UK considers JSF pullout

[jlvfr]

Back to topic, the UK carriers will bring some job security in the Labour party heartlands, where they are failing for the first time in terms of confidence. Any economic plans that get the carriers built are a good thing in my view.

If we do pull out of the JSF plan, which would be a surprise in my view, it may damage UK / US relations politically, obviously, but not significantly. Not a good start with regards the impending new US leadership but it may be small Beer.

Well...

I've just read a couple of articles concerning the future of the RN carriers. Even with the F-35, there's a very good chance the 1st carrier will sail almost empty... and even if you trade future-f35 for today-rafale, there would still be a delay: the carrier would have to be redesigned for catapults and arrestor gear...

[Silent Hunter]

Thatcher wasn't a Keynesian. Keynes was the prevalent theory before the Iron Lady came into office.

[Shipwreck]

It's not looking so good for JSF in Norway :

Norwegian Labor Groups Throw Support to Gripen
By GERARD O'DWYER
Published: 22 Oct 15:15 EDT (19:15 GMT)

HELSINKI - In a possible new setback to Lockheed Martin's efforts to sell the F-35 Lightning II to Norway, three of Norway's most powerful industry and labor organizations have adopted a joint position that backs the procurement of the Swedish Gripen-NG.

The organizations, which comprise Forvars og Sikkerhetsindustriens Forening (the Norwegian Defense and Security Industries Association), Landsorganisasasjonen Norge (Norwegian Confederation of Labor Unions) and Norges Ingenior of Teknologorganisasjon (the Norwegian Association of Engineers and Technology Specialists), described the JAS Gripen as "an overall better alternative" for Norway.

The joint report also claimed Sweden's industrial cooperation package and offset terms were superior to that offered by Lockheed.

Norway plans to purchase 48 multirole fighters to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of F-16s.

"The Swedish-made multirole fighter, and the industrial cooperation terms offered, would benefit Norway's defense industry more than the offer made by the U.S. rival," said the report.

The report said the high-technology contracts and "spin-off ventures" proposed by Saab carried more overall value than similar terms that have been extended by Lockheed.

"The Swedish offer presents a unique opportunity to secure the future development of Norwegian industry, both military and civilian," said Torbjorn Svangard, the head of the Norwegian Defense and Security Industries Association.

Link

[jlvfr]

If SAAB works well, they'll corner the light-fighter marked for years to come...

[gunnut]

I think it would be cool for the Scandanavians to collaborate on these projects...except for them Finns. We don't want Finns onboard. Just Swedes and Norweigians. Maybe Danes. And Icelanders...when they get some money.

[GraniteForge]

I think it would be cool for the Scandanavians to collaborate on these projects...except for them Finns. We don't want Finns onboard. Just Swedes and Norweigians. Maybe Danes. And Icelanders...when they get some money.

Using ethnic closeness as the mark, the Finns ought to collaborate with the Estonians and Hungarians.

[Shipwreck]

I think it would be cool for the Scandanavians to collaborate on these projects...except for them Finns. We don't want Finns onboard. Just Swedes and Norweigians. Maybe Danes. And Icelanders...when they get some money.

Add the Dutch to your list of Scandinavians : ;)

Saab proposes 85 Gripen NGs for Netherlands
By Stephen Trimble
DATE:01/08/08
SOURCE:Flight International

Saab has presented the Dutch defence ministry with a proposal for 85 Gripen NG (Next Generation) combat aircraft, with its move offering an alternative to Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Responding to the Netherlands' F-16 replacement questionnaire marks Saab's formal re-emergence in the competition, with the nation's air force having in 2000 disqualified an offer based on a previous Gripen model. The Swedish design is now in contention in Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway all partners in the F-35 programme's system development and demonstration phase.

Saab's offer also includes training services, simulators, spare parts and support, plus industrial offsets to match the value of its all-inclusive proposal. The Gripen NG is a planned future production version to draw on technologies now being flight tested aboard the company's Gripen Demo testbed.

It is still not clear whether the Netherlands will hold a formal competition for its F-16 replacement deal, or simply continue with plans to buy the JSF.

Lockheed on 30 July delivered a bid based on the F-35, which it claims "affordably addresses the military, industrial and foreign policy objectives of the Netherlands". However, as a potential spoiler to its European rival, it also on 25 August provided information about its latest export-standard F-16.

Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium opted against responding with information about their Rafale and Typhoon designs, while Boeing was not invited to offer its F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet, as the Block I variant was rejected by the Dutch earlier this decade. However, the US company on 15 August submitted a proposal to meet Denmark's future fighter needs, responding to a May request for information on up to 48 aircraft.

Link

[BD1]

I think it would be cool for the Scandanavians to collaborate on these projects...except for them Finns. We don't want Finns onboard. Just Swedes and Norweigians. Maybe Danes. And Icelanders...when they get some money.

Finnish procurement policy should be an example to every small country in the world - how to milk 120% out of your budget. I guess one should drop the whole Finnish military leadership countless times on their heads , only after that would they want to be part of US procurement cycle, esp. the looking at latest developments

[Shipwreck]

Latest news :

Only ‘cretins’ jeer forces, says John Hutton
Isabel Oakeshott
The Sunday Times
October 26, 2008

The new defence secretary says our troops need public support in the war on terror

It's the job he always wanted, and it seems John Hutton wants everyone to know he’s arrived. Striding across the packed forecourt of Euston station in London, the new secretary of state for defence swings his ministerial red box so conspicuously that even the doziest commuters must realise someone important is around.

Unlike other cabinet ministers, Hutton is allowed to carry the telltale briefcase in public, because he is surrounded by security staff.

From relative obscurity, he now has one of the weightiest jobs in cabinet – and with it becomes a top terror target.

Fewer than 18 months ago, Hutton’s career hung in the balance as his old ally Tony Blair prepared to leave Downing Street. When he was accused of declaring that Gordon Brown would be a “f***ing disaster” as prime minister, his fate seemed sealed.

However, the new leader kept him on as business secretary – a symbol of his commitment to a government “of all the talents” – and in the recent reshuffle gave him his dream job.

He’s just back from his first tour of Afghanistan and Iraq and is determined to convince a weary and sceptical public that these wars are a good thing.

“It’s an incredible operation. If people back home could just see it, they would be so proud of what we’re doing there,” he enthuses.

However much Hutton, who has published one military history book and is working on another, wanted this role, he’s painfully aware of the challenges. Many people don’t understand, or have forgotten, why Britain is on these expensive and long-drawn-out missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, he admits.

“It’s first and foremost about UK national security,” he says. “ If Afghanistan or Iraq becomes a state where terrorists can roam freely, that terror will be exported to our own doorsteps.” There is “no option” but to succeed, he says.

While he is confident of success in Iraq, and predicts a big pullout of UK forces in months, his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan is bleak.

“The problems are fundamental – 30 years of civil war, a succession of failed states, Islamic extremism and permanent insurrection, overlaid with narcotics crime and drug warlords – it’s impossible to imagine a more poisonous cocktail than that,” he says.

This month Britain’s top commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, warned that the war against the Taliban could not be won. He talked of reducing it to a “manageable level of insurgency”.

Hutton is not as gloomy, insisting it will be possible to crush the Taliban forces. However, he believes this is a long way off – and warns that the situation is so unstable at present that devoting resources to reconstruction is misguided.

“You’ve got to deal with the insurgency first and foremost. Unless there’s security, not just in Kabul but the rest of the country, you can put in all the social investment and economic development you like – it’s not going to work. If the Taliban turn up a month later and bulldoze the school you’ve built, then you’re back to square one.”

How long will British troops be there? “I think we have to realise we’re in for the long haul,” he says, without putting a figure on it. Pushed, he predicts it will be “years” before the Taliban are crushed, and “could well be” decades before our other objectives are achieved.

If more troops are needed, he makes it clear he wants Nato allies to supply them. “We are pulling more than our weight,” he says. “There has got to be fair and appropriate sharing of the burden across Nato countries.”

His reluctance to commit more resources to the operation is understandable, given how desperately stretched the military is. Hutton is surprisingly frank about the shortage of money, making it clear he plans to axe one or more big procurement projects.

“We’ve got to make ends meet,” he says. He admits this means “some changes on the procurement side”.

He won’t be drawn on detail, but insiders believe his comments spell the end of the £9 billion joint strike fighter (JSF) jump-jet project. Plans for 25 transport aircraft for the RAF are also likely to be at risk. Some other big projects, however, such as the Eurofighter and the Astute submarine, are just too costly – both politically and financially – to abandon at this stage.

“There’s precious little point in cancelling a contract if it ends up costing more as a result. I’d rather have the kit than the liability,” Hutton says.

He insists the military can cope with its commitments, but admits it is under “a lot of pressure”. “There’s not always been the opportunity to maintain the distance between operational tours that we would like. It’s not how it should be,” he admits – meaning they are not getting enough rest between battles.

In spite of all this, he is adamant that morale in the military is “extraordinarily high”. He believes military parades are a “brilliant way” of boosting it. “The public loves to see guys on parade. I would like to see more,” he says.

What about bystanders who jeer? “Those kind of cretins are going to be out and about but they don’t represent the public,” he says scornfully. “We shouldn’t be afraid to take those people on.”

He’s also keen on the idea of a European army, as long as it doesn’t stretch our resources even further. It would be sent to international trouble spots.

“I think we’ve got to be pragmatic about those things. I think that’s perfectly sensible. France is one of our closest allies, and the French believe very strongly in this type of role. If we can support it, we should.”

By now the train is pulling into his constituency, Barrow-in-Furness. It’s where sections of two huge aircraft carriers are to be built. That project, at least, seems sure to be safe.

Link

[Jimmy]

That would be fairly short-sighted to cut the F-35 to divert funds into Afghanistan. Wher else does he expect to use them, the Falklands?

[jlvfr]

So... he wants the carriers (designed for vtol) but is going to dump the vtol planes (thus requiring redesigning the carriers)?...

[Silent Hunter]

The planned carriers are already capable of CTOL ops, they just weren't planned to be fitted with catapults to do them.

[Stan]

He cant do it. He shouldnt do it. He probably will do it. The Labour party have a history of screwing the Military in the best ways possible.

Also how on earth does he think we can support our troops in Afghanistan unless he buys new transport planes.

If only we could have an election now.

[VarSity]

.

Also how on earth does he think we can support our troops in Afghanistan unless he buys new transport planes.

That's the part that got me. I don’t know what sort of funds are needed for the new A400m airbus but maybe they want to save money on this and but more C-17's off the shelf?

Would there be any cash saved in such a plan? And how damaging would that be to operational capability?

[BenRoethig]

That's the part that got me. I don’t know what sort of funds are needed for the new A400m airbus but maybe they want to save money on this and but more C-17's off the shelf?

Would there be any cash saved in such a plan? And how damaging would that be to operational capability?

Or a combined buy of more C-17s and C-130Js (C.4/5).