Jump to content
AIR-DEFENSE.NET

JSF/35: 2006/2012 the choice


Philippe Top-Force
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At last, the Joint Strike Fighter "row" has been promoted to the main pages of several newspapers. Moreover, Google offers over ninety stories on the latest developments of the saga we reported yesterday and in more detail on Sunday. Without the background, however, the reportage is pretty one-dimensional, coming over as a "biff-bam" row between the UK and the United States, The Times leading the fray with the headline: "Britain in clash over US fighter secrets". This leads a report written by Tom Baldwin in Washington who tells us that Britain – in the person of Lord Drayson - yesterday "threatened to scrap a planned £10 billion purchase of the new Joint Strike Fighter if the United States refuses it access to American military secrets." Nevertheless, media reports give a confusing account, conveying the impression that this particular message was delivered to "members of Congress" – i.e., the Senate Armed Services Committee – but careful reading of several reports – especially that in the Telegraph indicates that Drayson also spoke to reporters "before the showdown with Senators", when he told them, "We should be absolutely clear about what our bottom line is on this matter ... we will not be able to purchase the aircraft." In his statements to reporters, we are told Drayson was reluctant to discuss what he called "plan B" but, says The Times, "it is understood that the government is considering alternatives…" which "include prolonging the life of RAF Harriers or buying French Rafale aircraft." However, The Times does report that Drayson told the Senators, "We are approaching important decisions that will impact on both UK and US military capability for a generation." He said that the US needed to understand that a mutual commitment to the JSF was dependant on Britain having "the operational sovereignty that we require". The Financial Times adds to this, stating that Drayson did tell the Senate committee that, "Without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy these aircraft … I am spelling this out because it is so important to make our intentions clear. I know the British can be accused of understatement." All this notwithstanding, this is, of course, the latest development in the vexed question of giving Britain access to the source codes, an issue that has been almost completely ignored by the media to date. Yet it was rehearsed on this blog on 29 June 2004, almost two years ago, and even reported by The Financial Times in January 2005. That rather makes a mockery of The Times report that "Drayson's comments …represent a significant escalation in a diplomatic row that has rumbled on, largely in private, for several months." That's the MSM for you – on the ball as always. Throughout all the reports – with even the BBC website offering its own account, under the predictable headline, "US and UK clash over fighter jet" – what you do not see is any discussion of why the Americans are so reluctant to release technology to the British. They may be right in so doing, and we believe they are, as we have discussed many times, for instance here and here, or they may be wrong. There may even be a case to argue that the US has handled the affair clumsily, especially over the unilateral proposal to cancel the second engine – which was the main reason Drayson was in Washington. But, to the newspaper reader, nothing is offered by way of a view or background information that would enable the broader issues to be understood, which have massive implications for Anglo-US relations. This is the MSM at its worst. But this also represents a massive failure by the Conservative Party, led on this issue by shadow defence procurement minister, Gerald Howarth. He has clearly infected shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, with his view that the US – for reasons unspecified - are driving the British into the arms for the French, by their refusal to hand over their secrets, without in any way acknowledging that US fears of technology leakage may be well founded. Thus, The Times tells us that Drayson was "strongly backed by Liam Fox" who yesterday made his own submission to the committee. In due course, as we have consistently predicted, we expect the UK to pull out of the JSF programme and buy the Rafale for its new carriers - a decision, we believe, has already been made. On present form, the Conservatives will then wring their hands and blame the Americans for their "clumsiness". Thus will the central issue of our drift towards European defence integration go unremarked, through want of political engagement. But, since the process was actually kicked off by the Conservatives in the first place, we can hardly be surprised. They are hopelessly compromised on this issue and would not be keen to have their role dissected. And, as long as the MSM is happy with a diet of "biff-bam" stories, they will get away with it. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salut stratege. Si tu avais lu les 5 liens que j'avais apposé ,on n'a même pas besoin de faire un effort de "translate" :lol: ils sont en français. 8) A l'occasion ,lit les remarques ou analyses (belges de ce site internet) ,tu y découvriras un humour so British. Richard North n'étant pas un €urophile convaincu :lol: son tropisme pour tout ce qui est américain peut ne pas être totalement objectif ou neutre. Grayson a jusqu'à la décembre 2006 pour décider d'acquisition. D'ici là ,nos amis d'Outre-Manche vont s'amuser à convaincre ,le Congrès US ,le DoD ,les conservateurs ,LM ,et leurs amis du Pentagone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@phillipe: J'espere que des pays petits comme la Norvege (?), les Pay-bas etc... n'achetent pas le JSF. A mon avis l'Eurofighter est tres bon pour ces pays. Mais le RU? C'est un cas different. Le RU a tres bons chances pour le transfer de technologie.

In English:

I hope that countries such as Norway and the Netherlands don't buy the JSF. The Eurofighter is much better for them. But the UK? That is a different case. They have very good chances in obtaining Trensfer of technology.

News about Norway:

Eurofighter offers strategic partnership to Norwegian industry

EUROFIGHTER is offering Norwegian industry a strategic partnership based on full access and exchange of technolgy. The announcement came during a Eurofighter press briefing in...

http://jdin.janes.com/public/jdin/index.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, ces pays veulent un avion polyvalent, ce que n'est pas l'eurofighter, malgré tout les traficotages actuel.

La version d'Eurofighter de Tranche 2 est polyvalent est c'est la version qui est offert.

In English:

The Eurofighter version that would be bought is Tranche 2 and that is multi-role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J'avais entendu Rob qu'il y avait une rivalité en GB entre les pilotes CTOL et STOVL ,pourrait-il y avoir une possibilité que la RN commande 60 Rafale M et pour plus tard la RAF/RN 90 JSF ? Soit 232 typhoon ,60 Rafale M/RN et 90 JSF. Puisque nos 2 nations avaient par le passé partagé ,Concorde ,Puma ,Gazelle ,Lynx et Jaguar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

euh, trois appareils différents, c'est trois formations différentes, trois systèmes de maintenance différents, trois stocks de pièces détachées différentes, etc. bref je sais pas si c'est vraiment une très bonne solution...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

euh, trois appareils différents, c'est trois formations différentes, trois systèmes de maintenance différents, trois stocks de pièces détachées différentes, etc.

bref je sais pas si c'est vraiment une très bonne solution...

La RAF a des escadrons de Jaguar ,de Tornado ,d'Harrier et maintenant de Typhoon.

Tu penses que L'US Air Force n'a qu'un seul type d'avion :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

La version d'Eurofighter de Tranche 2 est polyvalent est c'est la version qui est offert.

In English:

The Eurofighter version that would be bought is Tranche 2 and that is multi-role.

Quelle polyvalence? Quelles capacités autre qu'air-air, à part l'emploi de la bombe Paveway (ou quelque chose de ce genre)? (si possible donne des liens où il est CLAIREMENT indiqué que c'est pour la tranche 2, et non pour la 3...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@phillipe:

J'avais entendu Rob qu'il y avait une rivalité en GB entre les pilotes CTOL et STOVL ,pourrait-il y avoir une possibilité que la RN commande 60 Rafale M et pour plus tard la RAF/RN 90 JSF ?

Soit 232 typhoon ,60 Rafale M/RN et 90 JSF.

Puisque nos 2 nations avaient par le passé partagé ,Concorde ,Puma ,Gazelle ,Lynx et Jaguar...

Ce n'est pas possible. Le RAF achete le JSF seulement avec tech transfer. Et si le RU a le tech transfer le RN achete le JSF aussi. Et si le RU n'a pas le tech transfer le RAF achete plus d'Eurofighter et la RN achete Eurofighter Naval ou Rafale M. A mon avis le future RAF/RN est comme ca: 232 (137 active) Eurofighter + 150 (100 active) JSF + 142 (112 active) Tornado GR4s ou 300 Eurofighter (200 active) + 80 (60 active) Rafale M + 142 (112 actif) Tornado GR4.

@FrenchFlogger:

Quelle polyvalence? Quelles capacités autre qu'air-air, à part l'emploi de la bombe Paveway (ou quelque chose de ce genre)? (si possible donne des liens où il est CLAIREMENT indiqué que c'est pour la tranche 2, et non pour la 3...)

Late Tranche 1 Blocks have already got a Paveway/LGB capability.

Source:

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/2005/Paris_day_02/paris_2_typhoon_24.html

Tranche 2 will apparently have following weapons integrated on top of weapons integrated already in Tranche 1:

As for weapons, the provisional list includes AIM-120C5, Meteor and IRIS-T for air-to-air, plus for air-to-ground the JDAM (GBU-32); UK Paveway III; GBU-24; BPG-2000; Brimstone; Taurus and Storm Shadow.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/2005/Paris_day_02/paris_2_typhoon_24.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

La RAF a des escadrons de Jaguar ,de Tornado ,d'Harrier et maintenant de Typhoon.

Tu penses que L'US Air Force n'a qu'un seul type d'avion :lol:

oui mais chaque appareil répond à un besoin spécifique.

de plus, le Jaguar et le Harrier sont en fin de vie et seront remplacés.

Par contre les trois que je cites feront quasiment la même chose, deux depuis un PA et un depuis la terre. Que la RAF aie des Typhoon et des rafale M ou des Typhoon et des F-35, pas de problème. Par contre quand tu as deux appareils fait pour les mêmes missions avec quasiment les mêmes capacités (Rafale M et F-35), là c'est stupide...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris ,le Rafale est omnirôle ,il a été conçu pour décoller du CDG ou d'une piste de nos BA. Le F35 n'est qu'au stade de prototype ,on ne sait même plus quand il sera produit en série et dans quelle configuration ,à quel prix ? Les britanniques vont nous sortir leurs 2 CVF et ils n'auront plus d'avions à projeter :lol: si le F35B part en sucette. Je demandais à Rob si dans les EM UK ,ils ne discutaient pas du choix opérationnel et du choix tactique. les aspects industriels et politiques sont du ressort de leurs décideurs politiques. Donc est-ce que l'option 60 Rafale M mis en oeuvre sur leurs CVF ,est utopique ?,réalisable ?,impossible ? impensable de point de vue amour propre ou une solution de secours et de replis vis à vis du désastre que pourrait rencontrer la RN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Member Statistics

    5,936
    Total Members
    1,749
    Most Online
    FlorianBlanchard54
    Newest Member
    FlorianBlanchard54
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    21.5k
    Total Topics
    1.7m
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    4
    Total Blogs
    3
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...