A Case for Scrapping the Joint Strike Fighter?

Doppelganger

Is that supposed to be a photo of the JSF? Lokks like an (Italian) Eurofighter to me.

Posted at 1816

TomTom

Let's cut a deal with France that EU sourced aircraft will have Rolls-Royce engines as first choice. Weren't we going to get JSF with R-R engines until the US reverted to single-source ?

Time to lock up EU states to R-R engines and let the US swing...but France will have to review its SNECMA JV with GE

JAC

Sorry Doppelganger, it is not an Eurofighter but A French Rafale at the Dassault's FTC on Istres Air Base in south of France

aeroxavier

what's the difficult about french? the old Hhistory? what was aircraft generation? furtiv design? no that was just USA argument for sale.
rafale have identish radar system of one f-22 , have similar weapon system, don't have one furtiv form(not invisible to recent radar), f-22 make just air to air fight and rafale make all, they have similar agility but the rafale "was" 4+ gen.
rafale better of the eurofighter, was ready for aircraft landing don't was expensive against.
everybody know the f-35 would be inferior of the f-22 and was conceved for make what the rafale was make. multimission. exept f-35 will be assist by the f-22 (only in USA) in the air and need be used after one air superiority winning.

rafale is better of all of this plane exept in air supremacy (f-22). but who have the f-22 ?
many country don't change teir choice (f-35) because they have just 5th gen fighter in the eyes.
that was very sad against french because english people dislike them and make all of possible to avoid them.
see kcx tanker in USA , airbus was pushed through northrop because that was not US firm.
poor england , all time in the hand of USA because USA speacks english. But GB was just one pawn for USA, remember irak invasion, some country french in head have say no and mass destruction weap is not proved, what's english reaction against true reality ? but when USA play with GB...GB follow

to be continued...

Noa Zrk

Or we could use our own money to fund the development of our own military aircraft and equipment.
Take it from the bottomless benefits and welfare expenditure and invest in our own industry and capabilities.

Olaf Rye

We should buy the best equipment. I know it is expensive, but we could always take the money out of the bureaucracy and social services since these have proven themselves a complete waste of our resources. At least the military does not let us down !

jonny

I have a friend who works for Northrop Grumman, a principal subcontractor for the JSF, and she told me last week that progress on the machine is very very slowww. The Rafale simply doesn't have the engine power and would not be a good choice. So we push the Yanks, navalise the Typhoon, or come up with a Sea Harrier FR3

Joe Coles

The US have to make the F-35 work as it is the future of both their three air forces fast jets and their future fighter sales. The British are less tied to it, but as a Tier 1 partner there has been a massive investment in the programme, which could be negatively impacted if the UK withdrew all orders. It must also be remembered though that the UK has so far only committed to three F-35s. A navalised Typhoon would be an expensive, high-risk alternative- the undercarriage, structural and possible materials changes having not been tested. Costwise, the F-35 which was intended to have been an 'affordable fighter', is currently more expensive per aircraft than Typhoon- a type lamented for its perceived high-cost. The F-35 is too ambitious and is suffering a development that parallels the last ‘do everything fighter’- the doomed F-111B.
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would be the lowest risk alternative,but this move would not be supportive of European solutions to defence needs (a licence-build by BAE Systems being uneconomical considering the small amount). Rafale would be an expensive solution, and an unknown quantity in some regards- though commonality with French carriers would aid interoperability. An upgraded Harrier, fitted with a modern radar would be one option- but airframe life, performance and survivability are all factors which weigh against this solution
.

dede

eurofighter and f-35 was more expensive with the rafale. this is US argument against this plane. they based the price of the plane and the cost of development for just the number of plane previewd for french air force.
the price for make one rafale is 90 m $.
rafale engine is one other argument for foreign competitor. but dassault make one new engine. actual engine was very good, this is stupid propaganda against this plane.

Christian Benesch

The picture shows a Rafale not an Italian Eurofighter :-) .

In any case, the French should take over the Queen Elizabeth carrier design for their PA-2, and the British should put Rafales on theirs.

It screams "SYNERGY!!!" so loud it is almost painful.

Get over yourselves.

Christian
PS: Why do we subsidise US research and development, anyways ?

mcmuffin

Oh dear, chaps. We've not thought hard about this, have we? What's going to save our airforces when when they come up against Sukhoi PAK-FAs. They will make mince of ALL options bar the JSF and the Raptor, now out of production as "too expensive". And they'll do over the JSF at a ratio of about 4-1 on a generous viewing. Of course, if stomping on Third World countries is your preference, then you might as well stick with Eurofighters but if , say, Iran gets the top-level Russian SAMs, it could be ugly. Better pray the West doesn't get in a stoush with Russia or India in the next 20-30 years because air superiority will have been compromised in that time. Fifth-generation-capable, ultra-stealthy drones anyone?

McMuffin

Of course, there is a US-centric counter argument to this that makes interesting reading. Not sure it's not rebutable but it has weight. It lives here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/01/29/awx_01_29_2010_p0-200740.xml&headline=Russian%20Fifth-Generation%20Fighter%20Airborne

Mathew

Who said the Rafale got bad engines? The M88-2 are excellent! They even exist in a more powerful version for possible customers in the Middle East. Besides it s a better plane now than the Eurofighter Typhoon, still in a too limited version, mostly for aerial deterrence! See the Saudis who prefer using their F-15 instead of their Typhoons, too limited. EF also lost official evaluations in Switzerland and made very poor results in direct confrontations with the Rafales in UAE recently. Yes GB should buy some Rafales if the need is expressed. I would be glad to see GB and France in common military expansion and future projects.
Last but not least, the JSF is so costly depending on the US technology, restrained, and nobody can say whether it's a real good warplane!

Joe Coles

Mathew,

1) Rafale has a lower power-to-weight ratio than Typhoon for a given load-out.

2) Saudi Arabia currently has less than a handful of Typhoons and has had them for less than a year. Your claim that they "prefer using their F-15s" is bizarre, as the Typhoons have not yet achieved combat readiness status in RSAF service, which would be a prerequisite for any usage preference.

3) The results of the ATLC as announced by the French air force in the UAE which you refer to are widely disputed. There is a more detailed analysis of this in several monthly aviation magazines.

I agree with you that the F-35 is unquantifiable and very expensive.