European Politics Thread.

[[evo] dan 79]

What's the alternative?

Rafale?

Bringing back the Harrier?

Naval Typhoon?

All of the above have been discussed as possible alternatives.

[PELHAM 10]

Dan;2135638']Rafale?

Bringing back the Harrier?

Naval Typhoon?

All of the above have been discussed as possible alternatives.

Naval Typhoon? - possibly the only realistic option.

With the money spent both in F-35 aircraft procurement (3 already purchased) and aircraft carrier design it would probably cost significantly more?

[Tonci87 163]

Invest the money in something usefull? It´s not like Italy or GB will suddenly need thise fighters. 90 F-35 are way too much for Italy. Croatia, its neighbour country, has 10! Mig 21 in service. Slowenia doesn´t have fighters at all, Switzerland has 33 F/A 18 and 54 F-5. Well France has plenty of fighters, but are they likely to invade Italy? So why do they need 90 state of the art F-35?

[PELHAM 10]

Invest the money in something usefull? It´s not like Italy or GB will suddenly need thise fighters. 90 F-35 are way too much for Italy. Croatia, its neighbour country, has 10! Mig 21 in service. Slowenia doesn´t have fighters at all, Switzerland has 33 F/A 18 and 54 F-5. Well France has plenty of fighters, but are they likely to invade Italy? So why do they need 90 state of the art F-35?

The unstable North of Africa is just beyond their borders and Italy has had to defend against incursions by Libyan Mig's in the past. They require an airforce to defend against any future threats from that area, who knows what will happen as time passes?

Edited April 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[NoRailgunner 0]

Italy is/was the second largest contributor partner after the UK in the F35 (JSF) project. They simply want to see their investment = F35 A/B variants in duty asap. The Eurofighter Typhoon can't be "navalised" just by using superglue (arrestor hook) and scissors (folding wings).

[Tonci87 163]

Italy is/was the second largest contributor partner after the UK in the F35 (JSF) project. They simply want to see their investment = F35 A/B variants in duty asap. The Eurofighter Typhoon can't be "navalised" just by using superglue (arrestor hook) and scissors (folding wings).

Yeah that alone was pretty stupid in the first place

[Baff1 0]

Naval Typhoon? - possibly the only realistic option.

With the money spent both in F-35 aircraft procurement (3 already purchased) and aircraft carrier design it would probably cost significantly more?

Rafale is realistic, as is the Hornet.

I'm sure the Russians sell something usable too.

None at all is also realistic.

Or some navalised Apaches. No reason why close air support has to be fixed wing in nature.

Or there is drones to be considered also.

Probably too late for the harriers since I think we've sold them.

Frankly a naval Typhoon doesn't sound any more unlikely than a naval F 35 at this point. Why is one plane they can't easily get to work superior over another more expensive plane they can't easily get to work?

It's just a case of which manufacturer you want to throw all the money at.

I'd say the Typhoon is increasingly looking smarter and smarter the more ridiculous and expensive the F 35 development gets.

At least if it ever came into service we would be using a unified supply chain for parts and weapon systems and pilot/crew training.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Baff1

[[evo] dan 79]

I actually think us buying Rafales would be more likely, it has already suggested that it would be preferable to buy them instead of paying to develop a naval version of the eurofighter. It would also make sense, as they are already used on the French carriers, and so would help both countries to save money on defense, as well as potentially opening up new markets for the plane (I assume we would buy the Rafale on the condition we get to make at least some of it)

[PELHAM 10]

Rafale is realistic, as is the Hornet.

I'm sure the Russians sell something usable too.

Or some navalised Apaches. No reason why close air support has to be fixed wing in nature.

Or there is drones to be considered also.

Probably too late for the harriers since I think we've sold them.

Frankly a naval Typhoon doesn't sound any more unlikely than a naval F 35 at this point. Why is one plane they can't easily get to work superior over another more expensive plane they can't easily get to work?

It's just a case of which manufacturer you want to throw all the money at.

I'd say the Typhoon is increasingly looking smarter and smarter the more ridiculous and expensive the F 35 development gets.

At least if it ever came into service we would be using a unified supply chain for parts and weapon systems and pilot/crew training.

-Many nations have evaluated the F-18 in recent years and most have bought something else, the production line is open but the orders are drying up.

-The Russians don't sell anything useable by the UK.

-The UK's apaches are already 'navalised' but could never replace fixed wing aircraft.

-What makes you think a navalised Typhoon would be any cheaper - as already said you can't just glue on stronger landing gear and a hook. The F35 is almost ready to go into production and it would probably take 10 years for a Typhoon equivalent to be ready. The UK would have to bear all the development costs itself.

-The Rafale probably wouldn't be an option as the French would never allow production to be moved elsewhere. The entire reason that the Rafale exists is because the French wanted all Eurofighter Typhoon production to be based in France. When the other partners refused they went their own way.

It's a slightly more complex subject than many observers lead people to believe.

[Pyronick 21]

I don't know. As of yet - the F-35 hasn't proven anything but a political and financial cumbersome paperweight. In the Netherlands the controversial JSF has already been subject of debate. For instance it is much louder than the Dutch law allows - but it looks like the NIFARP (Dutch Defense industry interest group) and NDIA (representing Lockheed Martin) lobby groups have their claws in everything - even the power to persuade the House of Representatives and the Senate to continue the project no matter what political parties they house at the moment.

The Eurofighter is - as an airframe perhaps outdated - but it's development is still ongoing. And I can't imagine that a navalized Eurofighter is impossible, in fact I think it would be a smart move. It could increase cost effectiveness as the RAF already has Eurofighters in active service.

It could even get back the Indian Air Force MMRCA contract which has gone to Dassault's Rafale.

However, it could slightly damage the ties with France and the United States. But considering BAE is most likely to run the project - it would be more beneficial to the UK economy than the JSF and in the European context strengthen the European defense cohesion.

But I assume that the JSF project is some sort of secret trade agreement between the US and the JSF project member states and is inevitable.

Edited April 16, 2012 by SgtH3nry3

[Baff1 0]

The Russians sell plenty of things usable by the UK.

Their fighter bombers are pretty kickarse, navalised and likely cheap.

We dont have any naval fixed wing aircraft to replace. Nor any explicit need for any.

What theatre would they even be used in?

The F 35 needs stronger landing gear itself. And isn't currently expected to go into full production for another 7 years.

Given that the costs for F 35 are open ended and growing by the day... it's difficult to precisely weigh any comparative costs. However given that they cost over three times as much as a Eurofighter currently, and I would reasonably expect this price to increase...

What other nations have chosen for the F 18 doesn't concern me. Only what is the best buy for ours.

Made in the UK would be a bonus but not a necessity for a successful fleet air arm.

I would also agree that the UK however has entered into some sort of binding contractual agreement with the producers of the JSF to buy some. No idea what though.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Baff1

[nettrucker 142]

these are the major corporations who profit from that deal.

Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management owns 4.86M shares worth $393.31M

First Eagle Investment Management owns 3.84M shares worth $310.95M

Wellington Management Company owns 3.66M shares worth $295.74M

Allianz Global Investors of America owns 3.07M shares worth $248.26M

Veritas Asset Management owns 2.86M shares worth $231.35M

Barclays owns 2.76M shares worth $223.19M

Bank of America Corporation owns 2.48M shares worth $200.23M

Chieftain Capital Management owns 2.16M shares worth $175.08M

Tradewinds Global Investors owns 2.16M shares worth $178.52M

ARONSON JOHNSON ORTIZ owns 1.85M shares worth $149.96M

Geode Capital Management owns 1.84M shares worth $148.90M

Elm Ridge Management owns 1.49M shares worth $108.50M

GOLDMAN SACHS owns 1.49M shares worth $120.69M

Legal & General owns 1.32M shares worth $106.95M

TIAA-CREF Investment Management owns 1.21M shares worth $98.26M

Cornerstone Investment Partners owns 1.15M shares worth $103.01M

Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking owns 1.11M shares worth $89.81M

New York State Common Retirement Fund owns 1.11M shares worth $89.62M

Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings owns 1.07M shares worth $86.21M

CalPERS owns 1.06M shares worth $86.12M

Parallax Volatility Advisers owns 1.06M shares worth $85.46M

Herndon Capital Management owns 1.01M shares worth $82.23M

Pacific Heights Asset Management owns 1.01M shares worth $81.47M

Epoch Investment Partners owns 979191 shares worth $79.22M

Inves owns 898354 shares worth $72.68M

Artisan Partners Holdings owns 878167 shares worth $71.11M

Artisan Partners Limited Partnership owns 866840 shares worth $70.13M

http://stockzoa.com/ticker/lmt/

Edited April 17, 2012 by nettrucker

[PELHAM 10]

We dont have any naval fixed wing aircraft to replace. Nor any explicit need for any.

What theatre would they even be used in?

In May 1997, the newly elected Labour government launched the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) which re-evaluated every weapon system (active or in procurement). The report, published in July 1998 identified that aircraft carriers offered the following:

Ability to operate offensive aircraft abroad when foreign basing may be denied.

All required space and infrastructure; where foreign bases are available they are not always available early in a conflict and infrastructure is often lacking.

A coercive and deterrent effect when deployed to a trouble spot.

The report concluded: "the emphasis is now on increased offensive air power, and an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles. When the current carrier force reaches the end of its planned life, we plan to replace it with two larger vessels. Work will now begin to refine our requirements but present thinking suggests that they might be of the order of 30,000–40,000 tonnes and capable of deploying up to fifty aircraft, including helicopters."

The Labour Government locked the UK into a binding contract for these aircraft carriers, they can't be cancelled. So we need something to fly from them or are you suggesting they strap cargo containers to the decks and use them as the most expensive freight transports ever built? The need for Aircraft carriers is outlined in the above strategic defence review.

The F 35 needs stronger landing gear itself. And isn't currently expected to go into full production for another 7 years.

Not sure what you mean by that? The F35B/C the UK is intending to buy is in production already? Around 40 aircraft will be completed this year with peak production expected in 2016.

BAE delivers 50th rear fuselage section for F35

I would suggest you start checking facts before posting.

Here is the production line:

The sharp eyed and aircraft savvy will note that's the first production F35A. Here is an F35C testing the electromagnetic catapult expected to be installed on UK aircraft carriers:

edit: May or may not happen - seems they are still undecided over F35B orC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv3FCpQVVx4

Edited April 17, 2012 by PELHAM

[VanhA-ICON 11]

What other nations have chosen for the F 18 doesn't concern me. Only what is the best buy for ours.

We (Finland) bought 64 of those and are now totally screwed with them.

As in current economical situation we have no funds to arm them properly and US refused to sell AMRAAM for them. Then our imbecile government did not take into account that they can't get the armament at a same price as in US.

This was propably one of the reasons Finland did not send any planes to Libya.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well there is time one can upgrade stuff and there is time when one need to replace old/obsolete stuff but without politics and lobbies it would be too easy to find & use "the best" solution.... ;)

[[evo] dan 79]

The first British F35B had its maiden flight today (or was it yesturday)?

[PELHAM 10]

Dan;2136183']The first British F35B had its maiden flight today (or was it yesturday)?

Yes the pictures are here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/6937801636/in/photostream/

[spooky lynx 73]

The Russians sell plenty of things usable by the UK.

Their fighter bombers are pretty kickarse, navalised and likely cheap.

Now the only one is Mi-8s which are used for training:) And if I'm not mistaken, they aren't used anymore.

[Prydain 1]

The UK cannot just buy Russian hardware off the shelf. This naive nonsense is about on par as saying that the Typhoon is outdated... On that note, can we stop mentioning navalising the Typhoon on this forum? It is getting a bit retarded now, you cannot simply convert existing airframes or, within reasonable time-line or budget, redesign large sections and workings of an aircraft to make it navalised.

As far as the JCA is concerned, BK-1 is a B variant which is not the variant that the UK is procuring. If I am not mistaken the UK is locked into purchasing a few (4, I think) airframes before the production aircraft start to come so that picture isn't anything to get excited about.

[batto 17]

Good news

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/18/1228209/judge-rules-takedown-of-pirate-party-general-proxy-illegal

[Tonci87 163]

Good news

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/18/1228209/judge-rules-takedown-of-pirate-party-general-proxy-illegal

Ididn`t expect that.

[Baff1 0]

Not sure what you mean by that? The F35B/C the UK is intending to buy is in production already? Around 40 aircraft will be completed this year with peak production expected in 2016.

BAE delivers 50th rear fuselage section for F35

I would suggest you start checking facts before posting.

I checked my facts before posting thanks.

They didn't agree with yours.

The Labour Government locked the UK into a binding contract for these aircraft carriers, they can't be cancelled. So we need something to fly from them or are you suggesting they strap cargo containers to the decks and use them as the most expensive freight transports ever built? The need for Aircraft carriers is outlined in the above strategic defence review.

They can scrap production of those 2 carrriers too.

They look like little more than vanity ships to me.

All contracts can be cancelled.

The strategic defense review can be cancelled too. It's not like it was a good one anyway.

Sorry but there is really useful equipment we could be making and buying for this kind of money. But all we are ending up with is vanity junk to excite teenage minds with.

We've got cuts to the army, no frigates, no tanks. No Nimrods. We can't even defend our nuclear arsenal. We're axing our bombers.

And for what?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

The UK cannot just buy Russian hardware off the shelf. This naive nonsense is about on par as saying that the Typhoon is outdated... On that note, can we stop mentioning navalising the Typhoon on this forum? It is getting a bit retarded now, you cannot simply convert existing airframes or, within reasonable time-line or budget, redesign large sections and workings of an aircraft to make it navalised..

Why can't the UK just buy Russia hardware off the shelf? I do.

I didn't thnk a redesign would be "simple". I just think that the F35 project isn't operating on a reasonable time-line or budget either. Far from it.

It's operating on an utterly preposterous one that greatly overvalues the usefulness of the military capability it brings. It's a massive waste of time and money.

All these arguments about the problems involved in adding tail hooks and landing gear to Eurofighters made alot more sense to me before the F35 then went on to have all the exact same issues.

As for being on par, on par with what?

Currently we have nothing.

An Su 33 is a kickarse airframe. Any old workhorse will do, all it has to do is carry a radar and fire missiles/drop bombs reliably.

Given that the Harriers WTF PWNED the Argies, just think what an Su 33 would do the them. Or Hornet too, if Russia/China is too big of an ideological bugbear for you.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Baff1

[spooky lynx 73]

Why can't the UK just buy Russia hardware off the shelf? I do.

Different specifications, calibers, communication device standards etc., I suppose. But with some modification all this won't be a problem.

If I'm not mistaken, new NATO members continue to buy our stuff such as helicopters.

[Baff1 0]

We have the second biggest aircraft industry in the world, we can mod up a Russian plane just as fast as we can mod up a US one.

[NoRailgunner 0]

One would need to reconfigure and outfit these RF vehicles/system so they are all on the same level with other stuff in use/fielded by UK/NATO. Of course maintenance, supply chain and the local/national production do play another major role. Btw how do you know that:

we can mod up a Russian plane just as fast as we can mod up a US one.

...or are you just using blue eyes and blond hair to "mod up" stuff?