Firstly, let me acknowledge I don’t have the weal world understanding and view of the how things are actually done that you do so apologise if at times I come across as amateurish.
I acknowledge also that with such a globally connected and enormous industry and project s there are gonna be very totally domesticated produced and designed products, with only the US being of designing and building tomorrow’s fighter and system of systems completely independently and even they may increasingly source some elements from close allies.
My original point was about the difference in how we like to think we are seen by the rest of the world and how they actually do see us. For national pride reasons if nothing else I don’t want to surrender our ability to develop a next generation fighter to the US but real world reality means in order to see that happen there’s gonna have to be some very grown up and humbling decisions and compromises to be made. We’ve all stated that previous multinational programs have gone wrong cos too many folks demand so many different things the aircraft needs to be leading to massive cost over runs and over complications. The only alternative to this is let one nation become the design lead, perhaps in return for the other being design lead elsewhere. At times noses will have to be out of joint when nations are told someone else is better in a certain field than them. When we look at who has actually produced the most modern top end fighters independently, like it or not France has a better claim than us here. As stated our problem was never technical capability but political will (a la my TSR2 comments). Are Europe really grown up enough and getting on well enough to do this?
Despite wishing we could retain an independent British capability has this ship already sailed. As with Europe we’re really only looking at retaining an 8ndustrial capability, the funds for which maybe better used for backing the commercial sector as let’s face Europe is never gonna have capability, will or balls to take on any serious peer foe without the US. Our defence policies and governments treatment of their defence capabilities make this patently obvious. Hard pills to swallow, very hard.
But in these post brexit days are we better off throwing our lot in totally with the US. To be honest it’s lower block. I’d prefer to be part of over all. I wish we could retain some national independence but think this ship sailed a while ago and see no way any current or future govt will put in the money, sacrifice and commitment to give us back our indoependence and ability to not have to rely on the cousins or large overly expensive European coalition projects that we will never be able fo use to their full potential without US legs to hide behind.
If only more people, knew this defence might actually be something voters cared about....I
No disrespect, but I think this is a load of defeatest nonsense.
Firstly, the idea that we haven't built anything since TSR2 is just false. The Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft. Rolls Royce based engine, Marconi based radar, EAP based airframe. The fact that we built it as part of a consortium and were generous in the workshare arrangements was a conscious choice and partly driven by cold war politics and the need to keep NATO together. But at the end of the day we have 37.5% of a production run that will likely top out around 800, France has 100% of a run of 190.
Since Typhoon we've also designed and built a significant chunk of F35 which will keep manufacturing skills fresh. We have two very good partners on Tempest with the possibility of more down the line. There's no reason we cannot do this in fact apart from Successor I can't think of a single defence program I'd rank above it.
Oh and there's another point - not sure the Americans have an alternative program we can join. Can we bet our long term security on Trump being an anamoly? How do you know there's not another three isolationists lining up behind him? Big gamble there
SD67 wrote: But at the end of the day we have 37.5% of a production run that will likely top out around 800, France has 100% of a run of 190.
Since Typhoon we've also designed and built a significant chunk of F35 which will keep manufacturing skills fresh.
Lord Jim wrote: though Canada could give them a run for their money.
The Japanese government has begun to coordinate with the U.S. and Japan in developing the next fighter jet to be introduced by the Air Self-Defense Forces in the mid-2030s. In joint development, Japan will bear most of the development costs in order to maintain the "Japan-led" policy. Therefore, it maintains an advantage to develop critical parts and to freely modify aircraft in the future. At the same time, the relationship with Britain, which has a plan for a new fighter jet, is only technical cooperation. The decision will be made officially within the year.
The government was choosing development form in one of (1) the domestic (b) international co-development (3) the existing machine. The focus was on which to choose, since last summer, when the joint development was put forward and the U.S. or the U.K. held full- U.S. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and U.K. BAE Systems have been nominated to be linked, and they have been given information on what development is possible.
Behind the set direction of joint U.S.-Japan development is the deepening of the partnership between the U.S. Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military. The number and content of joint U.S.-Japan drills are expanding, and advanced tactical network functions need to be shared with the U.S. military. The Defense Ministry has less interoperability (interoperability) with the U.S. in its proposal for the concept of the next fighter jet, which was presented in late 19. The number of freedom staring at the upgrading of future combat was also a top priority.
Under the U.S.-coordinated initiative, the Self-Defense Forces will seek to cooperate on the premise that it will build new fighter jets for the U.S. forces operate. The U.S. side does not adopt a mixture of existing machines previously shown. It guarantees freedom of innovation by paying most of the development costs to Japan. Japan is responsible for the mission system, which controls radar, sensors and electronic warfare equipment, which is the primary function of fighter jets. One U.S. company to link is not limited to one.
The form of joint development with the UK is not taken, but it complements technology. In Britain, plans to develop a new fighter jet called the Tempest are under way, and the joint development of Japanese fighter systems and electronic equipment has been explored. However, the joint development of the U.S., Japan and the U.S. decided that the U.S.-Japan alliance could not maintain its superiority and decided to reduce it to technological cooperation. They present the range of technologies that can be provided in mutual development projects and are presupposing each other.
Japan's defense industry will be joined by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Toshiba and IHI. The companies have begun research on the high-powered small radar that can detect stealth jets and high-powered engine in the mind of mounting on the next fighter jet. Specifically, the Department of Defense packages the details of which companies are responsible for the part of the gas. Defense Minister Taro Kono stresses that "freedom of future innovation is also a very important thing to secure a degree of freedom in improving capabilities."
Some twists and turns are expected until the final decision. A development plan was developed in the 1980s. The F2 fighter was originally scheduled to be developed by Japan. However, the U.S. took the initiative due to the impact of the U.S.-Japan trade friction. As a result, the design of the part of the period, which is classified to the fighter jet, is not open to Japan, and the number has become a gas that cannot be freely counted.
U.S. President Trump is also reportedly interested in plans to develop the next fighter jet. The U.S.-Japan staff will continue to make adjustments until the end of the year to finalize their final policy on development costs and manufacturing share.
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO56 ... 0A3PP8000/
Ares wrote:Japan is responsible for the mission system, which controls radar, sensors and electronic warfare equipment, which is the primary function of fighter jets.
inch wrote:Can someone explain to me what all that means in simple terms Cos just read that and what are they saying lol,? Is it the us designing the jet and Japan building the mission systems in it ? And Japan and the us agreed that they not going to do anything with the tempest team ,is that about the size of it ?
Lord Jim wrote:and far fewer F-35s being purchased than originally planned.
bobp wrote:Hope though that the number doesn't stop at 48
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests