Britain threatens to pull out of F-35

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...4&in_page_id=2

As many here will know, I'm as pro-US as any non-american on this board.

But those morons at the Pentagon/Congress need to pull their head out their asses. Britain and America have worked together closer than just about any other pair of sovereign nations in the last 60 years, why the hell are they so worried about working with us all of a sudden?

And truth be known, if there was to be a security leak, it'd be just as likely to come from the US side - "hello Mr Chinese "Businessman". Why, some money seems to have fallen out of your briefcase"

Not to mention the long list of nations that have a stake in this aircraft, from Norway to Turkey. There are already strong rumblings about Australia pulling out.

The US and Lockheed-Martin are relying on this plane to be the next F-16 in the international market, if Britain pulls out, they are likely to miss out on a whole host of sales as there is no other next gen US fighter available. F-22 is too expensive (and would never be cleared for export) and the Super Hornet is over-priced and not truly a 5th gen fighter.

I actually know a guy on another forum who is working for LM on the F-35, and he says the guys at LM are pulling their hair out at the Pentagon/Congress for the way they keep putting obstacles in the way of British co-operation.

If the US keeps up with this small-minded attitude, its time to pull out and look at license building Rafale for the Royal Navy's new carriers.

The US defense asministration really does need to pull its head out of its overly suspicous ***. We are the US' closest ally and they're worried about us? The Royal Navy needs to rethink a bit aswell, the F-35 is a much better performing aircraft than the Rafael, (yeah im an aircraft nerd lol) and it's perfect for the Royal Navy.

Eh. It doesn't matter, America will be invading and taking over you Brits one of these days now.....

Doesn't matter anyway. The next Aircraft Carrier for the Royal Navy will be built y the Frenh. So to buy the Rafal (French Dassault) will just fit.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Eh. It doesn't matter, America will be invading and taking over you Brits one of these days now.....

---

Wait a minute I thought Britian was already annexed to the U.S.A.??????

But back to the topic, most of people in the pentagon are lugnuts. There shouldnt be any reason not to give a U.S. colony the technology what not. The JSF is far far far better then the rafeal. What more interesting is the new system of vertical takeoff the JSF employs, kinda wondering how long the driveshaft for the rear fan will last in a plain. I doubt there's any country that would be able to afford large numbers of the F-22 besides U.S. nice aircraft though, was taking out f-15's at the rate of 2v16.

Best way to show it's not all talk is to install catapults on those new carriers you keep talking about building. I think that's the only way you'll wake up the... crap, I'm not sure who!

I can't tell if it's the Administration or Congress calling for restrictions on technology. I do know this is the wackiest way to run a program I've ever seen. Investing doesn't get you a guaranteed workshare, or, if you get a contract your country may still have restricted access.

It's nuts! If stealth/AESA radar/passive sensors are that important then why open the program up at all? Just build it using Amercian companies! Offer the airframe/engine combo up for export and let the rest of the world integrate their systems. Hell, it'd probably be a better/cheaper version than the US model while only marginally less stealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Eh. It doesn't matter, America will be invading and taking over you Brits one of these days now.....

---

Bring it.

Seriously though, we gave them Chobbham armour for their tanks and that stuff is so top secret if a Challie gets blown up you have to cover it with a sheet!

Its all bullshit. Maybe Britain will go off and develope its own fighter.

I say we just navalise some Eurofighters. It seems like the easiest option.

I heard we might get the F-35 here in Canadaland to replace our CF-18s.

And the US trusts us less than the Russians. ~:eek:

(I think the US thinks we are Russians - Just really nice ones who don't have a lot of Migs.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I say we just navalise some Eurofighters. It seems like the easiest option.

---

But, unfortunately, a rather expensive option. Part of the reason France withdrew from the Eurofighter project to develop to Rafale was because it had a carrier requirement that the other countries didn't have. As a result, the Eurofighter Typhoon was not designed so that it could be used on carrier. To navalise the Typhoon would be possible, but expensive (for example, the undercarriage would have to be strengthened considerably). In addition, expensive catapults would have to be added to the carriers.

I believe that the White House wants to transfer the technology, but Henry Hyde, the chair of the House international relations committee, has refused to grant the UK a waiver for the US's ITAR (the International Traffic in Arms Regulations).

Quote:

---

In addition, expensive catapults would have to be added to the carriers.

---

It strikes me that the catapults would probably have to be added anyway somewhere along the line, so it seems logical to just get it over with. Besides, catapults are awesome. And how expensive can strengthening undercarriage really be?

I still think we should have just gone the whole hog and bought the Nimitz design off the US. Supercarriers are what it's about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

And how expensive can strengthening undercarriage really be?

---

Balance.

You have a stronger undercarriage (assumption that it is a different density) that shifts the point of balance.

Which then changes the performance charateristics like its pitch and roll. Hence the avionics... at least the software side of it have to take the difference into account. Hence another development cycle on that.

So a new physical production line for the new undercarriage.

A new software development line for the avionics.

I'm sure it would only cost a couple of euro (per capita of europe).

Quote:

---

Maybe Britain will go off and develope its own fighter.

---

If i remember correctly the British navy was on the board that picked the final design of the JSF. They also had put some of the requirements in there for it, hence the importance of the vertical take-off.

Yes, we like V/STOL.

As to navalizing the Eurofighter.

New undercarriage.

Strengthened airframe.

Retainign hooks, properly set up.

Better engines, because the weight has gone up, or you accept a loss of performance.

Shorter range, because of weight.

New software to deal with all this.

Possible modification of hardpoints and software to take naval payloads.

Very Expensive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You ever hear of a revolutionary Canadian fighter-jet called the Arrow? It was a generation ahead of its time, but unfortunately the KGB had infiltrated the plant, and it all had to be shut down. Not long after, the Russians came out with a new MiG (I forget which one, either -17 or -21 I think) that was damned near indistinguishable from the now-defunct Arrow.

---

Not exactly. The Arrow program was closed by that shmuck Prime Minister of ours, John Diefenbaker, who had no vision, tight purse strings, and was taking bad advice from the Americans with regards to missiles (which they wanted to sell us) making airplanes obsolete.

The Arrow was light years ahead of the Mig-17, still ahead of the Mig-21, and resembled neither. The Mig-25 did bear a resemblance to the Arrow however.

I've never heard anything about the Arrow program being infiltrated by the KGB.

Last week, the History Channel put on several programs about Cold War/WWII experimental aviation. The Arrow was given a segment. The program told me that the Arrow was shut down because Diefenbaker needed money for some kind of farm aid. Apparently, reports of the KGB infiltration were what resulted in the orders for the machinery and prototypes to be scrapped and destroyed after the shutdown. The government did not want any more info to be stolen.

I don't think it's so much a question of trust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The article

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.

---

It's money and control after the sale. :shame: Don't know what to tell you guys, except my guess is the Air Force is trying to see how hard they can push you. They won't let the sale go to the French. Hopefully, we don't piss you off too bad in the meantime.

Really... :no:

But aren't most weapon systems that are sold have local contractors perform the maintenance (be it a spin off of the parent company that made it or another)... so surely these contractors are going to see all these systems at some point and know how they operate as they maintain them and hence 'be an external security risk'.

Fixing a small part of something and knowing how the whole thing works are very different. I can field strip an L85 but I can't tell you whats so cool about the barrel.

Anyway, with fighter craft the Air Force does maintainance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I say we just navalise some Eurofighters. It seems like the easiest option.

---

Like others have said, its not that easy. Only a handful of planes that were originally land based have made a succesful transition to being carrier based - The Spitfire/Seafire, Harrier and the Russians having a go with the Mig-29 and Su-27. And the Seafire had a horrendous accident rate.

OTOH, there is a long list of carrier planes that have had a successful land based career - Corsair, A-7 Corsair II, F-4 Phantom, E-2 Hawkeye, F-18 Hornet etc

Navalising the Typhoon could be done, but it would take time and cost money (but then again we've already thrown £2 billion at the JSF). But it would also bring down the overall unit cost per airframe due to economies of scale.

Another factor is that the Typhoon is around £20 million cheaper per airframe than the Rafale. The French are having big problems funding the ones for their Air Force (the navy already got their Rafales as the situation was more desperate for them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Better engines, because the weight has gone up, or you accept a loss of performance.

---

Dunno about that. The Typhoons maximum all-up weight is around 42,000lbs, its maximum thrust is nearly 43,000lbs, which means fully loaded, it still has a thrust to weight ratio greater than one :2thumbsup: Thrust vectoring would be nice though ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Like others have said, its not that easy. Only a handful of planes that were originally land based have made a succesful transition to being carrier based - The Spitfire/Seafire, Harrier and the Russians having a go with the Mig-29 and Su-27. And the Seafire had a horrendous accident rate.

---

...You forgot the Sopwith Pup (which did just about everything well), but your point is spot on.

We shouldn't give the British the specs to build the F-35 because they gave us the armour for our tanks. Rather, we should give the British the specs to build the F-35 because they are vital allies (and I would go so far as even saying Brethren), they've sunk close to 4 billion dollars into the research program, and even more breakthroughs in technology can be achieved if the two nations share their research openly and cordially. I would be a little outraged if the UK didn't get the F-35.

I'll wager any amount that the main focus of the technology being argued over has to do with the F-35's stealth design and relevant materials. The U.S. Defense Dept. is probably extremely paranoid that the materials and procedures involved in maintaining and repairing the stealth tech on these aircraft will be sold to organizations/nations who don't have our best interests at heart. Based on the concerns of the Defense Dept. I think it's safe to assume that our military believes it is our stealth technology, not our avionics or weaponry, is what gives our combat aircraft a decided and decisive advantage over the best threat detection technology out there.

I firmly believe that based on its price point and modular design the F-35 has the potential to be THE fighter for Britain in the early 21st century. The same stealth design lessons and tech that went into the F-117, B-2 and F-22 have gone into the F-35 and it shows. The Typhoon and Rafaele may be extremely capable aircraft in terms of avionics, engines & maneuverability but in terms of stealth design they look like a souped up versions of previous generation planes. The stealthy nature of the F-22 & F-35 are probably worlds ahead of the Typhoon & Rafaele.

FYI, the F-22A may be incredibly expensive but it is also unbelievably advanced. Pilot skill being equal mock combat testing has shown that a single F-22A can handle up to six F-15Cs at once... :inquisitive: ~:eek: I wonder how much of that lopsided advantage is due to the fact that in any given combat situation an F-15 simply cannot get a reliable radar/IR lock on an F-22?

Quote:

---

F-22A can handle up to six F-15Cs at once... I wonder how much of that lopsided advantage is due to the fact that in any given combat situation an F-15 simply cannot get a reliable radar/IR lock on an F-22?

---

That and the F-22 is faster, carries far more weapons, can engage at near 60 miles out. If I remember correctly the F-15 has to manuever the entier plane to lock and fire at a plane, while the F-22 uses a more advanced mig design so the pilot just has to look at the plane to lock and fire.

Btw does anyone know if they kept the weapon studs on the wings of the F-22 in the final design? Or did they finally take those out?

Regarding the F-22, on an aviation forum I hang around on, there are an F-22 pilot and an F-15 instructor. The latter has over 1000 hours on the F-15 and is a Desert Storm veteran. He said in mock combats with the F-22, it wasn't until his 26th attempt that he survived long enough to achieve a visual merge. ~:o

With is combination of stealth, supercruise, AESA radar and sensor fusion, the F-22 is so far in front of everything else it isn't even funny. Only thing its lacking is a next gen medium-long range AAM. If you gave it something like the RAF's Meteor (AMRAAM with ramjet for extra range)....scary.

In a way, I'm a little happy about this. At least the Pentagon seems to have a learnt a little lesson after our other 'bestest, closest, loyal, military-tech sharing ally' Israel sold info on some of our weapon programs to China.

That being said, I really dislike any news that bodes poorly for our relationship with Britain. Hopefully it's just bloviation and none of the worst-case scenario stuff that's painted in the article comes to anything.

Anyway, with fighter craft the Air Force does maintainance.

Wigferth , didn't they privatise the maintainance a while back .
If I remember correctly it led to nearly half of all the RAFs Tornados being badly damaged by the contractor using the wrong equipment during maintainance .

I really like airplanes, and I haven't heard of this until now, how weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Anyway, with fighter craft the Air Force does maintainance.

Wigferth , didn't they privatise the maintainance a while back .
If I remember correctly it led to nearly half of all the RAFs Tornados being badly damaged by the contractor using the wrong equipment during maintainance .

---

I think you might be referring to when the RAFs Tornado F.2s were upgraded by a private contractor, and yes they screwed it up badly, and the RAF ended up doing the upgrades themselves. Since then the RAF has got a lot more involved with upgrading planes themselves (its cheaper too).

The RAF does do all their own maintainence, but they do also employ large numbers of civilian contractors - usually ex-RAF personnel. For major overhauls/servicing, the airframes are sometimes returned to the manufacturer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

In a way, I'm a little happy about this. At least the Pentagon seems to have a learnt a little lesson after our other 'bestest, closest, loyal, military-tech sharing ally' Israel sold info on some of our weapon programs to China.

---

Thats why Israel aren't in the JSF program, although there are rumours they've joined as a tier 3 member - basically they're kept abreast of how things are going, but thats about it. No input in design or testing, no workshare. Britain is the only tier 1 member, countries like Canada and Australia are tier 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The same stealth design lessons and tech that went into the F-117, B-2 and F-22 have gone into the F-35 and it shows. The Typhoon and Rafaele may be extremely capable aircraft in terms of avionics, engines & maneuverability but in terms of stealth design they look like a souped up versions of previous generation planes. The stealthy nature of the F-22 & F-35 are probably worlds ahead of the Typhoon & Rafaele.

---

True, the Typhoon doesn't have the all-aspect stealth of the F-22 or F-35, but a lot of work went into reducing its frontal RCS. The engine intake is curved to hide the engine fan blades (major source of radar return) and there has been a selective use of Radar Absorbent Material.

I never considered the Typhoon as that much of a stealth plane anyway.
And I doubt that Europe wouldn´t be able to build a stealth plane if needed.
Take a look at swedish and Norwegian stealth ships, that´s something the US has only as prototypes.
I just think that sharing technology with britain shouldn´t be that much of a problem. I don´t think the vritish government would want to give superior technology to it´s enemies, it wouldn´t help the British either.