Implications for ADF if U.K dump JSF?

[Supe]

LONDON (Reuters) - The government may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets worth 5 billion pounds ($8.7 billion) for two new-generation aircraft carriers, at the expense of existing U.S. contracts, The Mail on Sunday said.

The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets, built by French defence group Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, in London, the paper said, citing unidentified defence sources in Paris.

If the government went ahead with the deal, it would mean cancelling existing U.S. contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers, scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2010, the paper said.

Lockheed Martin (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) holds the existing contracts.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the report was speculative.

The report followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and the U.S. on the Joint Strike Fighter project, which has been dogged by a row over sharing technology.
source

As per topic.

Will cost per aircraft go up?
Will the reason for the dispute also affect RAAF in terms of maintenance and upgrades?
Will ADF become overly dependent on U.S for servicing JSF's?

If the above is true, then surely this will impact on the desirability of going with the JSF.

 

[XEROX]

Navalised EuroFighter??

 

[Gaenth]

Surely!

If UK wthdraws from JSF in any way, it will make it harder not only for RAAF, Germany would start having serious thoughts about it and maybe Canada and Spain who have shown interest in the past will no more. Of course nobody wants that, not even the UK's MoD, this is at best a way to put more pressure on the US to agree on the transfer of the software code of JSF, and to me it seems a bit too bully, a later comment by someone in the MoD will make it sound more soft.

Besides, a navalised Typhoon or the Rafale M means a bigger, more expensive boat, for the catapults, the arresting gear, etc. and parliament is already too criticzizing about the Future CV as it is. That's why I think this sudden offer isn't that serious and has another hidden pourpose. What do you guys think?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Surely!

Besides, a navalised Typhoon or the Rafale M means a bigger, more expensive boat, for the catapults, the arresting gear, etc. and parliament is already too criticzizing about the Future CV as it is. That's why I think this sudden offer isn't that serious and has another hidden pourpose. What do you guys think?

The CV(F) is already designed to add a catapult, the French will have one in their version of the carrier (if it goes ahead). So I do not think that a navalised Typhoon or Rafale M will effect the CV(F) design.

 

[Gaenth]

You're right, but what about the Aircraft themselves WhiskyJack? To navalise the Typhoon would mean putting more money and would take more time, all partners have already complained a lot about this, I wouldn't think they'd want more of it.

Now, the Rafale M already exists but it's still in development, especially the ground attack features which are something the Royal Navy would surely require, besides of avionics and other British-exclusive stuff the Royal Navy will want as well. So it would take a lot of money and time in the end anyway. More than JSF? Hmmmm... Who knows? Then there's the issue of Rafale or Typhoon vs. F-35, and I think the better stealth, STOVL, the lower maintenance, and more advanced systems are things not only UK but other countries have been asking for a long time, capability is also needed now, I think they're tired of delays.

 

[Whiskyjack]

You're right, but what about the Aircraft themselves WhiskyJack? To navalise the Typhoon would mean putting more money and would take more time, all partners have already complained a lot about this, I wouldn't think they'd want more of it.

Now, the Rafale M already exists but it's still in development, especially the ground attack features which are something the Royal Navy would surely require, besides of avionics and other British-exclusive stuff the Royal Navy will want as well. So it would take a lot of money and time in the end anyway. More than JSF? Hmmmm... Who knows? Then there's the issue of Rafale or Typhoon vs. F-35, and I think the better stealth, STOVL, the lower maintenance, and more advanced systems are things not only UK but other countries have been asking for a long time, capability is also needed now, I think they're tired of delays.

You have a point, but the JSF is not in service yet and no matter how hard I try I can't see the JSF as an air superiority fighter, I have heard that it will second only to the F-22, but am not convinced as yet for many reasons not the least is that the USAF wants more F-22s and would not want the F-35 seen as the next best! Stealth is to some extent a known quantity and many nations are developing ways to counter it.

The F-35B is limited to two 1,000 lbs JDAMS, anything more than that compromises stealth. At what point is a fully networked F-35 better than a fully networked Typhoon or Rafale? Cost wise the Typhoon may be very costly to navalise, when has that ever stopped Europe!

I don’t for a minute think that the RN & RAF will not get the F-35, but if it comes to it I don’t see the MOD going for the Rafale.

 

[Gaenth]

Agreed, I don't think F-35 will be considered an air superiority fighter just as F-16 isn't compared to F-15. About being second after F/A-22, I don't know, Typhoon may become as effective as an F-35 (at least) and because of the weapon loadout and other preparations Stealth aircraft need Typhoon may prove a much more convenient platform in most operations.

In any case, both CVF and JSF are still a long wait, many things can happen, I just hope JSF gets to the air with roundels on it, I've always fancied both F-35 and commonwealth AFs.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The key issue with the JSF is that the UK thought that they had tacit agreement on Technical Transfer, during the program ITAR was introduced and now the US is reneging on its promise.

If the UK does not get the JSF, the impact on the ADF will be as a result of the UK blaming the US for having to re-design its carriers and having to buy a new type of aircraft. [There were two versions of CVF, CTOL & STOVL. Outline designs were prepared for both versions but only the STOVL version was taken to the next stage. As a cost reduction measure the option to fit catapults and arrester gear was omitted from the refinement of the STOVL design. So much of the work that has been down would have to be repeated].

It would be a UK political crisis.

The UK government has been under pressure in the press, because it has been seen to “blindly” follow the US. If we loose the JSF the government will find it difficult to continue its support for the US policies, including the deployment of UK forces to Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a strong possibility that this could slide into tit-for-tat retaliation, causing souring of the public aspects of the US & UK “Special Relationship”, further limiting the governments freedom of action.

This is likely to impact on other programs (e.g. Although the RAF wants to buy C-17s, I think the UK MoD is holding off from ordering until the JSF issues is resolved).

UK aerospace companies would also be affected (e.g. BAE Systems and RR) not so much directly by the cancellation of JSF, but more by the resulting American Anti-British reaction to the British Anti-American stance.

It is likely to result in the US being further isolated politically on many issues.

Other JSF customers would be affected. Some countries may decide not to buy JSF, the US may have second thoughts on exporting to some countries.

If UK companies are excluded from the JSF program, the program is likely to be delayed by several years.

IMHO:

The UK still wants the F-35B.

If the UK does not get F-35Bs then : -

As a fall back it would develop the Naval Typhoon (risky, expensive, would cause delays and would result in a less than optimal aircraft). It would be politically unacceptable to adopt the Rafale M.

The RAF would also loose its STOVL capability that has proven to be very useful over the last thirty years.

IMHO: JSF is a watershed. If the UK does not get JSF, there will enough “do-do” going round for everyone in the world to get a share. And that includes our cousins on the other side of the world.

Chris

 

[RA1911]

Not related to the ADF, but IF the UK dump the JSF I think it will be much less likely that smaller european nations choose the JSF (denmark, norway...).

 

[Supe]

From an Australian perspective: Will buying the JSF impose limitations on how it is used and upgraded? If you can't access the software codes, you can't integrate newer systems/weapons. American needs aren't always going to be Australian needs.

I can see why the Brits are concerned (they should be).

Other issues remain live. For example, Britain is seeking full independent maintainability and control over its F-35 fighters - and one of the most critical and contested areas lies in the plane's massive software source code. Since software will run so many aspects of the F-35's operations, access to the source code is necessary in order to debug many flaws, and may be required to integrate new weapons. source

If the Brits are concerned, then the Australian Gov ought to be too. As close as both nations are to U.S (and likely to remain), it's suspect to field an aircraft that could become a liability, especially for Australia, since it does not have in-service alternatives like the British do.

 

[bottlescarred w]

Just hope to Christ it engenders some serious reconsideration of the brain-dead decision to take a "one size fits all" approach with the JSF. Still, wouldn't be confident seeing as I am hearing reports of LM trying to heavy Aus officials into confirming buy nos.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the fact that both RAF and RAAF are ASRAAM users means that weapons cert and compliance is an issue for both of us.

with the bugs we developed the integration and certification processes for ASRAAM connectivity.

It also means that if the RAF pull out of JSF, then we could wear the cert and connection fees for wiring up ASRAAM (assuming that we are the only JSF ASRAAM user)

As another example, if you look at ADI being considered for a complete takeover by Thales - then that would mean that ADI would get locked out of even more contracts than they currently are. Assume a worst case scenario where Thales own ADI and are then only ones locally (not the case in actual fact) and we get denied in country access.

(apart from the fact that I wouldn't get ADI to build a go cart anyway)

 

[Supe]

No mention of JSF dispute and implications this could have for Australia in the mainstream media, which is concerning. Is this even rating a mention on the Defence Minister's radar? I'm not a big fan of the swiss army knife approach to equipping the RAAF.

 

[Sea Toby]

If it came to no orders for the F-35, I doubt seriously the Americans would hold back the software code. It may not not like doing so, it may do so kicking and screaming and whining like a baby, but eventually the code would be provided.

If not the Pentagon, the American congress will, to get the orders.

 

[Gaenth]

Yep, there's too much at risk for all parts but I'm begining to wonder if the US would make such a move having this increasing political pressure from UK, I don't see it as grieveness from Britain, I think they have the right to demand a bigger slice of the cake being the second partner, something that will be beneficial for the programme on the end, just look at the Harrier Programme. But I do think UK's government is recently taking a rather agressive position that is not helping much, actually they're lucky the present US administration is pro-JSF, that may only last 3 years more, better to take advantage of that now but from another approach definitely, after 3 years the US itself may be modifying the JSF programme and order numbers depending who's in charge.

 

[Gaenth]

One more thing to worry about

From Jane's website:

Titanium price increases and shortages may affect JSF programme

By James Murphy Reporter

Soaring titanium prices, the rising cost of producing the metal and a global shortage may hit the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, the first time a global materials supply concern has impacted so significantly on the defence sector since the steel shortages after the Second World War.

Both Airbus and Boeing have expressed their concerns about titanium supply and cost in recent weeks, and are said to be "monitoring the situation closely".

The implications of spiralling titanium costs have not been lost on the JSF partner nations either.

One UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) official has already articulated his assessment that the unit cost of each aircraft would be influenced by titanium prices.

Commodore Simon Henley, the UK MoD's team leader for the Joint Combat Aircraft programme (as JSF is known in the UK) until January 2006, said in February that JSF unit cost, officially estimated at around USD50-60 million, was "dependent on titanium supplies".

Added to cost concerns is the potential disruption to global supply posed by moves from within Russia, one of the most important titanium exporters, to bring control of its domestic titanium producers under state control.

Russia plans to take control of VSMPO-Avisma, the world's largest producer of titanium, as it looks to secure access to what is considers "strategically important" metallurgical knowledge.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdi/jdi060228_1_n.shtml

Not just JSF, even bikes! I just hope this spurs more research in new materials, industry in general will suffer this shortage. I don't think taking over a Company will make Titanium cheaper for Russia, they'll have to invest a lot of cash to keep it competitive, selling rough metal is not the solution either, I bet the company worths more privately than state-owned. There are plenty of examples out there.

 

[adsH]

From an Australian perspective: Will buying the JSF impose limitations on how it is used and upgraded? If you can't access the software codes, you can't integrate newer systems/weapons. American needs aren't always going to be Australian needs.

Its not just the codes. Hardware specifications are required for a single weapon integration, there are several tests that need to be carried out, they have to appropriately modify the Coding and the actual hardware it self. Usually integration is controlled by the OEM so they can charge higher prices for extra integration, even tho the user has the necessery skills available to carry out a successful wepon integration/upgrade them selves. The only thing that they don't have are Documentations, Software is something that is one of the most sticky issues. if you don't have the Documentation you'l be axing through codes without proper understanding of the system, and you may end up spending hundreds of man hours working your way through block codes. costly and not productive.

 

[Supe]

Fighter purchase off if Stealth secrets not shared

The Australian

Rear Admiral Raydon Gates said that if Australia did not win that access to information such as software codes to be able to service the fighters, Canberra's involvement was in doubt.

"Guaranteed access to necessary JSF data and technology to allow Australia to operate and support the JSF will be required before we join the next phase of the project," Admiral Gates told the committee, which is conducting two days of hearings into the JSF. Admiral Gates said if the issue was not resolved it would also have ramifications for future joint combat operations with the US.

Britain's Defence Procurement Minister, Paul Drayson, who also attended yesterday's hearing chaired by Republican John Warner, told the committee: "We are approaching important decisions that will impact on both UK and US military capability for a generation."

Lord Drayson said the US needed to understand that a mutual commitment to the JSF was dependent on Britain having "the operational sovereignty that we require".

cont...

emphasis mine

Lord Drayson strongly pushing the issue for the Brits there. I'd be interested in the reaction of Houston on all this chatter. I hope the RAAF doesn't have a JSF buy at any cost mindset, certainly not at the cost of 'operational sovereignty'

The process between the Brits and the Americans has been characterised as horsetrading - I hope that's all it is.

 

[SATAN]

Lord Drayson strongly pushing the issue for the Brits there. I'd be interested in the reaction of Houston on all this chatter. I hope the RAAF doesn't have a JSF buy at any cost mindset, certainly not at the cost of 'operational sovereignty'

The process between the Brits and the Americans has been characterised as horsetrading - I hope that's all it is.

I seriously doubt Britan is going to dump the JSF and go for the Rafale, i just dont see that happening. The idea was floated to pressure the US into believing that the RAF have other options.

On an unrelated subject......i would assume the Yanks are ticked off with the Brits for selling the Typhoons to the Saudis. Hence the exclusion of the Rolls Royce engine as punishment.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Lord Drayson strongly pushing the issue for the Brits there. I'd be interested in the reaction of Houston on all this chatter. I hope the RAAF doesn't have a JSF buy at any cost mindset, certainly not at the cost of 'operational sovereignty'

The process between the Brits and the Americans has been characterised as horse trading - I hope that's all it is.

No, it is not horse-trading, nor bluff.

The UK and the US had a tacit agreement on Tech Transfer at the start of the program; the introduction of ITAR has made it difficult for the US to fulfil their promise.

Our current government has expended too much political capital on this issue, there will be no backing down, whatever the consequences.

Without agreement there will be no deal.