Re: The proposed two Royal Navy 'super carriers'

"Paul J. Adam" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In message <7oWdnSMhmdmeOHLenZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Brooks
<brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"Ian Birchenough" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On the general topic of JSF and the carriers the future of JSF is not
assured. If the Tech transfer arguements aren't sorted out there a lot
current participants who may have second thoughts about the return on
their contributions to the Program. What is being a level 1 partner
getting the UK other than 'metal bending' for the tail structure? (I'm
fully aware that its a little more complex than that, but at the lowest
level that's what it is.)

Really? "That's what it is", eh? Let's see, methinks you are ignoring a
of a lot, especially when you consider the UK manufacturers will be
providing components for thousands of aircraft that the RAF/RN are NOT
buying for their own use!

Well, quite: we should be _happy_ to contribute to a program we're not
allowed to know about.

Let's see, you folks are planning on buying a whopping 15o F-35's, and are
whining because RR will get to contribute the lift-fans and associated
equipment for not only those, but another 500 or so B models to be purchased
by the US forces (and no telling how many for export to other parties), BAE
will be providing a chunk of the airframe (and lots of subsystems) for some
1500 to 2000 US aircraft (all variants) and maye another thousand or two
thousand export aircraft, Smiths will be providing significant compoents for
all of aircraft, etc.? Gee, what a LOUSY deal for you folks! Funny thing is
that you may very well end up making more money off of the F-35 program than
you may actually make off the Typhoon program...

Now what the heck MORE do you think you need to be doing in order to get
credit for doing more than "just bending metal" for the empennage?

Don't ask us, ask Congress. We thought we'd done our part, obviously we
were wrong.

Based upon the numerous examples of UK industry contributions to the program
(the ones you conveniently snipped...), your argument does not hold any


He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk


Relevant Pages

  • Re: The proposed two Royal Navy super carriers
    ... 1500 to 2000 US aircraft and maye another thousand or two ... what a LOUSY deal for you folks! ... share of the JSF technology. ... Chief of Defence Procurement Sir Peter Spencer and Minister for Defence ...
  • Re: Do we need an Air Guard?
    ... and more folks and help got into the area. ... >> wing aircraft play a significant role as there is no place in the ... >>> penetration after the fact because the closest tactical aircraft was ... >>> We are blessed with a large military presence in North Carolina. ...
  • Re: Rent vs. Own
    ... I'm considering buying a new ... note, plus hangar rent, plus maintenance, plus fuel, plus lots of other ... is going to be a big chunk of money every month. ... that I'll fly a new aircraft for the first time in my life (I last flew ...
  • Re: Lets hope nobody sinks one
    ... William Black wrote: ... not yet available) aircraft on them. ... || Nothing we look like buying will have anything like these abilities ... Who knows perhaps in the coming decades we may well have to help 'liberate' one or two other oil producing countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. ...
  • Re: Lets hope nobody sinks one
    ... available) aircraft on them. ... if you want to defend Britain you don't need ships at ... It was designed to stop the attacking forces of the late and unlamented USSR ... Nothing we look like buying will have anything like these abilities because ...