UK considers not purchasing JSF's

I don't get it, we stipped many of the planes we sold to Israel of their key electronic components and Israel managed to build electronic packages to fit their needs. I don't want to accuse the Brits of whining because if what these bloggers are saying is true someone in the USAF needs to be ***** slapped, but can't they put together the electronic components on their own? Is it just me or does this deal also stink of the White House intervening in a position where their opinion quite frankly is not necessary because nobody in that administration has proven to me that they are capable of understanding the implications of their actions. I read somewhere that the White House tried to cut the planned number of F-22's by 2/3's and instead get the JSF-35. The Air Force needs the best air superiority plane in the world because their aircraft are more likely to go up against the best the rest have to offer, Marine Corps aircraft are more likely to be used in ground attack missions only and the Navy has to compromise anyways because it has to be carrier launch and recovery able.
 
Damien435 said:
I don't get it, we stripped many of the planes we sold to Israel of their key electronic components and Israel managed to build electronic packages to fit their needs.
Click to expand...

Well, I wonder whether that would be possible with the JSF. My understanding is that they will completely rely on their computers to stay in the air (part of the trend to get more combat performance by having aerodynamically "unstable" aircraft). In any event it would push the cost up.
 
What is happening to Britain has happened to Australia on two occasions.
Both the F111 and FA-18 purchases suffered budget blow outs and the reneging of technology and in the Hornets case the withholding of certain avionics capeabilities. Can't remember off the top of my head exactly what the yanks refused to hand over.
In both case the RAAF coped it sweet and got on with the job of flying them.
In the early to mid 90's the RAAF Hornets had tricked up "home built" sourced avionics etc added to them. So good that we then had to give that tech back to the yanks to use if needded. Now intergrated in the newer large hornet but I am stuffed if I can remember what it was.
Its all part of big business and I can actually understand that big AC companies would like to keep their finger in the pie when it comes to maintenance and consumables.
Block boxes etc are supposed to be throw away lifed. The Yanks do this cause they can afford to. Big budget and all. In Australias case nothing is throw away if it can be pulled apart, serviced somehow and then re used.
Something Mcdonell Douglas found out to their horror some years ago.
Why wasn't the Aussies ordering more spares????? "My god they are manufacturing those parts etc themselves".
We found a way around it is all.
I am wondering if there is more to the JSF troubles than just who can do what with the bits n pieces.
Did the Brits realise that the other contenders were better after all????
Probably comes down to dollars and cents and which fat politician and MOD knobber is holding that portfolio at the time.......
 
anyway the JSF programe is aimed primarily to kill aerospace industry worldwide except USA. If not, why don't the US transfer the full tech to its first ally mmh ? :???:
Moreover I don't think the Typhoon could be navalized, 'cause they should change the avionics. That's mean they have to build an other fighter :bang: Good luck the Brits !
 
An interesting take on this situation giving some of the background.

It highlights an interesting problem. If you rely on other countries to co-develop your military hardware, there are inevitably going to be tensions on sharing the technology and the work. Do it by yourself and you will inevitably lack certain capabilities.

I don't see why we can't do it the old-fashioned way: develop our own weapons systems here in the UK, and use spying and blackmail to fill in any gaps.
 
Well, that would not work with all the secret services and all. It is more appropreable to work internatinoally! The country can alternatively buy old technology and upgrade from there, making a new system!
 
Rabs said:
I would probally take the eurofighter anyway, its just the better plane.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Now I'm in no way an expert, but judging by looks, the Eurofighter looks like a 70s/early 80s-design, while the JSF looks more like a late 80s/90s design.

Either way, the problem with the EF Typhoon is that it's not designed to take of from CVs, while at least one version of the JSF is.
 
Well, the design of the Euro Typhoon may look old, but it is definietly high tech! DId you know, the HUD in the plane follows the movement of your eyes! So you can track enemy planes faster and the plane will follow throught the direction of turn and the missile direction too!
 
Well, the design of the Euro Typhoon may look old, but it is definietly high tech! DId you know, the HUD in the plane follows the movement of your eyes! So you can track enemy planes faster and the plane will follow throught the direction of turn and the missile direction too!
Click to expand...

I think most all new planes have that feature.

And Mohmar the JSFs radar signature is large (compared to F-22) and it doesnt have amazing manuverability. Its radar isnt quite as powerful as the one in the euro fighter as well. I really dont like the JSF.
 
zander_0633 said:
Well, the design of the Euro Typhoon may look old, but it is definietly high tech! DId you know, the HUD in the plane follows the movement of your eyes! So you can track enemy planes faster and the plane will follow throught the direction of turn and the missile direction too!
Click to expand...
Yes, but didn't Soviet fighters in the late 80s have this feature too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top