A bit of mixed good news for naval aviation:
Britain agreed Tuesday to remain a partner in the F-35 joint strike fighter program, resolving a contentious eight-month dispute that threatened to end the country’s participation in the international aircraft project.
The agreement grants Britain’s demand that the United States share sensitive strike fighter technology, which British officials said is vital to enable technicians to repair and maintain the nation’s future F-35 fleet. Some U.S. officials feared that the so-called technology transfer would expose key U.S. defense secrets…
Britain was still threatening to pull out of the program as late as Friday, when the parliamentary defense committee urged Blair’s government to seek an alternative aircraft unless the United States relented on technology transfers.
Some senior members of Congress, as well as officials in the Bush administration, have resisted turning over the information for fear that it could expose U.S. know-how to potential competitors outside the United States. But some analysts speculate that the administration ultimately may have complied because of the historic U.S.-British alliance, Blair’s support of the war in Iraq and his friendship with the president.
“The Bush administration is definitely bending the rules to accommodate the British government,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. “The Brits are getting access to some of the most sensitive military technology that America produces.”
We weren’t just being puckish: F-35 partner BAe is also in a consortium to develop the Eurofighter, or “Typhoon” with Germany, Spain and Italy. Another, ostensibly “non-state” member of that consortium is EADS, the owner of Airbus and Ariannespace, with shares owned by the government of France. And avidly acquisitive France, where the lines between national and industrial espionage have often been blurry indeed, often treats ostensibly public EADS as though it was a private arm of l’etat.
So we were never very concerned about getting in bed with BAe, we just weren’t sure about some of the people they’d been sleeping with. These days you can’t be too careful.
High stakes poker, and hopefully everyone can stay inside the lines, because we definitely need some new blood.
Just out of curiousity, are there any plans to ‘navalise’ the F-22? Or is that technically unfeasible?
That would take a ground-up re-engineering, and there’s no way we could afford it.
Naval aircraft have been re-purposed for ground ops (A-7, F-4), but no aircraft designed for shore based ops has ever been successfully navalised for work aboard a carrier.
Chris, I believe there was an early discussion in the 80s of possibly developing a naval version of the ATF, but I don’t think any of those ideas were incorporated into the prototypes (YF-22 and YF-23).
To make the F-22 carrier-ready would require lots of redesign (money & time) and result in a fighter that is significantly heavier from reinforcing the frame, tailhook, and landing gear. I don’t know how much impact the weight would have on performance. Other components may need to redesigned as well. It could be possible, but not really worth it. The F-35 was designed from the very beginning for a naval version.
One small clarification.
BAE has sold its share of EADS ( http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=740&id=1320252006 ).
I think we are not taking too huge a risk with trusting the Brits on this one. I think the source code they want can be controlled in an auditable fashion.
We had a Brit exchange pilot in the F-117 years before it went public, and they kept the secret.
And of course they kept the Manhattan Project a secret, it was Americans who gave it to Stalin.
I work F-22. Navalizing won’t happen. Every time they take a USAF bird and try to make it go Navy, there are too many problems. From the get go, the F-35 (which I also work) was to go Navy and USAF. Two versions have always been in the prints. The motor for the F-35 will be similar to the F-22, but not the same. If I recall (I only work propulsion) the vertical lift capability is being provided by the Brits who have experience with that given the Harrier. The lift fan sits right behind the pilot, which always makes me cock an eyebrow when I see it. An uncontained blade failure in the lift fan would kind of suck.
What I am waiting to see for the F-35 is… do they really single source the motor or are they going to go GE/Pratt with GE providing Navy propulsion and Pratt providing USAF. It was supposed to be dual source, but now… hmm. I think it could go either way, single or dual.
I saw a Brit Lightning, once. Actually, is was an *English Electric* Lightning. In Warner Robins, GA, at the museum there. I think it was back in ’04, or thenabouts. They didn’t have it quite ready for display, but it was accessible, and autistic aerophile that I am, I crawled all over it. The places where it should have had its jet engines were empty, which was disappointing.
Any of y’all who like to hang out with, and talk about, old military airplanes, can not go wrong by visiting the Warner Robins museum.
It is a petting zoo for old bombers.
Speaking of which, I’m worried about their B-57. When I’ve been there, I rubbed it and said, “It’s OK,somebody will come along and look out for you!” They still have left it out in the weather, last time I looked.
That’s just wrong!
I’m “anonymous” again, when I wanted recognition for my pseudonym. What’s going on here? Dang.
I wish I could fix up my favorite pet B-57, sometimes, so it could fly again, with bombs, and everything, and drop said bombs on the houses of whomever wrote these stupid blog programs which don’t work like I’d like them to work.
Just Kiddin!
But very grumpy. It’s still not against the law to be grumpy. Right?
“…but no aircraft designed for shore based ops has ever been successfully navalised for work aboard a carrier.”
While some might question the “successful” aspect of the re-design, the fact is that the T-45 was redesigned from the BaE Hawk which was/is a land-based dsign. Of course the gestation period was much longer and more fraught w/difficulty than originally envisioned too…
- SJS
Bou,
LM (F-35 winner) developed the vert lift capability and will build it, right? Very elegant design (that big fan), totally unlike the Boeing competitor for award that didn’t win. That design was similar to Harrier. Both prototypes are in the PAX museum.
My understanding is that there are 3 versions, CTOL, (USAF), carrier (Navy) and VSTOL/STOL (USMC/RN). I think of ‘em as little gear, big gear and gear on the wingtips!
Gotta ask. Is that big engine all it’s cracked up to be? The company performance and reliability specs are, well, hard to believe.
This is gonna takes decades. Maybe we ought to jump a generation and go to a UAV/UCAV/BAMS/MMA/Helos for Naval Aviation’s toolbox?
LOL. Sorry I said that. Wash my mouth out w/soap.
I’m just kidding but THERE ARE Naval officers ready and poised to propose just that! Ain’t that scary?
b2
b2-
The engines on the F22 are absolutely fantastic. Tremendous, really. That said… same technology is being used on the F35. Do I believe the Performance/Reliability specs? (I’m wishing right now I still worked in Performance…) I’m not sure. I know anytime a new motor goes out on the market there are growing pains. That left side of the old bathtub curve. Reliability will continue to improve and unless there is a serious design flaw in the motors, I think its going to be pretty damn reliable. There is always a BIG SELL though… so, take that into consideration for the specs.
There are issues though, that I won’t go into, and I’m wondering how they’re going to work them out. There are some big issues. But… that happens with every new generation a/c.
I think Rolls is doing the Vert Lift. That’s what I had been told… I’m pretty sure the Brits have that part.
the engines though… absolutely amazing.