Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[Prydain 1]

Use horizontal borers instead much more flexable than a milling machine. :D

You can buy them for about 1/2 a million each.

Oh my fucking cock, I'm having a geek-off with walker! Win.

What I mean, walker, is that even though you are circling money around, you aren't gaining any and will probably loose more since you will have to construct new sites or renovate old ones, buy machines from Germany and have material costs to deal with. We are talking hypothetically anyway.

[walker 0]

Oh my fucking cock, I'm having a geek-off with walker! Win...

ROFL

Prydain, Way way back in the mid to late 70s I worked for Eastwood Engineering which at the time had one of the worlds biggest and most advanced Horizontal Floor Borers. It was where I started my engineering apprenticeship. I worked on among other things: the bearings for the first Inter City 125 trains; the load carriers for Humber suspension bridge, they were gigantic and required us to uses two cranes to shift them with in the workshop; as well as anything big that needed making for Dosco.

The area I specialised in later was welding, I worked on some of the most advanced welding technology in the world from TI Powerflex to GEC, foil thin metals, from titanium and aluminum to even copper and some alloys like Inconel, Incoloy, and Monel that most people will never have heard of and others that were at the time a little hush hush. And using everything from lazers to Electron beams, as well as the usual TIG and MIG. Though even some of the TIG welding I did was vacuum chamber (to remove impurities) followed by argon flush to provide the gas for the plasma in the chamber. We worked in this clean room.

Margaret Thatcher came round to congratulate us on our pioneering high tech work, and employing disabled people, in the stores as I remember, but more importantly so she could be photographed with us in a clean room suit opposite the hi tech robot welding machine. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104550 White heat of technology was still the phrase then, and hight tech equaled electoral votes. At the time the UK was shedding manufacturing jobs at thousands a week and Margaret thatcher had a reputation as a Jonah to UK manufacturing Jobs.

I only worked in engineering until the early eighties when I taught that robot to do that last welding job. I quit the job after training the robot, I saw which way the wind was blowing and that there was no future in it and watching a robot do my job kinda disheartened me.

A few months later Margret Thatcher signed the contract we were doing for the electrification of the railways over to a firm in Germany along with the technology we had invented, within a year even that technology was out of date, and the UK side of the firm declined from then on.

Now you can say you have had a Geek Off :D

I agree all this talk about the UK's choice of aircraft for a possible aircraft carrier is hypothetical.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 7, 2010 by walker

[jeza 5415]

Dam pritty gig news, any news on a confo?

Kind Regards Jeza

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

I agree all this talk about the UK's choice of aircraft for a possible aircraft carrier is hypothetical.

The carriers aren't hypothetical, they're being built. We'll need something to fly from them!

Also, found this

oIEQgBKXkME&hl=en_GB&amp

Edited August 6, 2010 by TechnoTerrorist303

[TomatoArden 0]

The carriers aren't hypothetical, they're being built. We'll need something to fly from them!

they already started cutting huge chunks of metal for the hull!

or soemthing anyway.

anybody see the latest daily telygraph story about raf cuts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. Like where it mentions the out of service of all Hercules (even apparently the new c-130Js they only just bought into service). also, note the lack of any sources what so ever, not even the whitehall/mod quotes at the bottom confirm or deny the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

[Blackhawk 0]

they already started cutting huge chunks of metal for the hull!

or soemthing anyway.

anybody see the latest daily telygraph story about raf cuts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. Like where it mentions the out of service of all Hercules (even apparently the new c-130Js they only just bought into service). also, note the lack of any sources what so ever, not even the whitehall/mod quotes at the bottom confirm or deny the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

Does sound like horseshit. I don't believe anything from these minor tabloids or newspapers. I only believe something if I see an actual statement from an official, and that the BBC says something about it.

If this is true, it goes against the policies of the current Government.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

There was something on BBC News 24 this morning about RAF cuts in a story titled "the few" but I think that was the bit where they read the newspaper headlines. I don't know, it was 6:20 am and I was trying to get a 15 month old to eat breakfast.

[ricbar89 0]

Hi ch_123

A Naval variant Typhoon was part of the original requirements. All current versions of the Typhoon have an arrestor hook already built in as part of the Airframe Systems / Landing Assemblies.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=Eurofighter_Typhoon

So conversion to full Naval capability would not be too complex. The airframe was already designed and built for the naval role, so all that is needed is beefing up the landing gear; which the original design already incorporated the physical capability for, and adding in some avionics.

A relativley simple enhancement program.

Kind Regards walker

The arrestor hook has nothing to do with carrier capabilities the airframe was never built for the naval role and it would not at all be a simple job.

[walker 0]

Hi ricbar89

As I pointed out in this later post

...

both BAE and latter studies seem to differ with you on that:

...The possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as "Plan B" when the UK hit severe problems in relation to technology transfer for the F-35 JSF. Published leaks indicated that BAE engineers had concluded (presumably in the earlier studies) that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings. The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate. There were a number of options for reducing sink rate, only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline. The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant....

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm

As always follow the link to the full original text

I recommend reading the full post as it deals with the subject in detail.

Though studies until recently have focused on the low and less important upfront cost and have not taken in to account the far more substantial back-end and peripheral costs as well as the key full internal and balance of trade costs, exporting both hard cash and jobs when in a recession has a very bad effect on the balance of trade.

Along with Suez war effect leading to worries that if US interests were as with Suez not pro the UK we would be left with out an effective Navy. There is also the lack of full technology transfer being reciprocated as happened with the Harrier. Additionally the recent Chinook screw up and its massive cost increase all bear against a US solution.

These are the main reason the JSF is being reconsidered and other options looked at.

Without doubt much of this is the normal and correct practice of playing suppliers off against each other to get the best deal. As I always say get three Quotes for everything, make your suppliers compete on all aspects. Ram down their profits untill they scream, that is the way you get the best deal.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 7, 2010 by walker

[ricbar89 0]

BAE are going to say its cheap and practical, read the article yourself, there’s countless references pointing to the fact its anything but.

The Typhoon was never designed with naval capabilities, I think the French pushed for it years back but the British weren’t interested, funny how that turned out.

"It is not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft".

Otherwise the aircraft would be relying on computer controlled precise landing systems to avoid spending huge sums of money to strengthen the aircraft.

But these BAE's idea's do not seem to have been accepted by the MOD, indeed they would appear to be a rather risky cost reduction measure which have become a source of major problems in the future, e.g. preventing flight operations in heavy seas or leading to costly repairs of prematurely fatigued aircraft.

So they may have had another look in 2005 when things were looking grim, and again BAE may have called it practical, but it certainly isn’t a “A relativley simple enhancement program.â€

The MOD appears to be internally considering the implications of converting its planned Tranche 3 batch of 88 Eurofighter Typhoon’s in to a navalised “Sea Typhoon†variant suitable for operation from CVF. However the likely costs and difficulties can not be underestimated, expected modifications include changes of materials to reduce corrosion, the addition of an arrestor hook, a larger and thicker wing with power folding, and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines. Even then, there would remain fundamental issues and risks such as the aircrafts canards restricting the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings.

BAE Systems’ Chief Executive Officer, Mike Turner, told the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 28th February 2006:

"it is possible to navalise Typhoon. It is not what we would recommend, because if Joint Strike Fighter proceeds, and we believe it will, I think, in terms of capability for the Armed Forces of the UK, it is the right aircraft, but, indeed, as Lord Drayson has made clear, there needs to be a fall-back in case something goes wrong. Therefore, we would suggest there should be an investigation into navalising Typhoon as very much a fall-back solution. We do not see any other fall-back solution."

Edited August 7, 2010 by ricbar89

[rksl-rock 1300]

Walker, even if you post that link 1000 times it wont make the article any less out of date. It was last updated in 2007! And even then most of the "facts" in there are mostly media facing tripe released from the various press offices involved before 2003.

I promise you there will not be a navalised Typhoon (as much as I would like to see one) the politics and the workshare/contractual setup involved in NETMA wouldn't allow it unless the major partners are willing to share the costs. The UK does not hold the design authority for the areas that would be reworked. And even when the design agreement lapses in 2024 it will be too late.

The only reason the F-35B is being reconsidered is the ever spiralling cost. Right now you can buy 1.8 Typhoons for one F-35B. 1.4 for an F-35C and 1.1 for an F-18E/F.

The technology transfer issues were resolved and the limits set in contractual stone. Should the US fail to provide said transfer there are HUGE penalties written into the agreement.

Any significant change to the JCA or CVF programmes right now may appear to provide a cost saving on the face of it. But in reality any change to JCA would cripple the MoD far faster than just buying the F-35B or C.

And I'll remind you that the last time there was a decision milestone for JCA/JSF in the Uk someone in government started rumours about asking for Proposals of Rafales. (an aircraft with no single component made in the UK and no prospect of industrial transfer) So that would never of happened.

So we return to the F-18 "Silent Hornet" - an unproven concept that while based on a proven airframe has so many proposed changes to the airframe and systems as to be almost a new aircraft. And along with that the required changes to the CVF carriers...

Its just not practical given the UK's dwindling aerospace industry's dependence on the F-35 Project. Currently there are only two serious options. Less F-35Bs or swap to the F-35C.

It is the reality of the situation. I know you wont believe anything unless the info comes from a faceless un verified blog/source with vague press releases as fact but I swear to you it will never happen. I've worked within the UK defence procurement sector for over 13 years now. This situation has been debated to death during that time and everyone that is in the "know" says the same. Britain cannot afford to pull out of JSF on economic, industrial and political reasons. Even though "the plane sucks donkey balls". (That's a direct quote from a friend at MoD Procurement Executive Abbeywood).

[walker 0]

Hi all

Sources for this may well be very very high up.

Double blow for David Cameron as two of his senior advisers prepare to quit the Government

By Jason Groves

Last updated at 9:58 AM on 3rd August 2010

Two of David Cameron's key advisers have announced their resignations.

Former Army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt has quit as an adviser to David Cameron following an outcry over his appointment to a political role.

And the Prime Minister is also set to lose his National Security Adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, who was only appointed three months ago and is expected to stand down next year.

Sir Richard was controversially appointed as an adviser to Mr Cameron during last year's Conservative Party conference, just weeks after stepping down as the Army's Chief of the General Staff.

The appointment infuriated Labour and caused disquiet within the Army and Whitehall, where there was concern it could undermine the tradition of political neutrality in the Armed Forces.

But yesterday the outspoken former general announced that he had 'retired' from the role.

He was originally taken on to advise on the forthcoming strategic defence review, and had hoped to become a Tory defence minister.

But an attempt to install him in the Lords was blocked in April on the grounds that he should wait at least a year before taking up a political role.

This made it impossible for him to be appointed a minister.

..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299401/General-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-quits-Government-defence-adviser.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

As always follow the link to original text

I am not a great follower of the Daily Mail In fact think it along with Daily Express are worse than the Sun when page three girl has her time of the month but even a right wing rag has its perspective.

General Sir Richard Dannatt is considered to be extemely anti Aircraft Carrier. He was probably seen as the hatchet man, but the Labour party scupered his Lords Appointment. Margaret Thatcher also used such hatchet men, for the Railways, Steel Works, Mines and of course the pre-Falklands gutting of the Navy, Airforce and Army, the Falklands war taught her not to do it to the military plus she would have found it hard to do post winning the war, it was at that time her major vote winner.

Hatchet Men is an ancient Torry tradition going back to Beeching and probably beyond; they are used so what is rembered is Hatchet Men and not the party. EG you remeber Beeching but you do not remember who the Party or Prime Minister was that made the decision, this is very important at election times.

An Example is this:

RAF to shrink to World War One levels

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Published: 10:22PM BST 06 Aug 2010

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole†in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

Follow the link to the full article and original text

If Dannat had the job he would be the name associated with it, a modern day Beeching; rather than Cameron. The plan had all ready been set in motion and could not be stopped so when Dannat and the other guy failed to take up the posts Cameron was left with the evidense of the bloody hatchet in his hand and no well paid patsy to take the flack for him, Ooops!

Kind Regards walker

[Prydain 1]

RAF to shrink to World War One levels

Wouldn't that be a real terms increase? Either way, reporting on the possibility that the SDR will bring before it has concluded will tell us nothing except that news reporting is a profession with too much dead weight.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As pointed out the backend costs are a key factor in why the both the UK and now US Navy thinks JSF may not be advisable.

JSF - Navy Ready To Abandon Ship?

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/15/2010 5:17 AM CST

The Navy is not happy with the new joint-service fighter. It's gained weight during development, but more importantly, the Navy isn't sure that the capabilities it provides are what they want to spend more money on. It's tempting to scrap it and go with an alternative, from a company with recent carrier-jet experience. The obstacle is a headstrong Secretary of Defense who's staked his reputation on the joint program, but the signals are clear: the moment he's gone the Navy's going to bail.

Enough about the F-111. What about JSF?

For the service of "loose lips sink ships", the Navy leaked the blandly titled "Joint Programs TOC Affordability" document through more holes than IJN Yamato off Okinawa. This was no baby-seals-type accident. It's a deliberate hit at the highest level.

Image of a graph in the original

The key chart is page 10, which shows that - over the lifetime of the fleet - the carrier-based and STOVL JSF versions will cost the Navy 40 per cent more, in total operating costs, than the F/A-18C/Ds and AV-8Bs that they replace. (The older aircraft costs are taken from FY2008 and include a lot of aging-aircraft issues.) This is despite a smaller fleet and fewer flight hours: the new aircraft are expected to cost more than 60 per cent more to fly per hour than their predecessors...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af2921a42-0e4a-4bcd-aebf-3eedeafb6984

As always follow the link to the original text

When you add in a option to leap frog a whole fighter class to the UCAV the JSF options seems to continue to decline in validity.

Kind regards walker

[Baff1 0]

I'm not sure UCAV is exactly a great design concept in high tech dogfighting.

Doesn't some big slow old dinosaur framed AWACS just emit a jamming signal and they all fall out of the sky?

I'm like that guy in the sci fi movie. I think a plane with a pilot is ultimately superior.

[walker 0]

Hi Baff1

You really think the US Pentagon and NATO is that stupid?

The solution is simple, it is called Frequency hopping.

http://www.worldsecurity-index.com/index.php?pg=91

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

That is a solution. But it is hardly a very foolproof one.

If they hop frequencies so will the jammers. Or they will just jam a broader spectrum.

Or worse still they will hack the codes and usurp them!

I will believe NATO and the Pentagon are that stupid when they replace their entire airforces with drones.

I also think that developing an effective jammer will be quicker and cheaper than developing a drone.

While drones are clearly the future, they are only a part of it.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

In fairness, if enemy forces were able to tap into the radio system of a manned fighter aircraft, wouldn't they be as compromised in effect?

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

If the enemy taps into the radio communication system of a manned aircraft then it's up to the pilot and established security protocols to distinguish between real and false orders. It's not quite the same as having a remote controlled plane where someone else has a controller operating on the same frequency.

For the "bread and butter" of today's military operations then UAV is the way to go. Pointing lasers at tents and camels doesn't require a person to be present but for hypothetical environments where you don't have overwhelming air superiority and you need to have decisions made in realtime based on assessment of a situation through stimulus that can't be transmitted over a radio link you need a human pilot.

[walker 0]

That is a solution. But it is hardly a very foolproof one.

If they hop frequencies so will the jammers. Or they will just jam a broader spectrum.

Or worse still they will hack the codes and usurp them! ...

Hi Baff1

Ahah you are talking about HARM missile targets! Which are probable targets of UCAVs in the first place.

The whole idea of the UCAV is to take control of the enemy airspace by removing all its assets. EG, Jammers, Radars, Radar controled missiles, Radio attenas and pilot in the plane type aircraft.

When they turn on to Jam or to hack the enemey system you become a target and they just send a simple stupid anti radiations missile down the track to the source and BOOM! No more jammer.

As I said do you realy think the Pentagon is that stupid.

As to cracking the command codes well there are million dollar prizes for the person who comes up with a method of cracking commerical code algorythms.

Just do a google search for: prize for cracking encryption algorithm

Government signals encrytion tends to be even tighter.

Like I said Governments tend to be all over this.

Kind Regards walker

[MontyVCB 0]

I'm still doubtful an UCAV could be a viable replacement for a man in a cockpit. Not until I see one down a MIG-29 at least.

[Daniel 0]

Yeah, you're still going to need Mk 1 Eyeballs in the sky. Can't imagine an unmanned combat aircraft pulling alongside a potentially hijacked airliner.

[echo1 0]

Hi Baff1

Ahah you are talking about HARM missile targets! Which are probable targets of UCAVs in the first place.

The whole idea of the UCAV is to take control of the enemy airspace by removing all its assets. EG, Jammers, Radars, Radar controled missiles, Radio attenas and pilot in the plane type aircraft.

When they turn on to Jam or to hack the enemey system you become a target and they just send a simple stupid anti radiations missile down the track to the source and BOOM! No more jammer.

As I said do you realy think the Pentagon is that stupid.

As to cracking the command codes well there are million dollar prizes for the person who comes up with a method of cracking commerical code algorythms.

Just do a google search for: prize for cracking encryption algorithm

Government signals encrytion tends to be even tighter.

Like I said Governments tend to be all over this.

Kind Regards walker

Wasn't it reported a few months ago that insurgents in Pakistan or Afghanistan were hacking into UAVs and watching their video feed?

[Baff1 0]

The whole idea of the UCAV is to take control of the enemy airspace by removing all its assets. EG, Jammers, Radars, Radar controled missiles, Radio attenas and pilot in the plane type aircraft.

Sending an aircraft that is highly susceptable to jamming out to destroy aircraft jammers isn't a very rock, scissors, paper approach.

If this is the Pentagons and MOD's big idea, it is a singularly bad one.

Over the top lads!

I think much as with stealth bombers this technology, as long as it is kept secret is going to be good for one use in the role you describe. Just as Stealths were.

But thereafter, once the signals have been recorded, the enemy will have all the intelligence it needs to modify it's existing equipment to counter it.

So with Taranis for example at £142 million a piece instead of the £63 million for a Typhoon it's pretty expensive for a system that is only going to be used in one single war.

I suggest to you that in the current climate if that is the proposed role of Taranis, it will never be commisioned at all.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Baff1

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Wasn't it reported a few months ago that insurgents in Pakistan or Afghanistan were hacking into UAVs and watching their video feed?

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. US/UK military information security is nowhere near as good as they'd like everyone to think it is.