# f-35 jsf



## rochie (Dec 8, 2006)

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 (Dec 8, 2006)

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 (Dec 8, 2006)

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


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2006)

Glider said:


> 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."


Glider said:


> 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..


Glider said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2006)

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 (Dec 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2006)

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 (Dec 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> 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 (Dec 9, 2006)

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 (Dec 9, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> 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 (Dec 10, 2006)

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 (Dec 10, 2006)

Let's hope not.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> 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.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 11, 2006)

I wasn't gonna say anything. It's not like the UK is the only country to delve into STOVL technologies.


----------



## Bf109_g (Dec 11, 2006)

Hi guys!

I was just thinking. If the F-35 JSF is brought by the USAF, does that mean the Tomcats, Eagles, Falcons and Hornets would all be replaced??

James.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 11, 2006)

Bf109_g said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> I was just thinking. If the F-35 JSF is brought by the USAF, does that mean the Tomcats, Eagles, Falcons and Hornets would all be replaced??
> 
> James.



F-14s are already out w/ the USN. USAF is replacing F-16s and A-10s, plus others I think w/ the F-35, and the F-15 is supposed to be replaced by the F-22 eventually.


----------



## Glider (Dec 12, 2006)

I suspect that some of the F15's will be replaced by F-35 simply because they are not buying enough F-22's.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

EA-18 Growler will be around for quite some time with the new ICAP III technology. F-18s will still serve as the dumptruck and fleet point defense.

F-16s will likely be relegated to ANG over a phased change over to F-35. F-15Es will remain for quite some time along with F-15Cs upgraded with AESA radar. There is even some talk of upgrading F-15s to K version equivalent, though money for that is doubtful at this time. But there is quite a bit of life left on the F-15 airframe. A-10s have just been upgraded with airframe, avionics and precision targeting capability, though they did not fund engine upgrades which were noted as mandatory. A-10s have proven VERY successful and popular for an airframe that was almost phased out over 10 years ago.

F-35 is slated to assume an A-10 type role with directed energy weapons powered from the 40,000lb thrust engines via the transmission coupling. Weapons such as High Power Microwave and Lasers are currently on the drawing board.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 12, 2006)

mkloby said:


> F-14s are already out w/ the USN. USAF is replacing F-16s and A-10s, plus others I think w/ the F-35, and the F-15 is supposed to be replaced by the F-22 eventually.




I am not a fan of replacing the A-10 with the F-35. We had F-86s and F9Fs in Korea and still needed the A-1. In Vietnam we had F-4s, A-7, and A-4s but still needed the A-1, so much so that a new plane was needed, the A-10. The down in the dirt fighting has not changed that much since then. The F-35 will not be hovering around the battlefield giving encouragement (and firepower) to the grunts and depressing the enemy (who is receiving the firepower). The plane continues to prove itself on the modern battlefield. My recommendation, give it to the Army and Marines, I'll bet they would like to have it.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

F-35s are not going to take over the A-10 role. Supplement maybe. Can't afford to shoot down one of those babies in the near term. Last I saw A-10s were slated to be on the books until 2030.


----------



## Glider (Dec 12, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I am not a fan of replacing the A-10 with the F-35. We had F-86s and F9Fs in Korea and still needed the A-1. In Vietnam we had F-4s, A-7, and A-4s but still needed the A-1, so much so that a new plane was needed, the A-10. The down in the dirt fighting has not changed that much since then. The F-35 will not be hovering around the battlefield giving encouragement (and firepower) to the grunts and depressing the enemy (who is receiving the firepower). The plane continues to prove itself on the modern battlefield. My recommendation, give it to the Army and Marines, I'll bet they would like to have it.



Have to agree with this. Close support is a dangerous game and you can expect to take hits, with this in mind the A-10 has clear advantages as long as you have control of the skies.
As its very unlikely that anyone will be able to challenge the US in air to air combat, the A-10 would get my vote over the F35.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2006)

Just read that the USA have signed an undertaking with the UK to hand over the technology that we would need to be self supporting iro the F-35.

With this sorted out there shouldn't be any problems completing the purchase assuming that the Chancellor releases the money to pay for it. For those in overseas who may not know, he is most likely to take over from Blair as Prime Minister as does have a well earned reputation for being the ultimate bean counter.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 13, 2006)

Glider said:


> Just read that the USA have signed an undertaking with the UK to hand over the technology that we would need to be self supporting iro the F-35.
> 
> With this sorted out there shouldn't be any problems completing the purchase assuming that the Chancellor releases the money to pay for it. For those in overseas who may not know, he is most likely to take over from Blair as Prime Minister as does have a well earned reputation for being the ultimate bean counter.



 you can "bean count" the leaps in capabilities this will give you over harriers!


----------

