MOD considers cancelling JSF

[Razor]

What the heck...
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new..._L26730600_RTRUKOC_0_UK-DEFENCE-DAUSSAULT.xml

Why would you cancel such a capable platform such as the JSF for such an inferiour one as the Dassault Rafale...i know the MOD have had so many huge problems with Lockheed Martin being stupid but what the heck?

This would mean also that the CVF project would need to be looked at, seeing that it was initialling being designed to be built around a VSTOL platform rather then the conventional platform like the French and American carriers are. What would it mean for the Raf Harriers as well, they were supposed to be getting replaced at the end of this decade/early next decade with an aircraft that has the capabilities that surpass the expectations for it's replacement, will the Harrier's get an extra update at the end of the decade and try to lengthen their shelf life, hopefully not, the Harrier is a very capable aircraft but the JSF would of been a massive upgrade.


edit:

Yes provided the current row over sharing of technology is sorted out. The US government is worried that we might go and sell their, and our technology used in the JSF to one of their enemies. They'd like us to only be able to service the aircraft in the states and only be able to arm the aircraft systems using whitehouse issued codes which basically means they have a veto whenever we want to use our planes for war. There are some major sovereignty issues there, especially considering the fact that we are co-developing the aircraft, not buying it on license.

can you imagine if the other war around the US government had to ask downing street for codes to make the chobam armour on the abrams work, or in order that they could arm the license built harriers.

At the end of the day it smells of industry protectionism. If it doesn't get sorted out I believe we'll build some more navalised eurofighters as the terms that the whitehouse is trying to impose are unworkable for any self respecting nation.

 

[Eg.]

nonononoononoononon. NO! The french fighter, while good, is still not american. The reason why so many people complain about the industrial-military complex is because it PRODUCES weapons, not buys them. Sadly the American economy relies on weapon manufacturing, and by importing material, we are weakening a segement of our economy. Damn this sucks.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What? No, it looks crap. No style. Delta wing = teh suck. **** the french. God damnit.

 

[Eg.]

Im hoping that the purchase of the French jets is for war games, really. The US has about 100-150 migs laying around just for that purpose, to train pilots in dog fighting the enemy.

 

[kirovman]

When you can't trust your closest ally... who can you trust?

 

[DEATH eVADER]

To be personally honest, the Rafale just looks like a next-gen version of the Jaguar

 

[Gray Fox]

The brits should simly get some bigger aircarriers, I mean most future convlicts as far as I know are predicted to happen overseas, and the jsf and rafaele are useless unless you can get air superiority with the eurofighter. Unless brittain want's to rely on the US.

 

[Razor]

The brits should simly get some bigger aircarriers, I mean most future convlicts as far as I know are predicted to happen overseas, and the jsf and rafaele are useless unless you can get air superiority with the eurofighter. Unless brittain want's to rely on the US.

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince Of Wales will be the second biggest carriers in the world, weighing in at 60,000+ tonnes. The only carrier that is bigger is the Nimitz, which weighs 100,000tonnes.

 

[Gray Fox]

But can they support the Eurofighter, cause if they can. After the eurofighter is finished with the aa and enemy airplanes, you could fly a propeller airplane, and still have a succesfull mission.

Besides the rafale really isn't so bad, it has low maintance costs and decent performance. Only thing is it can't VTOL, which is important. The UK government will simply have to mix JSF's with the rafaele.

 

[Eg.]

Yes, a nimitz class carrier can launch Eurofighter, just need to change the logistics part of it. And we need fighters like the JST for heavier bomber missions, since teh Euro, and any air supiority fighter just cant load as many bombs as a strike-fighter can (ex:f-14,F-18). Im still wary about the Eurofighter, its design philosphy was "be cheap and easily producable". In contrast the f-22 is "kill everything that moves, then be cheap"

 

[JoeCLawrence]

Im still wary about the Eurofighter, its design philosphy was "be cheap and easily producable". In contrast the f-22 is "kill everything that moves, then cost insane amounts of money"

I'm a big advocate of the F-22's capabilities, but if my (theoretical) country was buying a plane, I would stay the hell away from something that expensive. Not that the US would let me have one anyway...

 

[Eg.]

Yes, a few f-22 would make even Gates cry, but the emphasis on the "kill" was a lot heavier than "cheap".

 

[Razor]

Yes, a nimitz class carrier can launch Eurofighter, just need to change the logistics part of it. And we need fighters like the JST for heavier bomber missions, since teh Euro, and any air supiority fighter just cant load as many bombs as a strike-fighter can (ex:f-14,F-18). Im still wary about the Eurofighter, its design philosphy was "be cheap and easily producable". In contrast the f-22 is "kill everything that moves, then be cheap"

The Eurofighter Typhoon isn't cheap...i think it's £36million each, which would be about $55million each and it's the most advanced fighter in the world, onpar with the f22 in everything but stealth. But when you're fighter pilots are the best in the world anyway, who needs stealth .


Also, a conventional aircraft can't really land on a carrier on a regular basis. To navify an aircraft, you need to strengthen the landing gear, strengthen the area around the arrestor hook and add an arrestor hook and you also need to modify the forward landing gear for catapults. Probably a lot more then that, but those would be the main areas i can think of.

 

[Bob_Marley]

The Eurofighter Typhoon isn't cheap...i think it's £36million each, which would be about $55million each and it's the most advanced fighter in the world, onpar with the f22 in everything but stealth. But when you're fighter pilots are the best in the world anyway, who needs stealth .

Well, the Typhoon actually has superior engaugement range and manuverability than the Raptor. The Raptor uses the current generation of AAMs and has to rely upon it's stealth capabilities to be effective. The Typhoon uses next generation AAMs can can enguage targets from well beyond the Raptor's range.

As far as the need for the White House to be the only place capable of arming our birds then there is no conflict. If we cant have complete control over our airforce then we'll buy other aircraft. If they relent, then the F-35 is probubly one of the best naval strike aircraft in the world, but I would still say that we could really do with a navalised Typhoon for air superiority.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, our next-gen carriers have no catapult capability. So unless a navalised Typhoon had VTOL ability, things could get a bit wet...

 

[Gray Fox]

Meh, the f-22 is expensive, but in relative terms nothing compared to the mitsubishi f-2.
Thats basicly a modded f-16 and it costs 100m per plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2

Just take a look how it compares to other fighters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I hope they buy it to help our economy. On the other hand, if the other fighter can fill roles that the JSF can't better and the JSF can fill roles that lacks in better- it pretty much could strengthen our alliance in a military sense to have more diversity.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Just take a look how it compares to other fighters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ghter_aircraft

But remember, the F-2 was designed for quick intercept. The fuel capacity of the F-22/a exceeds that of the F-2 because it was intended to be a long range intercept aircraft.

It's also capable of dogfighting a lot longer, and its missle payload compensates in part to some of its disabilities.

 

[Gray Fox]

But remember, the F-2 was designed for quick intercept. The fuel capacity of the F-22/a exceeds that of the F-2 because it was intended to be a long range intercept aircraft.

It's also capable of dogfighting a lot longer, and its missle payload compensates in part to some of its disabilities.

I meant in expense not in capability, meaning the f-2 is a pieace of overpriced shit.

 

[dream431ca]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, our next-gen carriers have no catapult capability. So unless a navalised Typhoon had VTOL ability, things could get a bit wet...

Where did you hear this?? That doesn't sound very smart...unless they wanted to launch less planes on a smaller size carrier.

The JSF is a good aircraft..the rafale is also a good aircraft..just that the JSF has Vertical landing and takeoff capability. Also, the company might not have enough money to buy enough JSF, so they might have concidered turning to the rafale...but this decision is not final. I'll have to watch this story.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

None of our current carriers have catapults (although they can be retro-fitted). The next-gen carriers were built around the same premise - that we'd be using VTOL aircraft.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I meant in expense not in capability, meaning the f-2 is a pieace of overpriced shit.

True. ...

 

[Razor]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, our next-gen carriers have no catapult capability. So unless a navalised Typhoon had VTOL ability, things could get a bit wet...

A conventional fighter doesn't necessarily need a catapult to take off from carriers, the Russian's get by very well with their Mig29Ks, the Su33 and the Su39.

But the CVF is still in the design phases and it won't take long to incorporate a catapult system and arrestor wires.

 

[Mr Stabby]

an electromagnetic powered catapult is in concept stages, for the new carriers