Re: Other JSF options


"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4480B448.5B46B069@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:447FFD28.10C6AC6E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" <g_alcala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44793A0C.3DBD7FE0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip more...>

<snip>

Given that source code access is likely going to be a major factor
for
other countries, I don't think we can be cavalier about it. And
losing the British buy can only boost our costs.

That cost boost would be at most the five or six percent that we would
lose
in terms of further R&D and production funding. A lot of that would be
recouped by redistributing the UK share of the production
responsibilty,
or
most of it, to businesses/nations already hungry for more work. At
some
point we have to be protective of our intellectual property
rights--six
friggin' percent contribution (which contribution is supposedly to be
repaid
a few times over as a result of UK work-share income) does not equal a
100%
access to intellectual property IMO. Worse, standing on a platform of
that
measily 6% contribution and *demanding* the whole pie does not cut the
mustard, either.

If it was a bluff (and I don't agree that it was) it was a successful
one,
as we've agreed to give them the access
they insisted on. I expect they'll get the F136 too, because there's
way
too much political backing in this country
for it.

Politicos stink.

In this case, I agree with them. They aren't always wrong, even if they
often do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Sometimes they are. But in this case I differ with your conclusion.


As I said before, this affair has turned me from leaning
Anglophie to Anglophobe. Though I have yet to see anything that indicates
the Brits got everything they were *demanding*; just some gobbledegook
about
how they were now satisfied. The two are not necessarilly the same
thing...

Quoting the Flight International article:
-------------------------------------------------
The UK has been guaranteed "operational sovereignty" over its F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters, according to a joint statement
released by US president George Bush and UK prime minister Tony Blair
after their meeting last week.

"Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully
operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the
Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over
the aircraft," says the statement.

The UK has criticised US technology transfer restrictions and had warned
it would not sign up for the JSF production and
sustainment phase unless it was guaranteed operational sovereignty - and
particularly the ability to make urgent
upgrades based on operating experience.

The US-UK statement makes clear the two sides "are working out the
details" of a technology transfer agreement that
protects sensitive technologies in the JSF, "while remaining committed to
these principles".

A final agreement is unlikely to change the requirement for JSF prime
contractor Lockheed Martin to obtain a US export
licence to transfer any technology to the UK that is required for
production and in-service support of the F-35, but a
government-to-government accord should provide a guarantee that the
license will be approved.

The UK and seven other international partners now involved in F-35 system
developmet and demonstration are being asked
to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in December covering the
production, sustainment and follow-on development
phase of the JSF programme.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, just how having 'operational sovereignty' that allows them to go in
and modify software to meet their needs differs
from having full access to the source code aka 'total sovereignty' is way
above my head. Maybe someone with more
background can comment -- Paul, are you still following this? In any
case, they got something they could live with,
which is the important thing.

But apparently they have not gotten complete and full access to all of the
source code, which was what they were demanding. The argument they put forth
earlier that failing to have that would result in their inability to
integrate weapons, etc., did not make much sense, given that the US has
agreed to support the integration of whatever weapons they wanted for
whatever aircraft.


<snip>

And they always have, but that didn't stop the F110 program. Oh,
and
don't forget Massachussetts on GE's side. Given the choice,
I'll take a competitive program any day. The projected savings
of
having
a single program usually seem to assume that everything goes
right, and judging by past history that's foolish. We've
certainly
benefitted by the competition on the F100/F110, F119/F120, and
likely will on the F135/F136; the F136 is claimed to be important
for
the
STOVL, as it's said to provide extra thrust and/or extra
growth. Naturally, P&W denies that this is the case.

The cost for that additional engine is some 2 plus billion dollars
in
the
next budget, IIRC. You were griping earlier about the addditional
cost
of
the B model for the USAF, so what's the difference?

_I_ wasn't griping about it, the Air Force was,and that's one reason
why
they (and the navy) wanted to cancel the F136.

So the services think it is a bad idea and will cost more money....

Well, mainly they think it will cost money they'd rather spend on other
things, and that going with a single engine
will be cheaper. However, given that they've been wrong about the cost
and/or cost-benefit of virtually every major
non-competitive acquisition program they've been responsible for, I
trust
their judgement on such matters very
little. I'm personally convinced that having the F100 and F110 in
competition every year for the F-16 kept P&W and
GE on their toes, forcing them to make improvements far quicker than
would
have otherwise occurred, and that having
at least two military engine design shops is a good thing.

Unless you lack the up-front money to make it happen in the first place.

As I said, it's not a case of lacking the up-front money, it's a question
of wanting to spend it elsewhere.

Guy, you know better than that. We are spending in a deficit environment,
which means we literally don't have the money. Adding that money to the
budget for the F136 means either a congressional mark-up that increases the
deficit level, or robbing from another program that we have earmarked funds
for--some program that the military actually *wants* . Right now the Army is
sweating bullets over congressional inaction regarding funding the OPTEMPO
requirements for OIF, but some congress critters want to immediately
make-nice with the UK and help GE in the process by forcing the USAF to
pursue the F136.


What this amounts to is the Brits leveraging an increased US deficit for
their own gain. Geeze, the more I think about this, the more I think we'd
be
better off letting the UK get nice and buddy-buddy with France and wash
our
hands of them...

Since I think the F136 is a good idea whether the Brits are involved or
not, it's not an issue for me. On the larger
issue, do you really think we can afford to ignore the political needs of
the best (and largest) ally we have, given
that we've done our best to burn bridges with just about everyone else?

Yes, when it comes to the point that said ally feels it is the US taxpayers'
*responsibility* to provide their industry a healthy profit margin,
regardless of the actual need/desires of the US services. The UK is slated
to receive, as is, more money (times a factor of two or more IIRC) in
contracts for F-35 production than the UK is contributing, in toto (both R&D
and procurement) to the program. That money is for the greatest part going
to be coming from the US taxpayer, being as we are going to be the biggest
purchaser of the product. We hardly have anything to be concerned about in
terms of "ignoring" the UK, given those facts. This is just an example of
excessive greed on their part.

I can still imagine the collective groan that
must have gone up from the state department when Rumsfeld made his "Old
Europe" remark. It seems the countries he once
implied were the "New Europe" are now part of "Old Europe" again. Are we
ready to see Blair replaced by Brown, and
after that who knows?

That is the business of the people of the UK. I don't want them meddling in
our politics (though their laughable attempt to do so in the last election
vis a vis Ohio neatly blew up in their faces), and I don't reckon we have
any business playing in theirs.


The Army likes the A-10
because it can count on it being dedicated first and foremost to
their
own
support needs, and that is a reason why they may apply some
leverage
in
the
B model discussion. Time will tell.

The critical issue being 'dedicated'; I doubt they care about the
type,
as
long as it can provide the necessary coverage when they
want it.

I don't think they are yet comfortable with the idea of going fully
UCAV
in
the CAS arena, and from what I have read the USAF has been careful
not
to
reach to that extreme.

It will phase in gradually in any case, giving them time to get
comfortable with the idea (and work out the kinks).

But saying you are not going to field a dedicated A-10 replacement
*now*
is
not "gradually" phasing it in, is it?

A-10s are going to be around for many years yet, as are all the other
manned assets used for that job, and there will
eventually be plenty of F-35s around as well. No one is suggesting
that
an all-UCAv force is going to take place
over night. It may never happen, and even if it does it's likely to
take
at least 20 years or more.

Which does not very well support your argument that this was all
supposedly
driving a no-JSF-for-ANG angle.

I don't see that at all. A transition is going to take years, there will
be bugs to work out, and there is always the
possiblity that it may prove unworkable, in which case decisions will be
modified to suit.

I still have seen nothing substantive that supports the idea that the ANG
was being snubbed out of the F-35 fielding plan.


<snip>

[HV-22 vs. MH-60]

The "out years" in this case would have to be the teens, because the
document shows planned production up to the end of the decade with
no mention of them (and shows production tapering off then). I do
have
a
fairly clear memory of the navy saying some years back (maybe
5+) that they were dropping out, some time before they committed to
the
MH-60 for CSAR.

I can't see a living budget justification being five years out of
date,
even
from the Navy....My Google efforts have yet to uncover any USN
announcement
of completely giving up on the Osprey being fielded as the HV-22, but
I
did
find that kernel claiming it is still planned.

I know it's almost impossible to find any mention of the navy's lack of
interest on the web (although it's even more
difficult to find any mention of when the navy plans to buy any), but I
definitely read this some years back in a
reputable source quoting the responsible officials, maybe AvLeak or
even a
DoD announcement. However, this article,

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/05/mh60r-seahawk-upgrade-enters-opeval/index.php

which is the best I could find online, includes the following
statement:

The MH-60S will replace the US Navy's HH-60H in the combat-rescue and
special warfare support roles. If the Navy
continues to decline to invest in 48 HV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft
for
search and rescue, special warfare and
fleet logistics support, the MH-60S will become the primary rotary
naval
platform for those roles.

Which does not eliminate USN interest; it just indicates they have not
been
willing to pony up the procurement bucks *yet*.

Given that:

The requirement for 48 HV-22s was part of the program almost from the
get-go;

There was absolutely no mention of the HV-22 in the program status report
from 2001 I have;

V-22 production is scheduled to end about the end of the decade;

Being as the full-rate production annual total is some 42 aircraft, and the
USMC and USAF are getting some 410 or so aircraft, I don't think your "end
of the decade" production end is realistic.


They have no funds programmed for the HV-22 up until then, and

They are buying another a/c for the role.

This seems pretty definite to me.

Inside Defense reported in 2003 that the Navy purchase was a "may".

www.insidedefense.com/public/award7new.asp

Worse for your argument is the following bit from the testimony of a DoD
civilian and a USMC three-star this past March before congress:

"The program of record includes 360 MV-22s for the Marine Corps and 48 for
the Navy."

www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/ 3-9-06LauxCastellawTestimony.pdf

Now personally, I think the V-22 is so manifestly superior in the CSAR role
(other
than at extreme altitudes) to a conventional helo, that anyone choosing
the latter for the role is deliberately
crippling their capability. But, as with the USAF CSAR competition,
they've got a limited pot of money to buy a certain
number of assets, and theycan't buy enough V-22s to go around. What's I
think's going to wind up happening is that
MV-22s and/or CV-22s are going to be called on to do the CSAR missions the
helos can't do, after a few losses where we
lose people due to lack of capability. The marines will be willing, but
the MV-22 lacks some equipment. The specops
side is likely to be unwilling to tie up their assets for the mission as
was the case in DS, which led to crews being
captured who could have been rescued. CSAR was moved out of Specops
afterwards, then back in and just recently out
again.

I don't recall CSAR being a formal AFSOC asset prior to the recent "they
are, now they are not" you mentioned.

Brooks


If we lose some people thatwecould have gotten with the osprey, maybe then
Congress will raise a big to-do and
appropriate funds, and the USAF and/or USN will buy some dedicated CSAR
birds. Or maybe we'll have something even
better by then. What's encouraging to me is that Israel has indicated it
is seriously considering buying some for
CSAR/special ops.

Guy



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Other JSF options
    ... The UK has been guaranteed "operational sovereignty" over its F-35 Joint ... production and in-service support of the F-35, ... Unless you lack the up-front money to make it happen in the first place. ... MV-22s and/or CV-22s are going to be called on to do the CSAR missions the ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Get em while they are hot!
    ... making money hand over fist, there is no need to do that. ... percentage of the market's profit share. ... Because they now have the production capacity to make millions of them. ... Cost: $2.5 Billion. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Qonos...4 years later
    ... with the Qonos project? ... As far as I can tell, Qonos died because it became clear that the cost for the ... but actually moving it into production is much more expensive ... Jeremy Smith has spent a lot of time and his own money trying to figure out ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Hdouche the High School Years
    ... Some of the most successful people in Hollywood got that way by taking a risk and investing their own money in something they believed in. ... It's not like we're talking about THAT much money, at least in comparison to what the final product would cost. ... foolish to use your own money and million of people lost their shirt ... The most I called for was that Stern's production company might've gotten more interest in HS:THSY if they'd put together a 5 minute mini-episode. ...
    (alt.fan.howard-stern)
  • Re: Other JSF options
    ... Politicos stink. ... the aircraft," says the statement. ... production and in-service support of the F-35, ... mainly they think it will cost money they'd rather spend on ...
    (rec.aviation.military)