UK possibly to pull out of F-35 programme

[Wayne S]

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?

I think someone in the UK had a brain fart, still nothing anywhere about any of this.

http://mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence...nceSpending.htm

[Nigel Bunker]

Wayne

I think you'll find that website's figures pre-date the General election, and now the new Government is looking for a minimum of 25% savings from all departments, MoD included.

[vince14]

I think someone in the UK had a brain fart, still nothing anywhere about any of this.

http://mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence...nceSpending.htm

Nope, I assure you that the cuts are coming;

Britain considers £9bn JSF Project Pullout

RAF Set To Ditch Tornados

Trident Is Not Exempt From Budget Cuts

QinetiQ Axes 325 Jobs Due To MoD Cuts

MoD Considers Cutting 30,000 Troops

BAe Not Betting on Typhoon Order

I could go on, but you get the point...

Vince

[Andre]

RAF Set To Ditch Tornados

Yay. Has anyone seen the first comment under the Tornado article..?

Tinfoil Hats to the rescue!

Cheers,

Andre

[vince14]

Yay. Has anyone seen the first comment under the Tornado article..?

Tinfoil Hats to the rescue!

Cheers,

Andre

It's brilliant, isn't it? I love the part where he says 'I am not mad either before you people start accusing me'.

Vince

[Andre]

It's brilliant, isn't it? I love the part where he says 'I am not mad either before you people start accusing me'.

Yes, I found that oddly reassuring. :-)

Cheers,

Andre

[Wayne S]

Nope, I assure you that the cuts are coming;

Britain considers £9bn JSF Project Pullout

I could go on, but you get the point...

Vince

That article is dated September 28, 2008

Edited August 4, 2010 by Wayne S

[vince14]

That article is dated September 28, 2008

I couldn't find the Sunday Times article online, so here it is in full;

Navy jet switch to save £10bn

Published: 1 August 2010

The Joint Strike Fighters, costing £100m each (HO/AFP/Getty Images) The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

"JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme," said a senior defence source. "It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy."

The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing?s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.

I work for another government department, one you'd think would be pretty immune given the current world situation, but we're also looking at massive cuts. The reality for us is that we'll be losing about 500 highly-skilled personnel in the next year - a sixth of our total workforce. Central Government has told all of its departments that there are no sacred cows, and anything can be considered for the chop. In a situation where we're seriously considering reducing overall troop numbers in the Army by a quarter, JSF is looking like an expensive, bloated and late programme that the Joint Chiefs feel they can cull to save a number of other areas. Right now the best-case scenario is a reduction in the numbers of actual aircraft purchased. The worst-case, and one that is absolutely being considered, is pulling out completely.

We won't know for sure until the MoD announces exactly where it's cutting back in October. But, as I've stated before, cuts are coming to the MoD. The only question is exactly where the axe will fall.

Vince

[Jennings]

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 Cold War is over. The Russians may put it in "full production", but what does that mean? 30 years ago that would have mean the USSR had opened the tap and was putting out thousands of them a year. The Russians are in a worse fiscal position than the west at the moment, and Venezuela isn't going to keep the Sukhoi production lines occupied forever. We simply don't have the luxury of thinking like we did in the Cold War any longer. Hugely expensive programs like these are simply not sustainable in today's worldwide economic climate. It'd be nice if we could foresee the "threat" we'll have ten or thirty years from now, but we simply can't. Ten years ago nobody on EARTH would have foreseen the kind of situation we find ourselves in today, so what makes anyone think they know what it'll be like ten or thirty years from now? And we can't build defensive systems for threats we can't even conceive of, and even if we could, if they bankrupt us further, what exactly are we protecting? If we cause our own collapse by defending ourselves to death, what have we gained?

J

[Mark M.]

Jennings, the Russians ARE in dire financial straits, however they have a world renowned aviation industry with a long-standing reputation of great products.

That just means that Russia won't be a threat, but they'll be selling next-gen fighters to any 2-bit warlord that can afford them.

That will greatly bolster their failing economy, to rake in contracts for 5th gen fighters (the question is: Can they find any buyers?)

I recall many years back when it got to the point Sukhoi (or was it MiG?) started offering demonstration joyrides (in a back seat) for 100,000 a pop. I think at this point they'd LOVE to start production again. Doesn't mean they'd be used in Russia, though.

[vince14]

That just means that Russia won't be a threat, but they'll be selling next-gen fighters to any 2-bit warlord that can afford them.

But herein lies the issue for Russia - how many two-bit warlords can actually afford to buy, maintain and operate next-gen fighters?

- Venezuela perhaps, but the oil money won't last forever and sanctions by the West would bite.

- North Korea is bankrupt.

- China has it's own aerospace programme (and financial woes as well).

- India could possibly afford to operate them, but it also needs to keep the West happy.

- Pakistan can't afford them, and would rather spend the money on developing nukes.

- Iran is pretty much isolated from Russia.

Besides which, we all know that the future of aerial warfare lies with UAV's. I can well see the Fifth-Gen designs being the last manned fighter aircraft.

I'm also agreeing with Jennings. We have no idea what the threats will be in 15-30 year's time. Put it this way, if you'd have asked people on September 10th 2001 what threats the US would be facing in 2010 what would their answers have been?

Vince

[Mark M.]

The thing about Soviet airframe technology was that it was rugged and low-tech but did the job just as well as the Western counterparts. That, IMO, equates to "cheap" -- and a number of Soviet aircraft have had major export markets over the past 20 years. The fact the Russians cant really maintain or use their military might doesn't mean the equipment itself is prohibitively expensive. It's just a sign of the decay of the former Soviet Union.

As for UK relating to this, well it's the same boat. They may or may not be able to purchase a fleet (a fleet of "what" is the question!) but can they even maintain it if they're cutting jobs like 1930's swing dancers cut a rug?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mark M.

[Andre]

The thing about Soviet airframe technology was that it was rugged and low-tech but did the job just as well as the Western counterparts. That, IMO, equates to "cheap" -- and a number of Soviet aircraft have had major export markets over the past 20 years.

That used to be the case. You could maintain a MiG-21 with simple tools, sure, but try that with a MiG-29 or Su-27...

The closest equivalents today are the Chinese F-6 and F-7 knockoffs.

Also, the Russians are rather behind in ergonomics. The workload in the cockpits of the production-standard MiG-29 and Su-27 is relatively high.

Cheers,

Andre

[11bee]

But herein lies the issue for Russia - how many two-bit warlords can actually afford to buy, maintain and operate next-gen fighters?

- Venezuela perhaps, but the oil money won't last forever and sanctions by the West would bite.

- North Korea is bankrupt.

- China has it's own aerospace programme (and financial woes as well).

- India could possibly afford to operate them, but it also needs to keep the West happy.

- Pakistan can't afford them, and would rather spend the money on developing nukes.

- Iran is pretty much isolated from Russia.

Besides which, we all know that the future of aerial warfare lies with UAV's. I can well see the Fifth-Gen designs being the last manned fighter aircraft.

I'm also agreeing with Jennings. We have no idea what the threats will be in 15-30 year's time. Put it this way, if you'd have asked people on September 10th 2001 what threats the US would be facing in 2010 what would their answers have been?

Vince

So the plan is to assume that the rest of the world is too broke to pose a challenge to the west, UAV's will make manned fighters unnecessary and since no one can accurately predict the future, we should assume a best case and in the immortal words of Mr. Bob Marley - "Don't worry about a 'ting". .

Sounds like a very well thought out plan.

[Vpanoptes]

The Cold War is over. The Russians may put it in "full production", but what does that mean? 30 years ago that would have mean the USSR had opened the tap and was putting out thousands of them a year. The Russians are in a worse fiscal position than the west at the moment, and Venezuela isn't going to keep the Sukhoi production lines occupied forever. We simply don't have the luxury of thinking like we did in the Cold War any longer. Hugely expensive programs like these are simply not sustainable in today's worldwide economic climate. It'd be nice if we could foresee the "threat" we'll have ten or thirty years from now, but we simply can't. Ten years ago nobody on EARTH would have foreseen the kind of situation we find ourselves in today, so what makes anyone think they know what it'll be like ten or thirty years from now? And we can't build defensive systems for threats we can't even conceive of, and even if we could, if they bankrupt us further, what exactly are we protecting? If we cause our own collapse by defending ourselves to death, what have we gained?

J

Interesting points, well made. Hoopla about the PAK-FA going into production in 5 years? Really? When was the first flight of the (Y)F-22 and when did it enter operational service? Not to denigrate the Russian aviation manufacturers - they make some very capable aircraft - but the hype about the PAK-FA is just like the hype about the F-35 - noise and fury signifying nothing (or not very much). Apparently even the very capable and near-production Su-35 is having a difficult time finding buyers - the Russian AF will get a few and (maybe) Libya as well. The Su-30 will probably be in a F-15/F-18 situation - continuing for at least a few more years, and still a force to be reckoned with.

Actually, some people have been predicting a global economic crash/severe downturn for some time now, only to be ignored or marginalized. One hopes they are wrong, but I guess we will see to what degree they were right in the next year or two...

Edited August 4, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[vince14]

So the plan is to assume that the rest of the world is too broke to pose a challenge to the west, UAV's will make manned fighters unnecessary and since no one can accurately predict the future, we should assume a best case and in the immortal words of Mr. Bob Marley - "Don't worry about a 'ting". .

Sounds like a very well thought out plan.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that, outside of the big players, no-one can afford to operate fifth-gen fighters. And why would they? We in the West might carry on with manned fighters, up to the point where it can be proven that a computer is better in the cockpit than a man, but to smaller countries UAV's are cheaper to purchase, operate, maintain and can be handled by less skilled (and therefore cheaper to train) operators. Basically, they offer a much higher 'Bang per Buck' than manned combat aircraft.

Of the big players, no-one can afford the kind of war the F-35 et al are being developed for, except perhaps China - and they are making their way to the top spot by means other than direct confrontation. And as for future planning, my point is still valid. If you'd have asked the question on 09/10/01 'Islamic Terrorism' would have been waaaaaay down the list, yet the last two wars have been just about that.

Take the UK's interest in developing new aircraft carriers, which the F-35 would operate from. They have been designed and commisioned because of the Falklands War, where the lack of carriers hampered efforts to regain the islands. However, the current lack of carriers doesn't seem to have prevented us from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, so if Argentina fails to invade the Falklands for a second time these two new carriers, and the Royal Navy F-35's, are a bit of a waste of money.

That's the situation the MoD is facing in the UK. Cut programmes that may or may not be beneficial in the future, or decimate the Armed Forces right now.

Vince

[janman]

And we can't build defensive systems for threats we can't even conceive of, and even if we could, if they bankrupt us further, what exactly are we protecting? If we cause our own collapse by defending ourselves to death, what have we gained?

J

...which makes the possible UK pull-out sound quite reasonable. Actually, in that light, any defence budget cuts anywhere sound quite reasonable. For my ears anyway.

[Mark M.]

Defense cuts always sound like a good idea, until some radical blows a hole in the side of one of your warships in peacetime and all of a sudden you NEED those armed forces (to pull an example out of a hat)

This is not a pretty world. There's more ugly than pretty in it right now. The way we have pirates roaming freely and openly in the mideast gulfs, the way we have terrorists openly extorting Spanish and French governments with threats of attacks, the way we have the makings of a collapse of biblical proportions in Iraq right now.....

Falling back into a fetal position with nothing to protect you won't work. Isolationism doesn't work (trust me on this, the U.S. tried it, it didn't work well). In the ever-melting-pot economy of the future we will need to (an in fact be called upon to) defend our interest and the interests of our allies and our economic partners, as well as take the initiative and stomp out certain bad influences (be they hostile military drug cartels in central america or be they taliban-sponsoring governments in Afghanistan, or etc). And if that call goes out, the cry for help, and it can't be answered because there simply isn't a tool in the arsenal to do the job, it's likely the person calling for help will go elsewhere (and take their trade, take their raw materials, their economic gains with them).

If the UK gives up its military might, it might as well give up and call itself "New Europe" and forget the thousands of years of cultural and political history behind it.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mark M.

[Kei Lau]

The thing about Soviet airframe technology was that it was rugged and low-tech but did the job just as well as the Western counterparts. That, IMO, equates to "cheap" -- and a number of Soviet aircraft have had major export markets over the past 20 years. The fact the Russians cant really maintain or use their military might doesn't mean the equipment itself is prohibitively expensive. It's just a sign of the decay of the former Soviet Union.

The Malaysia Air Force purchased the F/A-18D and the MIG-29 at about the same time in mid 1990's. Ask them why they are upgrading the Hornet, but retiring the MIG after 15 years. The Russian aircraft is anything but cheap.

The fighter aircraft buyers are getting smarter. They now use the life cycle total cost instead of initial fly away price in evaluation. See the Indian MRCA competition and the Brazilian fighter evaluation.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Kei Lau

[vince14]

Defense cuts always sound like a good idea, until some radical blows a hole in the side of one of your warships in peacetime and all of a sudden you NEED those armed forces (to pull an example out of a hat)

This is not a pretty world. There's more ugly than pretty in it right now. The way we have pirates roaming freely and openly in the mideast gulfs, the way we have terrorists openly extorting Spanish and French governments with threats of attacks, the way we have the makings of a collapse of biblical proportions in Iraq right now.....

Falling back into a fetal position with nothing to protect you won't work. Isolationism doesn't work (trust me on this, the U.S. tried it, it didn't work well). In the ever-melting-pot economy of the future we will need to (an in fact be called upon to) defend our interest and the interests of our allies and our economic partners, as well as take the initiative and stomp out certain bad influences (be they hostile military drug cartels in central america or be they taliban-sponsoring governments in Afghanistan, or etc). And if that call goes out, the cry for help, and it can't be answered because there simply isn't a tool in the arsenal to do the job, it's likely the person calling for help will go elsewhere (and take their trade, take their raw materials, their economic gains with them).

If the UK gives up its military might, it might as well give up and call itself "New Europe" and forget the thousands of years of cultural and political history behind it.

It's not a question of choosing isolationism, or turning our backs, or bowing down to Europe, or lacking foresight, or actually wanting to reduce the capabilities of our Armed Forces for the Hell of it. We're heading towards being broke. Don't people get it? The UK can't go on spending how it has done, we need to reduce a deficit of £155bn. The national debt is £903bn, which is a staggering 62.2% of GDP!

As I've already said many times, this is not the government picking on the Armed Forces. All departments have been told to reduce their budgets by, on average, 25%. The UK is in a world of pain at the moment, and the MoD spending £9bn on a weapons system that is already late (and only going to suffer further delays), overpriced (and will almost certainly cost even more than is currently predicted) and is not guaranteed to eventually work as promised would seem to be a folly at this point in time.

We may still stay on board with the F-35, albeit at a reduced number of airframes, but at the end of the day I'd rather have 30,000 troops now than 60 F-35's in 10 years time.

Vince

[Mark M.]

It's not a question of choosing isolationism,

Fair enough. I didn't really intend to push that point so hard when I started posting. Basically I wanted to say I think British politicians are setting unrealistic goals, because frankly the UK can't operate on a global level without adequately armed forces. Now they're forcing massive cutbacks to REACH those unrealistic goals (the goals being the cutbacks of up to 1/4 all the military budget, or to put it another way the goal was to meet the fiscal budget they just passed, and the cutbacks were the way to reach that).

They force the goals to be too extreme and you'll have rioting ex-military officers leading revolts through the streets, eh? Sometimes you have to spend even though you can't (another thing us Yanks do a lot, lol!)

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mark M.

[Rapier01]

Playing on the global scale may not the be paramount priority for the British- that's a decision that country and its electorate has to make. If they want to turn their backs on "thousands of years of cultural and political history", that's their business. Really, it more the last 500 years or so since Elizabeth I that Britain became a great power. But with that power came a racist colonial empire, which frankly, I'm glad is gone. Oddly, a lot of people, in the US of all places, seem to mourn the loss of Britain's dominion over various foreign peoples where as, from what I've seen, most of the British don't.

[GreyGhost]

Playing on the global scale may not the be paramount priority for the British- that's a decision that country and its electorate has to make. If they want to turn their backs on "thousands of years of cultural and political history", that's their business. Really, it more the last 500 years or so since Elizabeth I that Britain became a great power. But with that power came a racist colonial empire, which frankly, I'm glad is gone. Oddly, a lot of people, in the US of all places, seem to mourn the loss of Britain's dominion over various foreign peoples where as, from what I've seen, most of the British don't.

I don't think it's so much a 'mourning' but more of a shock that that was the Powerful & Mighty Empire that we seceded from through a Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War and now its on it's last ebbs of 'Dominion' ...

Does that make sense ? :)

Gregg

[Mark M.]

"If we'd only just waited 200 years!"

[vince14]

"If we'd only just waited 200 years!"

LOL! Can we have our colony back please, so we can then sell it back to you?!?!? :)

On a more serious note, it really does sadden me at the current state we're in. We shouldn't be in a position where we're forced to choose between 30,000 troops or the latest technology. I'm not blaming any one set of politicians either - it just sems to me that we've allowed ourselves as a nation to be badly managed for a number of years.

Vince