French (whether they are right-wing or left-wing) are very nationalist and attach huge importance to the main programmes of their armed forces. So the UK can rely on them keeping their word on joint projects, once they are signed.
I believe the talk about Rafale is just a way of screaming at the US and that nothing will come of it. Still, it would remain option number 1 if something went wrong with the JSF programme's industrial partnership with the UK and the other European partners.
Again, I hope it won't, otherwise we'll be in big trouble with our Garibaldi and Cavour carriers, which need STOVL jets.

cheers

[Big-E]

I would think they would put their own EFs on it before they would get Rafales.

[adsH]

Both ships will not be finished by 2013 even if they stay on schedule. Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

I think its a done deal, The French have chosen CVF as there next Carrier and would be using BAE/Thales as the main builders.

[Big-E]

I think its a done deal, The French have chosen CVF as there next Carrier and would be using BAE/Thales as the main builders.

Definetly the French are a done deal but the political climate in London does not look positive for the defense sector.

[Izzy1]

So the UK can rely on them keeping their word on joint projects(...)

I'm sorry, but we went into the CVF consortia kicking and screeming at the prospect of working with Thales. The UK defence industry has had its fingers burnt too many times when working with their French counterparts. EFA, Jaguar, Horizon, intellectual property rights over at MBDA - the examples are numerous. I can not recall a single Anglo-French collaboration which hasn't been problematic.

Everytime BAE gets involved with the continent nowadays, its a tug of war and thus the company now considers Europe a secondary market. We have sold off or modified several European divisions (Heckler & Koch, Atlas Elektronik sold off to EADS, Selex set up in partnership with Finnmecanica) and the clearest example of company intentions is the sale of Airbus to fund further US expansion.

[v_isorce]

Just to give the french part of the discussion, I guess that 'Be careful, we are going to buy some other fighters, like the Rafale, if you don't share and if you don't respect our initial agreements' is an obvious political attitude without any real intention. That's not a critic though!
Quite understandable when you're as pragmatic as UK people are....
About the FR/UK partnerships which have been done in the past: with the new european defense politic, it's time to forget the old attitudes and try to work together for the benefit of everybody. And it has already worked for many projects... it will cost less and should become less sacrificial for each party since the political aim is about the same.
About the Rafale, I think we are limited by our failure to export it. But it is a really efficient fighter and the succesive upgrades (F2 and F3) will bring us all the capability we need. For the navy version, it is a real fighter of the sea, weell fitted for this environment.

[contedicavour]

I would think they would put their own EFs on it before they would get Rafales.

I'm not sure it would be so easy to fit the Typhoon on a carrier... this is a heavy two-engine fighter, larger than the Hornet... I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would certainly cost a lot to lighten up the jet for naval service on an aircraft carrier shorter than a Nimitz ;)

cheers

[contedicavour]

I'm sorry, but we went into the CVF consortia kicking and screeming at the prospect of working with Thales. The UK defence industry has had its fingers burnt too many times when working with their French counterparts. EFA, Jaguar, Horizon, intellectual property rights over at MBDA - the examples are numerous. I can not recall a single Anglo-French collaboration which hasn't been problematic.

Everytime BAE gets involved with the continent nowadays, its a tug of war and thus the company now considers Europe a secondary market. We have sold off or modified several European divisions (Heckler & Koch, Atlas Elektronik sold off to EADS, Selex set up in partnership with Finnmecanica) and the clearest example of company intentions is the sale of Airbus to fund further US expansion.

Hmm some of the events you are writing about are not exactly France's fault ;) The UK's decision to leave the Horizon project, only to use Aster missiles anyway, is more a proof that the UK are not reliable...
I do agree with you however that France's choice to develop the Rafale instead of sticking to the EFA consortium was a bad decision at least from a cost-efficiency perspective (and the French Navy could have bought some F-18E/F if the EFA was too big for the De Gaulle).
On your last point, the decision to leave Airbus and focus on the US market, I think the choice was more due to the size and growth potential of the US market relative to continental Europe's, than to any bad experience with multi-national projects.

cheers

[sharjeel]

yes, the important version, ie the vertical take off one is overwieght...


britain wants to maintain its vertical take off fleet for some reason.

the reason the british developed the Harrier was because they realised in the cold war that any attack by the soviet union will first of all concentrate on destroying run ways as a prime priority.

thus they developed fighters which where robhust (the vampire for example could run on petrol, gas, any thing lol). and they developed harriers which coul take off from anywhere...thus making it imposible to ground the british fleet if the USSR tried to.

but now there is no USSR.

but then again the british are a very pragmatic military. they probably know in the future where ever so the threat may arise the prime target of the enemy will be the same.

thus i do not see them backing out of the JSF. also the french Raffael is not comparable to the JSF. it is more comparable to F22 in role. the raffale is basicly same role as the typhoon but has the ability to land and take off from carriers.

[Big-E]

I'm not sure it would be so easy to fit the Typhoon on a carrier... this is a heavy two-engine fighter, larger than the Hornet... I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would certainly cost a lot to lighten up the jet for naval service on an aircraft carrier shorter than a Nimitz ;)

cheers

Ah yes, EF2000 is heavier than the SH but not even close to the F-14.;)
EF2000 loaded weight-34,280lbs
F-14 loaded weight---61,000lbs

She will have to ditch the ski jump idea and go with catapults but would be no problem with US cooperation. I have heard good things about the structural integrity of the aircraft and that she can withstand the poundings of carriers landings. Her thrust vectored engines makes her perfect for arrested carrier landings. This bird was born to go on a carrier.:D

[contedicavour]

Just to give the french part of the discussion, I guess that 'Be careful, we are going to buy some other fighters, like the Rafale, if you don't share and if you don't respect our initial agreements' is an obvious political attitude without any real intention. That's not a critic though!
Quite understandable when you're as pragmatic as UK people are....
About the FR/UK partnerships which have been done in the past: with the new european defense politic, it's time to forget the old attitudes and try to work together for the benefit of everybody. And it has already worked for many projects... it will cost less and should become less sacrificial for each party since the political aim is about the same.
About the Rafale, I think we are limited by our failure to export it. But it is a really efficient fighter and the succesive upgrades (F2 and F3) will bring us all the capability we need. For the navy version, it is a real fighter of the sea, weell fitted for this environment.

There were rumours that Rafale had been sold to Algeria. Source : defence monthly papers published in April 2006. Do you have any details on this ?
Bienvenu dans ce forum :) , je me demandais bien pourquoi il n'y avait pas de français !!

cheers

[contedicavour]

Ah yes, EF2000 is heavier than the SH but not even close to the F-14.;)
EF2000 loaded weight-34,280lbs
F-14 loaded weight---61,000lbs

She will have to ditch the ski jump idea and go with catapults but would be no problem with US cooperation. I have heard good things about the structural integrity of the aircraft and that she can withstand the poundings of carriers landings. Her thrust vectored engines makes her perfect for arrested carrier landings. This bird was born to go on a carrier.:D

I hope you are right then ;)
According to you, what length the carrier needs to get a 18 ton bird airborne ? Supposing the carrier has the same catapults as your Nimitz ?
thks
cheers

[Big-E]

Bienvenu dans ce forum :) , je me demandais bien pourquoi il n'y avait pas de français !!

J'ai pensé que le français a été interdit ici.

[contedicavour]

J'ai pensé que le français a été interdit ici.

Ah-ha, a US Navy officer who is fluent in French, good news !
Despite all the recent disagreements on Iraq, future threats require excellent collaboration on both sides of the Atlantic :) .

cheers

[410Cougar]

Bring back Avro, I say.

Yes, Canada should bring AVRO back and build a plane that'd lead the industry once again like it did many years back. :D

The defence of Britain is on the shoulders of their Navy and I think that they'd want to keep the carriers that they have now because they couldn't afford any new ones. With the future of Naval air power being the JSF and its STOVL capabilities I think it would be a great match for the carrier fleet the UK now has as and they wouldn't have to decrease the number of aircraft on board since the Harrier/JSF are pretty much the same size.

I can just imagine them now with a fleet defence force of JSF and EF2000 - that'd be remarkable and scary at the same time.

How much are new carriers anyways and when was the last one made?

[SABRE]

Following is the same news & although shorter it is much interesting to read.
Sheds small light from the officials' point of view.



Government may buy French jets and cancel U.S. deal

26/02/2006 23:55


LONDON (Reuters) - The government may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets worth 5 billion pounds ($8.7 billion) for two new-generation aircraft carriers, at the expense of existing U.S. contracts, The Mail on Sunday said.


The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets, built by French defence group Dassault Aviation , came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, in London, the paper said, citing unidentified defence sources in Paris.


If the government went ahead with the deal, it would mean cancelling existing U.S. contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers, scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2010, the paper said.


Lockheed Martin holds the existing contracts.


A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the report was speculative. The report followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and the U.S. on the Joint Strike Fighter project, which has been dogged by a row over sharing technology.



LINK: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2006/02/26/business/governmentmaybuyfrenchjetsandcancelusdeal.html&template=/business/feeds/story_template.html


Think its kind of a serious when senior officials involved.


There carriers are scheduled to go into service in 2010 (or according to previous source 2013), mean while government in UK can (may) change hands. I was woundering what would be the reaction of Opposition (i.e Conservatives etc) towards no ToT by US, if they come to power? They have been pretty much criticizing US & Labour Party on Iraq.

[SABRE]

Interesting add ons;

Seems like UK isnt the only one not happy with the ToT issue.


Italian industry hits out at JSF technology transfe


DATED: 11th April, 2006

With negotiations on participation in production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entering a critical phase, Italy's government has come under fire from its industry for taking too soft a position on US technology transfer restrictions.

Alenia Aeronautica president Giorgio Zappa has said, in a New York Times interview, that access to sensitive technology is a key issue in the negotiations, adding that his company is not satisfied with the answers so far received from the USA.

The final round of negotiations on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the JSF production, sustainment and follow-on development phase takes place this month in the USA. While Australia and the UK have threatened not to sign the MoU unless technology transfer issues are resolved, Italy has been more cautious.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1400





U.S., 8 countries meet to discuss fighter-jet project


DATED: 5th June, 2006


The U.S. and eight other countries will gather this week to negotiate a final road map for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, a $276 billion fighter-jet project that has struggled to live up to its billing as a model of global cooperation.

The negotiations in Williamsburg, Va., on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, are crucial to producing an agreement by the end of the year, in which each country is expected to declare how many airplanes it will buy. The agreement also will determine how the fleet will be maintained and upgraded over the expected 40-year lifespan of the plane.

The talks have big implications for lead contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., which oversees the JSF's development and will play a lucrative, long-term role in maintaining the planes. The Bethesda, Md., contractor won't be at the table with government officials.

A final road map for the Joint Strike Fighter is the subject of talks among the U.S. and eight other countries this week.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1681/UK-closer-to-JSF-sovereignty-deal.html


Following is importent and related to the thread.


UK closer to JSF sovereignty deal

DATED: 5th June, 2006

The US and UK governments are still "working out the details" of resolving technology transfer issues on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), despite an agreement by President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair that the UK will have "operational sovereignty" over the aircraft.

In a joint statement issued after their meeting on 26 May, Bush and Blair said: “Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.” The governments also agree “to protect sensitive technologies” in the JSF, and are “working out the details, while remaining committed to these principles”.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1681/UK-closer-to-JSF-sovereignty-deal.html


& another unsatisfied costomer, but not very innocent one either.


Tech-export deal holds up Israeli role in F-35 jet

DATED: 9th June, 2006

TEL AVIV, June 8 (Reuters) - Israel's full participation in a U.S.-led advanced warplane project has been held up as both sides hammer out a deal on limiting the transfer of sensitive military technology, a senior Israeli official said on Thursday.

The Jewish state's role in the multi-billion-dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project was briefly curbed last year after the Pentagon came out against Israeli arms exports to China, which it argued could threaten U.S. ally Taiwan.

Israel defused the fracas by signing an agreement that its Defence Ministry described as "solving past problems which had seriously harmed relations ... in the area of technological security," and was readmitted to the F-35 project in November.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1699/Tech-export-deal-holds-up-Israeli-role-in-F-35-jet.html




Solving UK issue doesnt seem to be the solution of the JSF ToT issue. Seems like every one participating wants vertually full access to the technology. US does seem to have a big issue on hands.

[Big-E]

Solving UK issue doesnt seem to be the solution of the JSF ToT issue. Seems like every one participating wants vertually full access to the technology. US does seem to have a big issue on hands.


If you want the best you have to play the game. JSF must not end up in PRCs hands. Isreal obviously has a hard time abiding by ToT agreements and should be punished accordingly. Why should she give up her rights to the aircraft? Considering she is paying for 90% of the program why shouldn't she get to say how things go down?

[410Cougar]

This just sounds like a whole bunch of political posturing by governments all over the globe which are critical of the current leadership of the US because that is the position their voters have. I'm willing to bet that all those countries will not do much complaining when a new President is elected in the not so distant future.

When all is said and done, the JSF will be deployed in many different regions in the world by many countries in the world, fighting a wide variety of probable enemies.

You also have to remember that media will tend to sensationalize any stories that are anti war and will do anything to further suppress a leader who for the most part they see as a terrorist themselves. I should know, I'm being taught by journalists right now.

If everyone would just talk to each other then this plane would get done that much more quickly and would start making a difference in the world even more quickly. That is what this planet needs - not selfish bickering like children in a playground.

[Big-E]

I hope you are right then ;)
According to you, what length the carrier needs to get a 18 ton bird airborne ? Supposing the carrier has the same catapults as your Nimitz ?
thks
cheers

I've seen 30+ ton F-14s land in less than 300ft and those things are a pain in the ass to get on the meatball. The approach speed of the EF needs to be dropped from 150kts to 140 to be able to land on the CVF, thats the only hurtle. It could easily be overcome by adding an inch of flap area and vectoring the engines a few degrees.

[contedicavour]

I've seen 30+ ton F-14s land in less than 300ft and those things are a pain in the ass to get on the meatball. The approach speed of the EF needs to be dropped from 150kts to 140 to be able to land on the CVF, thats the only hurtle. It could easily be overcome by adding an inch of flap area and vectoring the engines a few degrees.

Thks for the data Big-E. I feel reassured !
In theory at least the Typhoon, navalized as you suggest, could even use the deck of a carrier such as the Cavour (the deck is 240 metres long). The ship could probably only operate half a dozen, but at least we do have a plan B in case something goes wrong with European acquisition of JSF (which I hope won't happen)

cheers

[perfectgeneral]

I think that this variant should be developed anyway. The JSF is a strike fighter not an air to air combat bird at all. Any strike mission assumes evasion or air superiority. As radar systems will progress faster than JSF stealth, a decent carrier bourne A2A plane will be needed alongside it. The US have Super Hornets available for this role. We should concider the future of aircraft development in europe too.:uk

[contedicavour]

I think that this variant should be developed anyway. The JSF is a strike fighter not an air to air combat bird at all. Any strike mission assumes evasion or air superiority. As radar systems will progress faster than JSF stealth, a decent carrier bourne A2A plane will be needed alongside it. The US have Super Hornets available for this role. We should concider the future of aircraft development in europe too.:uk

Yep but who would buy it ? If we assume JSF is built, no navy will afford a 2nd aircraft in its inventory. China, India and Russia will use Fulcrums and Flankers. All other navies will need STOVL aircrafts. France will stick to its Rafale, or else Dassault will go broke :rolleyes:
So at the end of the day, a navalized Typhoon would be developed for 2 dozen aircrafts maximum for the Royal Navy only ? Unlikely.
Although it is a shame, since had the French believed in the potential of a navalized Typhoon, then they probably wouldn't have developed the Rafale at all. Now it's too late.

[Big-E]

Yep but who would buy it ? If we assume JSF is built, no navy will afford a 2nd aircraft in its inventory. China, India and Russia will use Fulcrums and Flankers. All other navies will need STOVL aircrafts. France will stick to its Rafale, or else Dassault will go broke :rolleyes:
So at the end of the day, a navalized Typhoon would be developed for 2 dozen aircrafts maximum for the Royal Navy only ? Unlikely.
Although it is a shame, since had the French believed in the potential of a navalized Typhoon, then they probably wouldn't have developed the Rafale at all. Now it's too late.

The only other possible market I could see for a navalized EF would be... mmmm India. They will have 4-5 carriers over the years which will mean a big market for navalized fighters. If the EF program could show the Indians that its better than Mig-29s I don't see why they couldn't sell 6 squadrons worth.

[contedicavour]

The only other possible market I could see for a navalized EF would be... mmmm India. They will have 4-5 carriers over the years which will mean a big market for navalized fighters. If the EF program could show the Indians that its better than Mig-29s I don't see why they couldn't sell 6 squadrons worth.

Wow aren't you a bit optimistic ? India will end up with one Cavour-type carrier (Fincantieri is in charge of the design) and the Gorshkov. First should be ready around 2012 and the second 2008 (but by then it will be 20+ years old already). May be a second Cavour-type can be built, but I doubt the budget will allow them to go beyond 3 carriers.
Typhoon-size fighters are a bit too big for Cavours, unless we considerably reduce the numbers per ship... which reminds me that the Indian Cavour-type carrier does not have catapults... which makes buying Typhoons improbable.
Besides, I guess the US would manage to arrive first and sell F18s to India, given the new closeness in relations between India and the US.

cheers

[Big-E]

Wow aren't you a bit optimistic ? India will end up with one Cavour-type carrier (Fincantieri is in charge of the design) and the Gorshkov. First should be ready around 2012 and the second 2008 (but by then it will be 20+ years old already). May be a second Cavour-type can be built, but I doubt the budget will allow them to go beyond 3 carriers.
Typhoon-size fighters are a bit too big for Cavours, unless we considerably reduce the numbers per ship... which reminds me that the Indian Cavour-type carrier does not have catapults... which makes buying Typhoons improbable.
Besides, I guess the US would manage to arrive first and sell F18s to India, given the new closeness in relations between India and the US.

cheers

:confused:

WTF happened to the ADS??? Since when did India decide to buy an Italian CV? The last thing I read said...

"the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security (CSS) approved the awarding of a construction contact to Cochin Shipyard for the construction of three Vikrant-class aircraft carriers. The announcement indicated that the carrier -- based on a French design -- would displace more than 30,000 tons."

Did I miss something?:tomato

[swerve]

:confused:

WTF happened to the ADS??? Since when did India decide to buy an Italian CV? The last thing I read said...

"the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security (CSS) approved the awarding of a construction contact to Cochin Shipyard for the construction of three Vikrant-class aircraft carriers. The announcement indicated that the carrier -- based on a French design -- would displace more than 30,000 tons."

Did I miss something?:tomato

I think you missed the bit about Fincantieri providing design & technical assistance for the ADS. ;) The reporter who wrote the article you've quoted from obviously wasn't interested in the difference between France & Italy, & got it wrong.

AFAIK, the ADS is something like a scaled-up Cavour. Now building at Cochin.

[swerve]

Ah yes, EF2000 is heavier than the SH but not even close to the F-14.;)
EF2000 loaded weight-34,280lbs
F-14 loaded weight---61,000lbs

She will have to ditch the ski jump idea and go with catapults but would be no problem with US cooperation. I have heard good things about the structural integrity of the aircraft and that she can withstand the poundings of carriers landings. Her thrust vectored engines makes her perfect for arrested carrier landings. This bird was born to go on a carrier.:D

Afraid not. The initial proposals BAe put forward for making the Typhoon carrier-capable (before BAe was in JSF) apparently made the FAA tell them to shut up & go away. The Typhoon's a lovely plane, but too many design decisions have been made without regard to carrier compatibility for conversion to be easy or cheap, & the customer would have to pay. It's being looked into here, as a fallback if JSF falls through*, but definitely not worth India shelling out loadsa dosh for a technically risky development, for a fairly small number of planes, when OTS Rafales & F-18Es are available.

BTW, Typhoon is lighter than F-18E. Empty weight is about 2000 kg less - about the same as an F-18A.


*The French have suggested a joint naval AEW squadron if the UKs carriers end up CTOL.

[swerve]

Not my area of expertise, but my impression is that BAE, is up there on the theory and runs behind in the practical due to funding.

Something like the AESA radar for the Typhoon, could be flying now if the funding was there.

Just to be clear I am not starting a platform discussion here I just want to know if my impression is correct.

That's more or less my impression, too, & not just BAe. You name it, there's a European firm out there itching to build it, & brimming over with ideas. They just need the funding to do the development work.

As for the Typhoon AESA radar: it's flown. 3 months ago, in a BAC-111. Several successful tests, tracking targets etc. Currently waiting for a Typhoon test bed to be available, expected to be later this year. It's been fitted to a Typhoon airframe on the ground, to check connections, etc. But it might be ready for production now if the money had been there a few years ago.

[swerve]

Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

Nope, because this time, it isn't a joint project, the French are paying to join OUR project. It's 2/3rds British, 1/3rd French. They're accepting the decisions we've already taken, & paying 1/3rd of the cost of the design work we've already done & paid for - with no refund if they bale out. If they drop out, we just carry on, exactly the same as we'd have done if they'd never joined, except we'll have some of their money. The French navy really, really wants this ship, & they want it on time, or they'll have no carrier when CdG has to go in for refit.

[Big-E]

Afraid not. The initial proposals BAe put forward for making the Typhoon carrier-capable (before BAe was in JSF) apparently made the FAA tell them to shut up & go away. The Typhoon's a lovely plane, but too many design decisions have been made without regard to carrier compatibility for conversion to be easy or cheap, & the customer would have to pay. It's being looked into here, as a fallback if JSF falls through*, but definitely not worth India shelling out loadsa dosh for a technically risky development, for a fairly small number of planes, when OTS Rafales & F-18Es are available.

BTW, Typhoon is lighter than F-18E. Empty weight is about 2000 kg less - about the same as an F-18A.


*The French have suggested a joint naval AEW squadron if the UKs carriers end up CTOL.

Afraid not what, that she can't be setup for arrested recovery? From your own testimony the naval variant is being considered as a feasable replacement if JSF falls thru. I never implied that it would be worth BAE to go for sales to India, we were discussing the only other market for naval designs.:o

The effort to convert a land based to naval variant depends on several factors but the basic EF design meets all requirements except operational approach speed. The biggest factor of a plane being seaworthy is her structural integrity which the EF scores high marks. Secondly is her handling in slow speed environments which EF is second to none. With thrust vectoring she can maneuver onto a carrier with ease without the threat of stalling. You could throw a tailhook on her right know and I could land her on the Enterprise.

[perfectgeneral]

I still say that the F-35 will need top fighter cover at some point. Perhaps we should be getting a foot in the door with an order for some Rafales to fit out in the UK with our own radar, weapon targeting and control, EJ200, HUD etc.? We should do a joint development with France for future naval aviation. As long as they don't expect us to believe anything they say (about level of procurement, for example).

[Big-E]

Nope, because this time, it isn't a joint project, the French are paying to join OUR project. It's 2/3rds British, 1/3rd French. They're accepting the decisions we've already taken, & paying 1/3rd of the cost of the design work we've already done & paid for - with no refund if they bale out. If they drop out, we just carry on, exactly the same as we'd have done if they'd never joined, except we'll have some of their money. The French navy really, really wants this ship, & they want it on time, or they'll have no carrier when CdG has to go in for refit.

So what is MOD going to do if they find the program to be too expensive? Word in the community is the future UK CVF will have to be scaled down to cost therefor not meeting France's urgent need of a 60,000 ton CVF. If MOD changes her reqs. you can't blame France for getting out of a program that doesn't suit her needs. After all the talk I've heard about canceling CVF all together I can't imagine the UK going without carriers so they would opt for something smaller and affordable like a Cavour sized ship.

[Big-E]

I still say that the F-35 will need top fighter cover at some point. Perhaps we should be getting a foot in the door with an order for some Rafales to fit out in the UK with our own radar, weapon targeting and control, EJ200, HUD etc.? We should do a joint development with France for future naval aviation. As long as they don't expect us to believe anything they say (about level of procurement, for example).

Why? Stealth means she needs no cover b/c they won't know she's there till it's too late. Her advanced AESA is far superior to any nation without AWACs leaving her sensor abilities operational while still being undetected. There is only one plane that can beat her at BVR and thats the F-22. Now put her in a dog-fight and I'll have to agree... she's dead-meat.

[swerve]

Afraid not what, that she can't be setup for arrested recovery? From your own testimony the naval variant is being considered as a feasable replacement if JSF falls thru. I never implied that it would be worth BAE to go for sales to India, we were discussing the only other market for naval designs.:o

The effort to convert a land based to naval variant depends on several factors but the basic EF design meets all requirements except operational approach speed. The biggest factor of a plane being seaworthy is her structural integrity which the EF scores high marks. Secondly is her handling in slow speed environments which EF is second to none. With thrust vectoring she can maneuver onto a carrier with ease without the threat of stalling. You could throw a tailhook on her right know and I could land her on the Enterprise.

Considered purely for political reasons & because BAe would fight tooth & nail for an order in competition with Rafale. In reality, it has no chance even if JSF is cancelled tomorrow. In that case, it would be between Rafale & F-18E.

Physically feasible, certainly, but as you say, approach speed is a problem, & the published stuff (including from BAe, when they were trying to push the idea) suggest it's one which would be bloody expensive to bring within acceptable limits. Visibility is another one. The canards get in the way. No big deal on a fixed runway, but a moving carrier deck is more tricky. The FAA didn't like that at all. Adding an arrestor hook would require structural changes. It doesn't have thrust-vectoring now, & it hasn't been committed to for the future, it's just an option. No folding wings. Note that none of these are things I've thought of: they're all issues BAe has stated would have to be addressed, & proposed solutions to.

None of these makes it unacceptable as a candidate for carrier conversion, but they do mean that given the availability of two perfectly good western carrier-capable planes already in production, nobody is really going to do it. Ever. Far, far, too expensive.

BTW, what's your source for a 30000 ton CVF? I've heard talk of trimming to 55000 (& remember, these are real tons, not anaemic US ones. Add 10%), but not less. As of April this year, official talk is of 65000 tons.

[Big-E]

I never said they would, I just said they could.:lol2

[swerve]

I never said they would, I just said they could.:lol2

What you actually said was This bird was born to go on a carrier

This bird was born to go on a carrier

Which I see you're now backing away from. :D

And my e-mail tells me you edited out this -

http://www.baesystems.com/ocs/others/cvfprime/index.htm

I presume, because you saw this on that page -

"A decision on the hull type and the down select to two contractors is scheduled to take place this year following the decision on the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). Award for the contract for demonstration and manufacture is set for 2003, with a first of class in-service date of 2012."

and realised it was ancient history. :p: FYI, the French bought in after the size was set at 60-65000 tons.

[Big-E]

What you actually said was This bird was born to go on a carrier

"I never said they would, I just said they could."

Which I see you're now backing away from. :D


I was talking about BAE selling naval variants to India, not about them never going on a carrier. If JSF isn't on time then they most likely will navalize her. I'm not backing down from my belief that the EF would make a great naval variant. What e-mail? You actually use your notification.:lol3

[swerve]

I was talking about BAE selling naval variants to India, not about them never going on a carrier. If JSF isn't on time then they most likely will navalize her. I'm not backing down from my belief that the EF would make a great naval variant. What e-mail? You actually use your notification.:lol3

Didn't notice it came on automatically until after I got a mail. Killed it now.

Stop playing silly buggers. You know as well as I do that a naval variant of Typhoon for India is definitely never going to happen, & for the UK will almost certainly never happen, regardless of JSF, & you know why. Your arguing-for-the-sake-of-it style is boring me, so goodbye.

[hot222]

It will be a very good political move, and will make Europe (Union) stronger if UK choose Rafales. A very good 4th gerenation fighter, ready for use. Political and economical positive step from UK. And politics do count.