JSF - should we or shouldn't we?

[Saracenman]

spawned from a conversation I've just had with XPL, i thought this thread might produce some interesting debate

proposition
we should forget all about JSF/Lightning 2 and shove an arrestor hook on some Typhoons instead!

reasoning
the nature of warfare, and how our personnel and kit are used is completely different to what it was twenty years ago. no longer are we pointing guns at Russians! with Harrier rapidly approaching the end of its life, do we really NEED an aircraft with STOVL capability?

given that we are soon to receive two new carriers (hopefully!) with the ability, if needed in the future, to receive steam catapults - why not build them NOW for a navalised Typhoon?

the Murkins have made things very difficult for us with JSF - all this hooha about the avionics and software, and it not being in their 'national security interests' to release it to us - even though they'll be relying heavily on our unrestricted technology!

Typhoon is proving to be a far more capable machine than the one originally designed - with a high percentage of the airframe and systems being British- designed and British-built. would we, as a nation, be better off with a homegrown PROVEN and PAID-FOR product rather than one yet to prove its worth?

the Murkins manage fine with 'conventional' aircraft operated from carriers don't they? the only reason that the RN ended up with Harrier (that they initially didn't want anyway!) was because they lost the Bucc and Phantom - what else was there as a replacement? old Ark Royal was sorely missed by the RN in the Falklands War, having been decommissioned only three years before

do we really have a requirement to hide aircraft in European forest clearings these days?

discuss!

sm

[Mayfly]

interesting topic SM - whilst I know nothing about the technicalities of the JSF I do know that the Typhoon has had many good reports & is more capable than first thought

what ever decision we make I hope it is for the right reasons & not has has happened so many times before a political one

[Saracenman]

a few pics and spec for those who might not know....


JSF - Lightning 2


General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.37 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m)
Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
Wing area: 460 ft² (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: A: 29,036 lb, B: 32,161 lb, C: 32,070 lb (A: 13,170 kg, B: 14,588 kg, C: 14,547 kg)
Loaded weight: 44,400 lb (20,100 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,200 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 25,000 lbf (111 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 40,000+ lbf (178+ kN)
Secondary Powerplant: 1× General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan, >40,000 lbf (178 kN) [in development]
Lift fan (STOVL): 1× Rolls-Royce LiftSystem driven from either F135 or F136 power plant, 18,000 lbf (80 kN)
Internal fuel: F-35A: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg); F-35B: 14,003 lb (6,352 kg); F-35C: 20,085 lb (9,110 kg)

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nmi; C: >1,200 nmi (A: 2,220 km; B: 1,670 km; C: >2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: A: >590 nmi; B: >450 nmi; C: >600 nmi (A: 1,090 km; B: 830 km; C: 1,110 km) on internal fuel
Service ceiling: A/B/C: 60,000 ft (18,288 m)
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: A: 0.89; B: 0.92; C: 0.81
With 50% fuel: A: 1.12; B: 1.10; C: 1.01
g-Limits: F-35A: 9 g, F-35B: 9 g, F-35C: 9 g

Armament
Guns: 1 × GAU-22/A 25 mm (0.984 in) cannon — slated to be mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A and fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B and F-35C.[31]
Hardpoints: 6× external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and 2× internal bays with 2 pylons each

Missiles:

Internal: 4 air-to-air missiles, or 2 air-to-air missiles and 2 air-to-ground weapons.
External: 6 air-to-air missiles, or 4 air-to-ground weapons and 2 air-to-air missiles with combinations for the following missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-132 ASRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
Air-to-ground weapons:
AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-158 JASSM

Bombs:

Mark 84 general purpose bombs
Mark 83 GP bombs
Mark 82 GP bombs
Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
JDAM-series



Typhoon


General characteristics
Crew: 1 (operational aircraft) or 2 (training aircraft)
Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 50 m² (538 ft²)
Empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,250 lb)
Loaded weight: 15,550 kg (34,280 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (51,800 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,500 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,000 lbf) each

Performance
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2+ (2,495 km/h, 1550 mph)
At sea level: Mach 1.2
Supercruise: Mach 1.1[137]-1.5
Range: 2,900 km (1,840 mi)
Combat radius: 556 km (345 mi)
Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
Service ceiling: 19,812 m (65,000 ft)
Rate of climb: >315 m/s[142][143] (62,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 311 kg/m² (63.7 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.16

Armament
Gun: 1x 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 150 rounds
13 weapons hardpoints
Air-to-Air missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-120 AMRAAM, IRIS-T and in the future MBDA Meteor
Air-to-Ground missiles: AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-88 HARM, ALARM, Storm Shadow (AKA "Scalp EG"), Brimstone, Taurus KEPD 350, Penguin and in the future AGM Armiger
Bombs: Paveway 2, Paveway 3, Enhanced Paveway, JDAM, HOPE/HOSBO
Laser designator, e.g. LITENING pod


Queen Elizabeth Class carrier (two proposed: HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince of Wales)

artist's impression

[Mackrick]

SM

Funny you should bring this up now. I was involved in a conversation at work where the very subject of arrestor hooks and Typhoons where mentioned. The gist of it was this has already been looked at. A certain amount of airframe beefing up is required though. How far these thoughts have been progressed I am not at liberty to discuss though.

[Jigsaw]

Typhoon for me

[Dan4th]

As for ME, I hope it comes down to realities
rather than politics. One thing is for certain,
we mere mortals on here do not possess the
knowledge to make that kind of a decision
with the possible exception of Mackrick --
and even HE only hears stuff.......of course
a lot of it he can't pass on.....

Dan4th

[Saracenman]

it'll be interesting Danf to see just how you Murkins will USE JSF!

once Harrier is gone, i imagine your Marines will take JSF on - but the USN????? if THEY have no need for it, why would WE?

sm

[Pujgnie]

Just gonna lob my 2p's worth in...

The JSF looks like a poor mans copy of the F22 Raptor.. and is just as Pig Ugly.



Typhoon is faster and 'looks the part' - and will probably be a whole lot cheaper to develope into a Carrier version. Typhoon has showed it's very short take off ability at many Airshows, and is pretty jaw dropping to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfeC--zn0I

Needless to say......... Typhoon for me

[Saracenman]

........Typhoon has showed it's very short take off ability at many Airshows..........

and imagine what it would be like combined with that other fine BRITISH invention - the steam catapult!

sm

[Tom.com]

i think it is a good idea with my new knowledge of the Typhoon. The RAF need some more first though

[Saracenman]

and what have the RAF got to do with it?

i wouldn't trust anyone in the RAF with a 65,000 tonne ship - they'd want to know where the wings are

[Tom.com]

yes but shouldn't the country be safe before the rest of the world are not?

[Saracenman]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! now i see what you mean; you mean that the RAF should receive THEIR Typhoons before thinking about providing ADDITIONAL Typhoons for the Royal Navy!

well that won't be an issue will it - the Harrier's around for a few years yet - and the first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, won't be in service until 2014 at the very earliest!

so - what d'you think Tom.com? Lightning 2 or navalised Typhoons?

sm

[Gully]

I was having this debate in the pub last week!

I think the only real differentiator is what stealth capabilities the JSF will provide. If these (whatever they end up being!) are not seen as vital to the role of the aircraft and it's operational lifetime, then Navalised Typhoon all the way.

The pub debate started from the news that we'd ordered our first 3 JSF's - I said I hoped they would be the last 3...

Gully

[RLN]

Typhoon for me - mainly 'cos they had the nerve to call it a Lightning (yes, I know about the P38 ). It's got to be cheaper to beef the airframe and undercarriage up and have a going concern with (by then) shaken down technology and equipment than take on an unknown. You never know, the Murkins may even decide to buy some for their carriers.

[Saracenman]

I'm due to see my RN mate in the next couple of days - he's ex-Lockheed Martin engineering too, and knows an awful lot about it - I'll see if i can get some gen from the pro

sm

[Dan4th]

Regarding P-38, it was YOUR people who
named it Lightning when the first ones got
over to you. Lockheed had some other name,
but it was YOUR name that stuck!

As for all the rest of this, I don't have enough
information to develop an informed opinion.

Dan4th

[RLN]

Yes Dan4th, I agree with you about the P38, I was talking about the JSF. Anyway, the only person who should have all the facts is the Defence Minister and he'll do what he is told to by the Treasury and the Foreign Office and the PM's Office.

[Xplumberlives]

So, what will we call our new NAVALISED Typhoon?

Suggestions please;

[Gully]

So, what will we call our new NAVALISED Typhoon?

Suggestions please;

About time we had another Tempest to go with the Typhoon...

Gully

[Xplumberlives]

Personally i would like to see them called;

































































































HARPOON

[Tom.com]

Personally i would like to see them called;

































































































HARPOON

OH DEAR THAT IS BAD

SM, I think they should wait until we have them both then see what suits the job better. there is no point in saying Typhoon all the way is the Lightning 2 will do the job better.

[Xplumberlives]

Tom wrote
THAT IS BAD

Tom that is a REAL HONOUR that you consider that it's BAD!!!!!!!!

[Saracenman]

XPL is da bad man in da hood

so, Tom.com - we spend MILLIONS on something which might not do the job - and then get rid of it?

GENIUS!

sm

[Xplumberlives]

XPL is da bad man in da hood
so, Tom.com - we spend MILLIONS on something which might not do the job - and then get rid of it?
GENIUS!
sm

Do you know, I think Tom has a great future as a LABOUR politician;

Just look at the history;

TSR2
F111 et al!