Posted on 12/05/2005 1:11:22 AM PST by Arjun
Britain in battle with US over fighter plane Peter Almond and Dominic O'Connell
BRITAIN is threatening to pull out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a co-operative combat-aircraft project with America that is one of the largest military programmes in the world. The move, confirmed to The Sunday Times by senior defence officials, could have serious repercussions for BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, Britain’s two main contributors to the project.
BAE is part of the consortium developing the plane, and had expected revenues of about $24 billion (£13.8 billion) in development and production contracts.
Rolls-Royce is developing the lift fan for the vertical take-off version, and is working with its American rival, General Electric, on an alternative engine for the aircraft.
The JSF is a versatile plane aimed at replacing several types of aircraft currently in use, and could achieve total sales of more than $300 billion, according to some forecasts.
While the development is being driven by the Pentagon, it is being built by a multinational team in which Britain is the sole “Tier One” partner. The government has already provided $2 billion in development funding, and had been slated to buy 150 aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy.
But Britain is now threatening to withdraw after rows over the Pentagon’s reluctance to agree to the transfer of technology, and because of likely increases in the price of each plane.
According to senior Ministry of Defence officials, instructions have been given for alternative strategies for projects affected by American technology- transfer problems, the most important of which is the JSF.
Dropping the JSF would stun the defence industry, but a senior official told The Sunday Times it was time to “think the unthinkable”. “I know how the Americans negotiate,” said the official. “They will not do a deal unless they know the other side has a serious alternative. It’s like a high-stakes poker game . . . it’s essential to have a Plan B because it’s very important not to travel in hope.”
The JSF was to have equipped the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers. The “Plan B” being worked on is a version of the Eurofighter Typhoon adapted for the navy. The Typhoon recently entered service with the RAF after long delays and cost overruns.
Defence-industry sources say negotiations on the “Tranche 3” Eurofighter contract, under which Britain will take the last 88 of the 232 orders, now encompassed the issues needed to be addressed to make the aircraft fly from a carrier.
Sources close to the Eurofighter programme say there are no major obstacles to the operation, although some elements of the carrier design would have to be changed.
BAE Systems is likely to stand behind the government’s tough line on the negotiations with the Americans. The company is eager to secure more defence technology to allow it to play a full role in the JSF programme if it continues.
But Rolls-Royce could be an early casualty. Defence-industry sources in Washington said last week that the US budget row could threaten funding for the F-136 engine that it is developing in conjunction with General Electric.
ping
I actually hope Britain does withdraw. Yes they are allies. But we do not need our STEALTH technology getting into anyone else's hands.
The JSF and similar aircraft are the last war's technology.
They are unneeded. The F-22, B1, B2, F-117, F-15, A-10, and F-18's can handle all near-term threats...and in the longer term, a fighter will either have to be unmanned or sub-orbital.
Thus, the JSF program should be killed off.
I think the Air Force should give their A-10s to the Marines.
Had a Drill Instructor on Parris Island in 1989, an Air Winger, who said about Warthogs, 'You take a big gun, and you build an airplane around it...'
What I want to know is, who costs military aircraft projects? They can’t be very good at it because I can’t remember the last time one was completed within budget.
Agreed.
hey the F4U corsair was way overbudget...i think somewhere around 60,000 dollars as opposed to 55,000 for a Hellcat. that was alot of bread in 1944
The following are the nations participating in the JSF project.
Level 1: Britain. Contributed around 2 bil.
Level 2: Italy and the Netherlands. Contributed 1 bil and 800m respectively.
Level 3: Turkey ($175m), Australia ($144m), Norway ($122m), Denmark ($110m), and Canada ($100m).
Security Cooperative Participants: Israel and Singapore.
I hope we don't pull out, as the Eurofighter is gay.
The F-22 is better at air dominance by far over the F35,and the US only wants the Naval and marine vtol version of it(F35). That is one of the problems. Also, the US wont sell the F-22 to anyone, and it really doesnt trust France's getting their hands on the JSF tech(they would whore it out to anyone). Which we know that would happen since the EU is really just one bloc now. Doesnt worry me at all. Thats the great thing about a nation building its own fighters and navy we are self reliant. I love the brits but they're a strong anti-american movment in the EU. The EU and even Jack Straw in the UK was pushing for the dropping of the arms embargo of the communist chinese. Most of the EU's military tech is shared from the US, and this set off warning lights in Washington. Our top tech can not be shared with the chinese.
More than a few problems with your logic.
1. The JSF is navalized, the F-22 and F-117 aren't.
2. JSF is much less expensive than the F-22. It is to the F-22, what the F-16 was to the F-15.
3. It should be superior to the F-18 in most every way.
4. STOL/VTOL capability coupled with JSF capabilities makes each of our 12 amphibs a more capable CVA than any other country's aircraft carriers. Your plan reverts these ships to helicopter only platforms.
5. Its development is going far better than the F-22's.
JSF won't get cancelled, but the F-22 might see a very short production run.
You neatly side stepped the entire issue, which is that of very high level technology transfer to the EU member nations.
Even though I highly value Britian's close relationship with the US, that technology would find its way to every nation in the world in a short amount of time.
Apples and oranges. The F-15 is better at air dominance than the F-16, so what? That's not why the F-16 was purchased. Same goes for the JSF. It is to replace the F-16 (USAF certainly does plan on purchasing it) not the F-15. The JSF was and is to be a replacement for the F-16, F-18, and AV-8B. The fact that it is much better at air superiority than them, doesn't mean that is its primary purpose.
Curiously, this same debate raged about buying the F-16 instead of buying more F-15s.
Whole heartedly agree. MAnned fighter planes are a waste of money. Strictly for AF Generals in Pentagon reliving wars of long ago.
I would say the same thing about the F 14.
And we wouldn't be reverting anything except plans.
We don't need the JSF at the expense of our technology.
Agree, not even Israel that sold UAVs to China and penetrated our intelligence on Iran. F-35 should be for US only. Sales to certain allies are tolerable even it is concern of leaks of technology, but it is very irritating when it comes to sales to anti-American countries, especially the Islamofascist Turkey that are violating human rights and still denying the Armenian Genocide, genocide against our Christian brothers. We could always provide F/A-18E/F Block III for allies that want stealthiness, but something not as much as the F/A-22 and F-35, letting US to maintain its advantage in stealth technology.
Speaking of Israel, they just got a pali bomber attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.