f-35 jsf

rochie · 12-08-2006, 05:58 AM

our MP's are wanting to scrap the deal to buy the f-35 unless the US releases tech data allowing indipendant operations just heard on the news

FLYBOYJ · 12-08-2006, 06:08 AM

This has been an on-going discussion. Maybe a ploy to buy more Eurofighters or to get more of a stake in the F-35 program..

mkloby · 12-08-2006, 07:23 AM

Yeah - it's a sensitive issue... we'll see how it works out.

Glider · 12-08-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

This has been an on-going discussion. Maybe a ploy to buy more Eurofighters or to get more of a stake in the F-35 program..

I think that you are being a little unkind here FJ. If your spending billions on a plane I don't think its unreasionable to ask for the ability to intigrate your own weapons into its systems without having to get the manufacturer to do it. Particually if the weapon is a competitor for one that the USA may have.

The UK have always tweaked US built aircraft that have been used in its armed forces often improving it be it in the airframe, weapons or sensors they originally carried.

The President has often given assurances that it will be done but not delivered, or been able to deliver and crunch time is here both politically and in the status of the programme.

FLYBOYJ · 12-08-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

I think that you are being a little unkind here FJ. If your spending billions on a plane I don't think its unreasionable to ask for the ability to intigrate your own weapons into its systems without having to get the manufacturer to do it. Particually if the weapon is a competitor for one that the USA may have.

Actually my comments favor the UK - I think it's realized that BAE has a huge stake in this aircraft and if I was the MOD I would threaten to pull out under the same situation but at the same time I would try to raise my stake in the program, I know I sound like a politician but sometimes this is what goes on and using the Eurofighter is the perfect "leverage."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The UK have always tweaked US built aircraft that have been used in its armed forces often improving it be it in the airframe, weapons or sensors they originally carried.

Agreed, and I think they'll do the same on the JSF..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The President has often given assurances that it will be done but not delivered, or been able to deliver and crunch time is here both politically and in the status of the programme.

Agreed - I think we'll see a lot more "politicking" on both sides - I think bottom line, a UK purchase is essential for the total success of the program and I know ultimately Lockheed will resist any roadblock that might hamper the potential for foreign sales....

Matt308 · 12-08-2006, 11:30 AM

I'm a bit more cautious here. What the UK is asking for versus third tier participants is vastly different.

At the crux of the issue is access to raw code for maintenance and upgrades of flight control laws, weapon systems, flight management system and radar/weapons integration.. In addition, some are also seeking ability to perform major repairs and upgrades to the stealth characteristics of the F-35. In order to do this, all stakeholders agree that a significant understanding of the stealth requirements and technologies must be released to non-US entities.

Thus, you can see that there is some reluctance to provide this information irrespective of alliances. However, the DoD can't have it both ways. You can't expect huge cash infusions from buyers if they don't own their purchased equipment. But caution is the key in my eyes.

davparlr · 12-08-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

I'm a bit more cautious here. What the UK is asking for versus third tier participants is vastly different.

At the crux of the issue is access to raw code for maintenance and upgrades of flight control laws, weapon systems, flight management system and radar/weapons integration.. In addition, some are also seeking ability to perform major repairs and upgrades to the stealth characteristics of the F-35. In order to do this, all stakeholders agree that a significant understanding of the stealth requirements and technologies must be released to non-US entities.

Thus, you can see that there is some reluctance to provide this information irrespective of alliances. However, the DoD can't have it both ways. You can't expect huge cash infusions from buyers if they don't own their purchased equipment. But caution is the key in my eyes.

I am sure big politics and business is going on here. It is to both countries best interest to come to an agreement. From what I know about the F-35 (I did a minor job on the proposal and avionics design), it is going to be an aircraft with impressive performance capabilities. Along with the F-22, it will have significant advantage in beyond-visual-range combat and in air-to-ground combat. Without the F-35, the UK would continue to be lacking in first wave air defense surpression.

Reasonable control of capabilities is certainly something the UK deserves, although I would be nervous on diddling around with the flight control laws without LM support. I think they will work it out.

rochie · 12-08-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

I'm a bit more cautious here. What the UK is asking for versus third tier participants is vastly different.

At the crux of the issue is access to raw code for maintenance and upgrades of flight control laws, weapon systems, flight management system and radar/weapons integration.. In addition, some are also seeking ability to perform major repairs and upgrades to the stealth characteristics of the F-35. In order to do this, all stakeholders agree that a significant understanding of the stealth requirements and technologies must be released to non-US entities.

Thus, you can see that there is some reluctance to provide this information irrespective of alliances. However, the DoD can't have it both ways. You can't expect huge cash infusions from buyers if they don't own their purchased equipment. But caution is the key in my eyes.

i agree there's no way they are gonna give up stelth tech secrets even to us over here hope we still buy it though cos it looks a very capable aircraft and the airforce could do with some decent gear

Matt308 · 12-08-2006, 01:58 PM

I don't think this is a yes or no decision. The question remains can the US and UK and the other third tier participants come to some sort of agreement on what aspects can be modified. Having those types of discussions in and of themselves often requires detailed knowledge of engineering that is highly classified (ie we don't know what to ask for until you tell us everything

). From my perspective, the UK sits in a unique position of partnership that the US can ill afford to jeopardize. Especially over areas of stealth that the UK is our equal or only slightly lagging. However, to have these discussions will require each side to "show their hand" somewhat. Look we already share technical information on Trident and Fast Attack submarine technology. Certainly the US and UK can come to an agreement on airborne stealth technologies that is mutually satisfying.

mkloby · 12-08-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

I'm a bit more cautious here. What the UK is asking for versus third tier participants is vastly different.

At the crux of the issue is access to raw code for maintenance and upgrades of flight control laws, weapon systems, flight management system and radar/weapons integration.. In addition, some are also seeking ability to perform major repairs and upgrades to the stealth characteristics of the F-35. In order to do this, all stakeholders agree that a significant understanding of the stealth requirements and technologies must be released to non-US entities.

Thus, you can see that there is some reluctance to provide this information irrespective of alliances. However, the DoD can't have it both ways. You can't expect huge cash infusions from buyers if they don't own their purchased equipment. But caution is the key in my eyes.

I'm with you on that. Opening up joint ventures and programs opens you up to this type of infighting, and added vulnerability - which is never a good thing. That said, I do believe that the UK would treat the classified material with due security, and it will make our combined allied forces that much stronger.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-09-2006, 03:17 PM

America and Great Britain have arguably the greatest allaince in the modern world, for one to deny technology to a partner without whom the project would not be a success is stupid! America had better watch out, we might not have their backs in future conflicts if not and what message will it send out to other customers if a partner in the project doesn't even buy them! but i've no doubt in my mind that we will buy some, but only once we've got more freedom over them........

mkloby · 12-09-2006, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

America and Great Britain have arguably the greatest allaince in the modern world, for one to deny technology to a partner without whom the project would not be a success is stupid! America had better watch out, we might not have their backs in future conflicts if not and what message will it send out to other customers if a partner in the project doesn't even buy them! but i've no doubt in my mind that we will buy some, but only once we've got more freedom over them........

I'm sure it will be worked out... not to worry. Especially w/ our USMC version - Rolls developed the fan!

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-10-2006, 10:52 AM

as far as i'm aware we've developed all the engines! we're the ones with the VTOL experience, that's why our engines won over P&W, although you have always got them to fall back on, not that it'll ever come to that...........

Matt308 · 12-10-2006, 01:37 PM

Let's hope not.

mkloby · 12-10-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

as far as i'm aware we've developed all the engines! we're the ones with the VTOL experience, that's why our engines won over P&W, although you have always got them to fall back on, not that it'll ever come to that...........

GE led the way to development and pulled the majority of the F136 engine program- not Rolls. Rolls had a big responsibility developing the fan, and the gearbox linkage. That said, Rolls developed the most crucial components for the USMC version.