UK possibly to pull out of F-35 programme

[GreyGhost]

Jay, the Gripen was mentioned for the strike role in the RAF ...

Gregg

[Kei Lau]

(Super Hornet etc.) Could work for the UK as well.

Though I advocate Rafale for the carriers so we can combine the fleet carriers with the French navy as 2 carriers were never going to be enough.

For the strike role for the RAF we can licence build the Grippen.

Julien

The Super Hornet differs from these other two mentioned in the fact that it is currently operaional with AESA radar and network capability. The Brasilian put the Super Hornet cost right in between the Rafale and the Grippen. (I can't read the whole text, but the numbers are in the pictures.)

By comparision, the Rafale will have the AESA in fleet operation in 2012. The Grippen NG will be operational in 2017 unless they get foreign sales to move up the date.

The Grippen uses the same engine as the Super Hornet, but one vs. two for the later. It gets to be cheaper to buy and to mantain. But is it for the UK in term of capability? It would be good to ask the Australian how they like their Super Hornet.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Kei Lau

[11bee]

Super Hornets with the latest internal and external mods for USN and USMC.

F-16s with the latest internal and external mods for the USAF.

A lot more bang for the buck if the F-35 went away.

Good point, going with a couple of designs (albeit one is an updated version) that have their roots in the late 70's. Why not add all those "latest internal and external mods" to all those F-4's rusting away in the desert and put them back into service. Even more bang for the buck.

This will undoubtedly ensure that the US aviation industry does not remain competitive with the rest of the world. The F-18E/F is a good plane today. No arguments. However, The F-35 was designed to be a good / great plane 15 years from now. Does anyone really want to suggest that the SH will be a relevant design in 2025?

Edited August 2, 2010 by 11bee

[Vpanoptes]

...Does anyone really want to suggest that the SH will be a relevant design in 2025?

I understand your point, but I would bet that people made the same type of argument about the B-52 in the late 1980's, and the U-2 in the same time period. If I had to bet real money on the composition of strike aircraft squadrons on carrier decks (all 7 or 8 of them) in 2025 I suspect it will be about 60% UCAV, 20-25% F-35C and 15-20% F-18E/F/Sooper-Dooper Hornet. Time will tell.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[Mark M.]

B-52 is not a comparison to make. They had no replacement. B-1 and B-2 can replace it but were canceled and cut back to the point we kept the B-52 around for lack of options.

It's at the point we are MAKING options for a new fighter. Whether it's the F-35 or something new, it WILL happen. The Hornet is going away and I know a lot of folks will be sad to see it go but please don't pretend it's a real contender for 4th Gen capabilities. As many folks have said, there is a reason we don't keep around F-4 phantoms with the latest software in them. The design itself is the important thing, not just the cost.

I'll still build Hornet kits in 1/72nd after it's gone, but I won't want them being the only line of defense, the only tip of the spear we have. They just can't do the job that will need to be done for the next 50 years. Times have changed from the cold-war era that spawned the F/A-18.

[Vpanoptes]

B-52 is not a comparison to make. They had no replacement. B-1 and B-2 can replace it but were canceled and cut back to the point we kept the B-52 around for lack of options.

It's at the point we are MAKING options for a new fighter. Whether it's the F-35 or something new, it WILL happen. The Hornet is going away and I know a lot of folks will be sad to see it go but please don't pretend it's a real contender for 4th Gen capabilities.

Wasn't the B-1 conceived in the late 60's, flown as the B-1A in the 70's, killed by the Carter Administration in that same time period and then resurrected by Reagan in the 80's? Seems like a (at least in some sense) a replacement to me (by the late 80's). Also, at least according to my understanding, the F-18 (either A-D or E-G) is a 4th gen fighter, advertising hype about Gen 4.5, 4.4273 or whatever aside. What "options" are we making at this point ?- there is the F-35 (5th Generation) and AFAIK there is no proposal nor development of a "fighter" UCAV in the same sense that the F-35 is a "fighter". I agree, it (at least the F-35) WILL happen - because we have no other "options". Will the Super Hornet "go away" ? Of course, in the same sense that the B-52 and the U-2 will - eventually. I would bet it will still be in fleet service quite a bit past 2025, though.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[scotthldr]

Super Hornets with the latest internal and external mods for USN and USMC.

F-16s with the latest internal and external mods for the USAF.

A lot more bang for the buck if the F-35 went away.

Don't forget that the F-15SE Silent Eagle has just made it's first flight.

As Jennings says there just isn't the money for these state of the art weapons any more, and also what in the current climate can out fight the F-22 , F-15, Super Bug and Typhoon.............. maybe the SU 30 .

[11bee]

As Jennings says there just isn't the money for these state of the art weapons any more, and also what in the current climate can out fight the F-22 , F-15, Super Bug and Typhoon.............. maybe the SU 30 .

But that is the point behind the F-35. It is not designed for the "current climate"; it is designed for tomorrow's threat. The F15/16/18/Typhoon, etc are all outstanding aircraft for today's threat and if the non-western countries of the world make a promise to cease all development of advanced fighter designs, I'll be the first one to say lets scrap the JSF program and put the money towards more pressing issues.

Otherwise, though, the Su-30 appears to be a very competitive design that could give any of the above aircraft a serious fight. The Russians will have their latest and greatest design in full production within 5 years (in theory at least) and plan to aggressively export it. The latest generation of Russian SAM's appear to be absolutely fearsome. More and more countries are fielding AWAC's and learning how to integrate them with other forces.

If anyone wants to make a case that the aircraft referenced above are adequate to address these threats, I would really like to hear it. The next war is usually quite different from the last one. We may not be so "lucky" to be fighting third world countries with primitive / non-existent aircraft & air defense equipment.

Regards,

John

Edited August 2, 2010 by 11bee

[pbcheez]

it wouldnt be too frugal upgrading f16's. those were made to be expendable and are still used far past than originially intended use. f-15s would be better but those are dinosaurs too. yup we're kinda screwed in finding a decent replacement.

lol there are even b-52 pilots with parents that were pilots of the same kind of plane! that's ultra dinosaur right there!

[Oroka]

Wont happen. It is just some political saber rattling to get a better price or to keep current program opponents quiet.

The F-35 is not going anywhere. First, the F-22 has been cut short. If there was a bigger fleet of F-22s, NG F-16EFs, F/A-18EFG, and maybe even F-15SE would be sufficient, but I would think a force of 350 F-22s would be needed for that. Without the numbers of F-22s, a more capable stealth fighter is needed. Sticking with 4.5 gen fighters would not give a big advantage over adversaries.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Oroka

[vince14]

Wont happen. It is just some political saber rattling to get a better price or to keep current program opponents quiet.

The F-35 is not going anywhere. First, the F-22 has been cut short. If there was a bigger fleet of F-22s, NG F-16EFs, F/A-18EFG, and maybe even F-15SE would be sufficient, but I would think a force of 350 F-22s would be needed for that. Without the numbers of F-22s, a more capable stealth fighter is needed. Sticking with 4.5 gen fighters would not give a big advantage over adversaries.

The UK pulling out of the F-35 could very well happen - in fact, I think it's very probable. The UK is nearly broke, and we're having major spending cuts everywhere in government, 25% on average, and the MoD is no exception. Chopping the F-35 could save a lot of money, especially in an era where we don't have enough choppers for current needs.

I see us pulling out, and then in 5+ years time (when we've probably recovered) plumping for the Super Hornet or navalised Rafale.

Vince

[Aigore]

But has the Gripen EVER been modified for carrier use? Its a pretty small airframe and sticking beefed up gear in it will cause weight to go up, performance to go down and the cost will most certainly GO UP. Anytime somebody suggests something like that, I think back to the T-45 Goshawk and the bandaid aerodynamic fixes that had to be done when during testing it was found there was more to it to making a BAE Hawk carrier capable then just bolting on a heavier set of landing gear.

Well there´s plans of making a Sea Gripen for India if they want one

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/m...ad.main/116741/

[Oroka]

The UK pulling out of the F-35 could very well happen - in fact, I think it's very probable. The UK is nearly broke, and we're having major spending cuts everywhere in government, 25% on average, and the MoD is no exception. Chopping the F-35 could save a lot of money, especially in an era where we don't have enough choppers for current needs.

I see us pulling out, and then in 5+ years time (when we've probably recovered) plumping for the Super Hornet or navalised Rafale.

Vince

I could see a reduced order, but it wont get canned. Buying a 4.5 gen fighter will instantly put the UK at a disadvantage. It may take some creative spending, but there will be a UK F-35 order.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Hard times = Hard decisions

Steven L

Indeed.

[vince14]

I could see a reduced order, but it wont get canned. Buying a 4.5 gen fighter will instantly put the UK at a disadvantage. It may take some creative spending, but there will be a UK F-35 order.

With the greatest of respect, you're not in a position to see how deep a hole the UK is in right now. What's the point in buying a fifth generation fighter when you wouldn't be able to afford to fly them....these cuts are really serious, not just political posturing. The MoD is, at best, facing cuts of at least 10-15% and it could be as high as 25%. All government departments have been asked to produce 'worst-case' scenarios where their budgets are cut by 40%.

Here's some of the options the MoD is looking at;

- Scrapping all of the Tornado fleet

- Pulling out of JSF and the A-400M

- Downsize or scrap plans to buy additional Typhoons

- Reduce the size of the Army from 102,000 to 85,000

- The renewal of Trident is also under threat - that's the future of the UK's nuclear deterent being reviewed very closely.

In the current environment, pulling out of JSF would seem to be inevitable. I hope it's not, but...

Vince

Edited August 3, 2010 by vince14

[Vpanoptes]

With the greatest of respect, you're not in a position to see how deep a hole the UK is in right now. What's the point in buying a fifth generation fighter when you wouldn't be able to afford to fly them....these cuts are really serious, not just political posturing. The MoD is, at best, facing cuts of at least 10-15% and it could be as high as 25%. All government departments have been asked to produce 'worst-case' scenarios where their budgets are cut by 40%.

Here's some of the options the MoD is looking at;

- Scrapping all of the Tornado fleet

- Pulling out of JSF and the A-400M

- Downsize or scrap plans to buy additional Typhoons

- Reduce the size of the Army from 102,000 to 85,000

- The renewal of Trident is also under threat - that's the future of the UK's nuclear deterent being reviewed very closely.

In the current environment, pulling out of JSF would seem to be inevitable. I hope it's not, but...

Vince

Not being really current on the economic/defense (defence?) situation in the UK, questions abound and I wonder if any of these are relevant or just naive.

1) Why does the UK need a nuclear deterrent? Questions of stature/history aside - do they seriously foresee the possiblity of a (nuclear) conflict with a resurgent Russia? What is the probability that a nuclear exchange could occur with China - are their SSBN's even capable of targeting China? Or have nuclear Iran scenarios been seriously discussed?

2) In a similar vein, what air threat does the UK foresee that a Gen 4/4.5 fighter couldn't handle (in part the China question again) and what strategic interests does the UK have in this area that would require the F-35? Or is it the Russia card and the export Su-30/35 & hypothetical PAK-FA threat?

3) Presumably the F-35B requirement/rationale is in large part tied to the Harrier heritage and the flexiblity a STOVL aircraft offers, but how critical is this capability in postulated future conflicts? Could the job in Iraq/Afghanistan been done as well by a CTOL aircraft (assuming they existed in sufficient numbers in the force)?

Lots more questions, but maybe some of the folks from the UK could comment on these. Thanks in advance for your input.

- Dan

Edited August 3, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[Andre]

1) Why does the UK need a nuclear deterrent?

Like the French: status.

Cheers,

Andre

[Mark M.]

1) Why does the UK need a nuclear deterrent? [...] do they seriously foresee the possiblity of a (nuclear) conflict with a resurgent Russia?

Does the US?

That's not really the question. The question was asked in the '60s and this is the leftovers. They are important now for reasons that were started back then.

it's NOT just a simple matter of "we don't need them anymore" because they ARE a deterrent, they ARE the implied threat. I'm sure the UK would love to go begging to the US any time they need a nuke "Uh... yeah, remember that favor you owe me?"

If/when/hopefullynever the UK wants or needs to use a nuclear weapon, it has to be their OWN, and not rely on an outside party. Considering some unsavory nations in the world have and threaten with their own nuclear devices, it is only wise (on a national level) to keep their nuclear missiles, even if in reduced states of alert.

Until China, North Korea, and the rest of the world start honestly and openly disarming all nuclear weapons, the western nations have to keep theirs in stasis, rather than get rid of them. That's cold war politics for you.

Edit: typo fix

Edited August 3, 2010 by Mark M.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm sure the UK would love to go begging to the US any time they need a nuke "Uh... yeah, remember that favor you owe me?"

That cracked me up!

UK MoD is hurting for all the reasons that Vince pointed out... These are cuts that were incomprehensible just 5 years ago. The F-35 could well be in trouble.

scrapping the F-35 also means they can scrap the small carriers too, so extra savings right?

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Taking off on the posts about a nuclear deterrent...

Lets sit in a circle and hold hands singing, Kum By Ahh My Lord Kum By Ahh!

If anyone thinks we will see the day where there are no nukes well then I have that ocean front property to sell you in Saskatchewan, Canada?

Until a weapon is developed that makes the nuclear bomb obsolete as a deterrent and more so an offensive threat device we will always have them and it's a waste of energy to think otherwise.

Even if tomorrow each of the current nuclear powers reduced to say each only agreeing to have 200 warheads maximum, that will be enough to devastate life on Earth as we know it. If say 12 nukes hit 12 US cities alone the USA would cease to function as a modern society and same can be said to Russia, China, India etc. So it is a part of life and powers who have nukes are NOT regardless of leader each may have going to give them all up.

Sorry folks but that is just the way it is.

[vince14]

Taking off on the posts about a nuclear deterrent...

Lets sit in a circle and hold hands singing, Kum By Ahh My Lord Kum By Ahh!

If anyone thinks we will see the day where there are no nukes well then I have that ocean front property to sell you in Saskatchewan, Canada?

Until a weapon is developed that makes the nuclear bomb obsolete as a deterrent and more so an offensive threat device we will always have them and it's a waste of energy to think otherwise.

Even if tomorrow each of the current nuclear powers reduced to say each only agreeing to have 200 warheads maximum, that will be enough to devastate life on Earth as we know it. If say 12 nukes hit 12 US cities alone the USA would cease to function as a modern society and same can be said to Russia, China, India etc. So it is a part of life and powers who have nukes are NOT regardless of leader each may have going to give them all up.

Sorry folks but that is just the way it is.

What I've always found facinating was the pure volumes of nukes the US and USSR rather pointlessly produced. As you say, it wouldn't take many to send a country back to the Dark Ages for a very long time. That's what's worrying about smaller nations developing nuclear weapons - they wouldn't need many to cause total chaos. For example, Pakistan would probably only need to hit three or four Indian cities (say six to eight bombs max) to kill it as a functioning country.

I suppose the human race is just like this;

YOU: I've built a Super Death Ray which would kill all life on Earth in 10 seconds flat!

YOUR ENEMY: Yeah? Well I've built TWO Super Death Rays!!

YOU: Yeah? Well I'll just go and build THREE Super Death Rays!!!

Vince

[GreyGhost]

Peace through Mutual Assured Destruction ...

Gregg

[Wayne S]

I believe BAE is a major partner in the Gripen program, right ?

Might not be to hard to negotiate then ...

Gregg

Not sure if some one already wrote this since I did not read the entire thread yet. BAE is also a big player in the F-35, one can say they make the back half of it.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Peace through Mutual Assured Destruction ...

Gregg

As crazy as MAD sounded it is what worked and is what will work in any nuclear deterrence case.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

As to Britain and the supposed threat of pulling out of F-35, well how much of it may be due to the talk of abandoning the alternative engine to which RR is player?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Les / Creative Edge Photo