Forgive the 'non-professional' butting in, but I don't think it is Sandys all over again, JN, for several reasons.
There seems to me to be notably more caution about the 'technology will do everything' from those I encounter at the Purple Learning Centre between the ranks of Flt Lt and 2* (no names...). If the technology sings, dances, makes a decent cup of coffee, etc, then perhaps the Typhoon and JCA will be the last manned FJ, but I don't get the feeling that there are an array of people from Air Officers downwards who see everything ceasing to be unmanned.
The source of the blog worries me a little too- if I'm not mistaken, it's the same chap who appeared on the army means a while ago after the report by some think-tank on the 'secret selling out of the UK's defence industy to Europe'.
He claimed that the Typhoon would use 'exclusively French made missiles', made errors about the C-17 in RAF service which were brushed off with the apologia that the report was written some time before and had been overtaken by events (which it hadn't, and had he never heard of proof reading?), completely misunderstood the farce that was Trigat, and made a number of other attacks on the current government for decisions taken when Portillo was Sec of State. I pointed out some of the more egregious errors and got a holding reply that didn't convince 100%, I'm afraid.
And again, I don't think he's thought through what the White Paper says, and has missed some of the possible alternative interpretations.
Personally I'd say that this is the more relevant paragraph:
Our plans to retain onshore the industrial capabilities required
to ensure effective through-life support to the existing and planned
fast jet fleet – and to invest in developing UCAV technology – will
also provide us with the core industrial skills required to contribute
to any future international manned fast jet programme, should the
requirement for one emerge. This recognises both the uncertainty of
our very long term requirements – with the possibility that we shall
want to replace elements of the Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter fleets
with manned aircraft (my emphasis)
.
And again - bet hedging takes place here:
Therefore, whilst there is no current requirement for a newdesign
manned aircraft beyond our extant plans, future procurements
of uninhabited and/or manned platforms are envisaged.
Emphasis towards unmanned, since that's what everyone will have been suggesting, but manned isn't excluded in the way that Sandys saw it.
For the GR4 replacement:
We are alive to the potential military capability that UCAVs may play in this force mix... (again, my emphasis)
And -
As we are introducing two new highly sophisticated manned
combat fast jet aircraft types which are intended to last for more than 30
years, current plans do not envisage the UK needing to design and build a
future generation of manned fast jet aircraft beyond these types.
That, to me, reads as - 'it's a long time away, and we're not going to start planning for the JCA replacement yet.' (inference being that the whole point of the DIS is to ensure that any future manned FJ takes less time to come to fruition than the Typhoon has). That may be unwise (why not have a contingency study on the back-burner), but then again...
Also, and at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the SoS, the point by the blogger about Reid calling UAVs 'Unihabited Air Vehicles ignores what he actually said:
Hansard, cols 1464-1465, 12/12/05:
That will help us to better understand the potential military benefits of uninhabited aerial vehicles—sometimes referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles, I have been instructed to say.
From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) says "unpersoned". I think that everyone knows that we are talking about the development of what was previously referred to as a drone—no offence is meant to anyone in the Chamber. [Laughter.]
That is a serious investment in unmanned aerial vehicles....
Hardly the Sec of State succumbing to political correctness. Chatham House rules forbid, but I have heard a former communist now in a position of some authority and answering to 'Dr Reid' use the term 'unmanned' rather than 'unihabited' before. I suspect that there may be something of a civil service/ministerial running joke going on here, rather than the 'dour' hand of PC.
Sorry, that's a little long - but my interpretation is that this is a case of 'far, far in the future and we're not going to make any plans for a replacement for JCA and whether there'll be a pilot in it just yet'. The blogger seems, IMHO, to take a glass half empty view that isn't entirely sustained by the evidence, especially if the nuances and lack of firm commitments that litter statements like this are taken into account.