View Full Version : UK Future Fighter
http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/farnborough/2018/06/25/excluded-from-cooperative-plans-in-europe-uk-sets-groundwork-for-future-fighters/
Excluded from cooperative plans in Europe, UK sets groundwork for future fighters
B Fraser
26th Jun 2018, 07:56
Give the recent dummy spit by Airbus, I have been wondering about the possibility of a successful resurgent British aircraft industry or a new commercial alliance between like minded countries. A UK / Canada / Sweden triumvirate could produce something quite interesting.
glad rag
26th Jun 2018, 09:22
With BAe as a F35 "tier one" supplicant the link up with LM should be obvious.....
Jetex_Jim
26th Jun 2018, 09:48
Give the recent dummy spit by Airbus, I have been wondering about the possibility of a successful resurgent British aircraft industry or a new commercial alliance between like minded countries. A UK / Canada / Sweden triumvirate could produce something quite interesting.
I imagine the main problem will be convincing any potential partners of the UK's commitment in the long term.
Countries such as Canada and Sweden may be reluctant to partner with a country who's GDP, and thus defence budget, is likely to be in free fall for the next decade.
Additionally, just how much will the UK be able to bring to the table? The former Ferranti, who contributed Eurofighter Radar, HUD, Helmet etc is now foreign owned!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selex_ES Would a company that is essentially Italian be welcome in such a project?
You might equally ask how long a European company will want to maintain ownership?
And the officers, workshops, personnel and Security ownership, including permission for sharing and divulgence/export remains with the UK government.
Heathrow Harry
26th Jun 2018, 12:05
Give the recent dummy spit by Airbus, I have been wondering about the possibility of a successful resurgent British aircraft industry or a new commercial alliance between like minded countries. A UK / Canada / Sweden triumvirate could produce something quite interesting.
when? and at what cost? and who would buy it?? We can hardly afford 48 F-35's... between all tehree countries you'd be lucky to sell 120 new jets
melmothtw
26th Jun 2018, 12:41
I have been wondering about the possibility of a successful resurgent British...
And there's the Brexit delusion, right there - you have nothing beyond pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Meanwhile, companies that employ thousands of UK workers and which contribute billions to the country's GDP tell it how it really is, and you dismiss it as dummy spitting. God help us.
Pontius Navigator
26th Jun 2018, 13:03
And there's the Brexit delusion, right there . . ., and you dismiss it as dummy spitting. God help us.
Well what is it? A measured commercial decision by a major manufacture with a global market summarily chopping off one of its production arms?
melmothtw
26th Jun 2018, 13:05
A measured commercial decision by a major manufacture with a global market summarily having one of its production arms chopped off.
- fixed it for you.
Not_a_boffin
26th Jun 2018, 13:28
It is interesting to note that the barriers to frictionless trade that are being blamed for the tsunami of briefings about pulling out from the UK this week appear to originate primarily in Brussels. There is little discernible reason to impose tariffs and extra customs demands on goods and services, other than at the behest of the EU Commission. Strangely this appears to be exclusively the fault of the UK for having the temerity to express a desire to leave the EU construct. A situation resulting in what has been described as a punishment beating - or at very least demanding money with menaces, which only reinforces the decision in this reluctant leaver to vote leave in the first place.
Were it not for the utterly shambolic state of party politics at the minute, one suspects HMG would have a more robust position than it is currently deploying. It is a fact that trade with Asia and the Americas can be made relatively frictionless, given a desire to make it work, what possible difference can there be with the EU?
Dryce
26th Jun 2018, 14:32
Were it not for the utterly shambolic state of party politics at the minute, one suspects HMG would have a more robust position than it is currently deploying.
Public opinion may also be somewhat shambolic.
As regards defence sector and threat to GDP I wonder if defence as it stands has a net benefit to GDP - I don't believe it consumes UK taxpayers' money effectively and I suspect that if the capabilities were used in other sectors they wouild generate at least as much for the GDP.
If I was looking at a future fighter then I'd want to avoid long timescales and massive costs and I'd be having a chat with Sweden about participating a next gen Gripen to get an aircraft that had some capability and get them in reasonable quantity to actually act as a reasonable deterrent or threat to any adversary. Frankly I don't think that Brexit would have any net effect - the Swedes would probably be more wary of a larger partner and be concerned about the complicatons of a multinational project with costs being ramped up and all the bad stuff that seems to come with the likes of gettiing Tornado, Typhoon, and Lightning into service.
And the moment the other potential EU partners and the US got wind of such a deal with Sweden kicking off then there would be a whole load of counter-offers ..... none of them would want the lack of UK taxpayer money and they wouldn't want another competitor on the market.
Finningley Boy
26th Jun 2018, 14:33
And there's the Brexit delusion, right there - you have nothing beyond pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Meanwhile, companies that employ thousands of UK workers and which contribute billions to the country's GDP tell it how it really is, and you dismiss it as dummy spitting. God help us.
Would this be airbus which has hoovered up British largesse in the form of subsidies and now threaten to clear off to that Jewel in the EU crown China or some place? I can certainly see the logic.
Best Regards,
FB
Pontius Navigator
26th Jun 2018, 14:35
A measured commercial decision by a major manufacture with a global market summarily having one of its production arms chopped off.
- fixed it for you.
either way it was not us
melmothtw
26th Jun 2018, 15:00
Good grief!
The British government says that it is planning for a no-deal as that is the prudent thing to do. Airbus says that it too is planning for a no-deal and Brexiteers are apoplectic with righteous indignation - "How dare they?!"
As for the EU, it is protecting its interests - what did you think was going to happen?
Would be too funny if mine and everyone else's jobs weren't on the line. Dont imagine your pensions are safe either, by the way, when the EU taxpayers leave and the retired UK expats come back.
Davef68
26th Jun 2018, 15:04
It is interesting to note that the barriers to frictionless trade that are being blamed for the tsunami of briefings about pulling out from the UK this week appear to originate primarily in Brussels. There is little discernible reason to impose tariffs and extra customs demands on goods and services, other than at the behest of the EU Commission. Strangely this appears to be exclusively the fault of the UK for having the temerity to express a desire to leave the EU construct. A situation resulting in what has been described as a punishment beating - or at very least demanding money with menaces, which only reinforces the decision in this reluctant leaver to vote leave in the first place.
?
Pour encourager les autres as the French would have it - and I am/was a reluctant remainer
Pontius Navigator
26th Jun 2018, 15:10
Would be too funny if mine and everyone else's jobs weren't on the line. Dont imagine your pensions are safe either, by the way, when the EU taxpayers leave and the retired UK expats come back.
You paint an optimistic picture.
[QUOTE=melmothtw;10182210]Good grief!
The British government says that it is planning for a no-deal as that is the prudent thing to do. Airbus says that it too is planning for a no-deal and Brexiteers are apoplectic with righteous indignation - "How dare they?!"
As for the EU, it is protecting its interests - what did you think was going to happen?
Would be too funny if mine and everyone else's jobs weren't on the line. Dont imagine your pensions are safe either, by the way, when the EU taxpayers leave and the retired UK expats come home?
Everyone else’s job? I don’t think so.
NutLoose
26th Jun 2018, 22:40
Aspirations
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x360/boeingfx1_5cd35cf4df0cc3d3301b8ae1ae6820db160cb0a3.jpg
Financial reality
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/709x553/air_super_tucano_amazon_patrol_lg_e1906ce13d4d12cb329c726288 2b47cf21ed9050.jpg
Buster Hyman
27th Jun 2018, 05:17
Aspirations
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x360/boeingfx1_5cd35cf4df0cc3d3301b8ae1ae6820db160cb0a3.jpg
Financial reality
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/709x553/air_super_tucano_amazon_patrol_lg_e1906ce13d4d12cb329c726288 2b47cf21ed9050.jpg
Probable outcome...
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/784x476/e529491ce86f003d65d9d53fe3c58d60_8003469285f8a7e51c31a852b1d 66522d5f6fffc.jpg
Heathrow Harry
27th Jun 2018, 06:53
Now that did make me laugh.... I know it's a lot more serious than that - in fact it's so serious its hard to imagine but........................
Sun Who
27th Jun 2018, 06:54
What do we think of this:
https://aeralis.com/
Credible? Is it an idea whose time has come?
Sun.
etudiant
27th Jun 2018, 13:30
What do we think of this:
https://aeralis.com/
Credible? Is it an idea whose time has come?
Sun.
Is the need really for an ab initio trainer? How does that help solve the RAF fast jet renewal program?
Rigga
27th Jun 2018, 13:58
Is the need really for an ab initio trainer? How does that help solve the RAF fast jet renewal program?
It builds confidence in the manufacturing business in readiness for a future fighter programme - you have to treat this as a new company designing and producing a new aircraft...
You never know, it might even prove worth doing/having?
We had an industry based on aircraft before and we have the brains to start a new one - but - we must walk before we can run.
Sun Who
27th Jun 2018, 16:26
It builds confidence in the manufacturing business in readiness for a future fighter programme - you have to treat this as a new company designing and producing a new aircraft...
You never know, it might even prove worth doing/having?
We had an industry based on aircraft before and we have the brains to start a new one - but - we must walk before we can run.
I think I'm inclined to agree.
The UK hasn't produced a front line FJ on its own in decades and I don't think it could do so now from a standing start. Plus, I very much like the idea of options beyond BAeS.
Sun.
etudiant
28th Jun 2018, 03:00
It builds confidence in the manufacturing business in readiness for a future fighter programme - you have to treat this as a new company designing and producing a new aircraft...
You never know, it might even prove worth doing/having?
We had an industry based on aircraft before and we have the brains to start a new one - but - we must walk before we can run.
Sounds like a first step in a very long term program. Nothing that would provide relevant options for a 2025-2035 Tornado/Typhoon replacement decision.
t43562
28th Jun 2018, 06:17
It is interesting to note that the barriers to frictionless trade that are being blamed for the tsunami of briefings about pulling out from the UK this week appear to originate primarily in Brussels. There is little discernible reason to impose tariffs and extra customs demands on goods and services, other than at the behest of the EU Commission. Strangely this appears to be exclusively the fault of the UK for having the temerity to express a desire to leave the EU construct. A situation resulting in what has been described as a punishment beating - or at very least demanding money with menaces, which only reinforces the decision in this reluctant leaver to vote leave in the first place.
Why is the US imposing tarrifs on steel? Why have tarriffs ever been imposed? Surely it cannot be that in a forum where people understand complicated systems that this issue is dark?
Were it not for the utterly shambolic state of party politics at the minute, one suspects HMG would have a more robust position than it is currently deploying. It is a fact that trade with Asia and the Americas can be made relatively frictionless, given a desire to make it work, what possible difference can there be with the EU?
Presumably shambolic because an attempt is being made to complete a difficult project which only had the support of half the stakeholders? Since support for anything declines over time if benefits fail to appear, isn't it a bit optimistic to start such a project without a much higher level of support? Taking a certain expensive aircraft programme as an example the contracts were spread out and organised so that political support would continue as states would want to keep their share of the 'pork'. Who stands to win from this one? Who's investing now to 'take advantage' of the outcome? Maybe they should speak up and explain why they need it.
Aim: Design and produce a warplane for RAF with export baked in from the start.
Assumptions: UK lead and export desire rules out US partnership.
France and Germany ruled out as a break away team.
More partners desired to stump up for costs.
Fewer partners desired to avoid NETMA-esque shambles.
’States of concern’ not likely partners.
UK industry, capacity, skills, funding likely to support a single large programme.
Export competition hot and unlikely to feature a high volume market for a high spec system.
RAF unlikely to write requirement for low spec system.
Sounds like quite the problem to crack.
But it may give us one day in the sunshine when we announce our plans with new found confidence and dare to believe.
Thank goodness it’s nigh on impossible to arrive at a cost per copy of Typhoon - or a realistic assessment of its capabilities - perhaps we can use this as a model for extolling the virtues of whatever it is we set out to produce.
My £5 goes on an achievement that absolutely nails ‘expensive mediocrity’.
Heathrow Harry
28th Jun 2018, 07:58
Every defence programme is "export oriented" at kick-off but we constantly finish up with high end kit that is of no interest to most countries.
no-one has come asking for a new T 45, tho I'm sure they'll be easy to get rid of in 25years time. The French are willing to acceptslightly lower specs to shift units and lower the unit cost
Not_a_boffin
28th Jun 2018, 08:57
Strangely, no one has come asking for any Horizon-class frigates either, so your supposition may be slightly awry in this case.
glad rag
28th Jun 2018, 09:13
Would this be airbus which has hoovered up British largesse in the form of subsidies and now threaten to clear off to that Jewel in the EU crown China or some place? I can certainly see the logic.
Best Regards,
FB
:D :D :D :D
Jabba_TG12
28th Jun 2018, 09:55
And there's the Brexit delusion, right there - you have nothing beyond pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Meanwhile, companies that employ thousands of UK workers and which contribute billions to the country's GDP tell it how it really is, and you dismiss it as dummy spitting. God help us.
Nothing like jumping in with both feet, eh Melmothtw? Mr Bull, allow me to introduce you to Mr China Shop...
peter we
28th Jun 2018, 18:07
There is little discernible reason to impose tariffs and extra customs demands on goods and services, other than at the behest of the EU Commission. Strangely this appears to be exclusively the fault of the UK for having the temerity to express a desire to leave the EU construct.
Except, of course it would be utterly illegal for the EU to offer anything better than what they offer every other third country around the world. The UK has insisted on leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, there is NOTHING else on offer becuase there can't be anything else.
Give the recent dummy spit by Airbus.
Trade agreements with other countries, the EU cant break them so manufacturing in the UK becomes unviable. Its not a choice by Airbus, BMW, Jaguar etc its reality.
NutLoose
28th Jun 2018, 18:40
They will build an all singing all dancing multi role aircraft in association with somewhere like India, then realise the naval variant will not launch from our ageing carriers resulting in a mega expensive carrier refit to add catapults to facilitate them..
;)
cokecan
28th Jun 2018, 19:26
...The French are willing to acceptslightly lower specs to shift units and lower the unit cost
they also seem willing to accept burning ships as the price for exports (that as has been pointed out, no one wants) - whats your view on that Harry, good defence planning, or the actions of an idiot?
Jetex_Jim
28th Jun 2018, 20:28
I'm surprised no one has latched onto this.
https://www.ft.com/content/9b6d7af6-6d6a-11e8-92d3-6c13e5c92914
Turkey and UK battle to save fighter jet project
Given Brexit such a deal should be right down the UK's alley, no?
Turkish and UK ministers are battling to save a flagship partnership to develop a fifth generation fighter jet. Rolls-Royce, the British aero-engine group, has been working with Turkish industrial giant Kale to bid for the engine development contract on the TF-X jet, an ambitious project to produce Turkey’s first indigenous combat aircraft. A dispute has emerged over the role of a company with close ties to Qatar and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd8f45ba-72de-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601
Failure to strike a deal would be a lost revenue opportunity for Rolls-Royce — and BAE Systems, which is also involved. Far more important, however, are the ramifications for the UK’s air defence capability. The TF-X could also help to fix a pressing problem at home. Production of the Eurofighter Typhoon will cease in the mid-2020s...
Buster Hyman
29th Jun 2018, 03:16
RAN just announced purchase of Hunters. Light, tunnel...perhaps?
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/british-company-wins-35-billion-australian-warshipbuilding-program/news-story/d6c3cc568c8780980e6c4e3ee981261f
Heathrow Harry:
”Every defence programme is "export oriented" at kick-off but we constantly finish up with high end kit that is of no interest to most countries. No-one has come asking for a new T 45, tho I'm sure they'll be easy to get rid of in 25years time. The French are willing to acceptslightly lower specs to shift units and lower the unit cost
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44649959
BAE wins multi-billion pound Australian warship contract
British defence giant BAE Systems has won a multi-billion pound contract from the Australian government to build nine new warships, marking a significant victory for British military exports.
BAE beat Italian and Spanish rivals to win a large slice of the £19.6bn ($25.7bn; A$35bn) spending programme. The ships will be based on anti-submarine frigates that BAE is building for the UK's Royal Navy.......
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/540x559/image001_f106301cdc95790fd567dfca1ba61b7612c3dad2.jpg
Someone is going to have to explain to me how a ship built in Australia, by Australians, qualifies for that headline.
It seems to me that ‘we’ have sold a design to someone - not a capability - and how that makes our kit better, cheaper or earlier is (sadly!) beyond me.
And you think all the aircraft in a joint programme would be built in the UK? Nloke the Tornado, Typhoon and F-35? Or any other export sales where the airframes are assembled locally?
I believe the usual response is that while the hull may be built locally, most of the systems inside - such as the RR engines, radars, C4I systems etc - will be sourced from the primary UK manufacturers - and doubling the number ordered reduces the price across the board.
Buster Hyman
29th Jun 2018, 07:49
...and how that makes our kit better, cheaper or earlier is (sadly!) beyond me.
Better - Collaboration, "many minds", warm water/tropical development done elsewhere etc
Cheaper - Volume. Parts, repairs, expertise, etc
Earlier - More investment. It could expedite the development.
The projected fleet's just been doubled.
peter we
29th Jun 2018, 08:43
Someone is going to have to explain to me how a ship built in Australia, by Australians, qualifies for that headline.
65-70% of the work will be in Australia.
alf5071h
29th Jun 2018, 09:51
The first step is to understand what the future requirement will be. He lies the problem with the fluctuating state of the world and political whim.
The timescale required to develop, design, build, and test modern systems is now so long it negates most plans. Hence the reluctance of any single manufacturer to commit to a ‘dated’ requirement, preferring to spread the cost of inevitable change (blame) amongst several countries.
One approach is to design multi-role aircraft; but nowadays it is the expected roles which are ill defined / uncertain. Another approach is to address the national and manufacturing need by managing these uncertainties by having ‘role flexible’ aircraft, but again what does that consist of in the absence of defined roles.
Both have been tried with varying success, but an emergent strategy is to adapt what already exists. F15, F16, F18, are conventionally ‘old’, - 1974’sh prototypes, yet are still capable for most current needs after modification. History might identify as error the demise of the Tornado; why don’t we build on success - do we recognise successful adaptation when we achieve it. cf A10.
Does the U.K. have a flexible, adaptable manned aircraft for the future in the Typhoon; make it stealthy if required, integrate electronics, etc. The Lightning II debate is elsewhere, but starting with stealth and trying to adapt that might reduce the original capability.
Back to the super Hawk or RPV, to support international intervention; a ‘battleship’ armed AEW / surveillance / anti sub for the more consistent defensive role, yet how many of these tasks could be undertaken by RPV, and what are the development capabilities / timescales for RPV. Fewer platforms, but with a greater range of sensors and weapons.
Perhaps this why the manufacturers have a healthy focus on RPV; adaptable for the home market and sufficient flexible - cost effective, for overseas sales, and more resilient in accommodating world and political change.
Heathrow Harry
29th Jun 2018, 10:24
Well B***** me! Hoist by my own petard!!! :*
But good news indeed!
One thing tho' - the Aussies are buying the design BEFORE the RN has had a chance to "enhance" the equipment fit and by building it locally they can control the costs - given the previous record of the Adelaide yard they'll need to.......
Valiantone
29th Jun 2018, 23:58
alf5071h
Panavia apparently proposed a Tornado 2000, but with Eurofighter well sort of on its way.... I guess the paperwork was quietly binned one Friday afternoon
2805662
30th Jun 2018, 03:11
Someone is going to have to explain to me how a ship built in Australia, by Australians, qualifies for that headline.
It seems to me that ‘we’ have sold a design to someone - not a capability - and how that makes our kit better, cheaper or earlier is (sadly!) beyond me.
Plus a US combat system, US missiles, US 5” gun, Australian radars, Australian/Swedish combat interface, and Australian steel (ugh). The design contract should be signed this year, with detailed design taking place next year.
The Hunter Class is looking more and more like a distant cousin to the Type 26.
(hopefully this link works)
http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/HunterClassFFGFactSheet-9-9233.pdf
Pontius Navigator
30th Jun 2018, 06:52
doubling the number ordered reduces the price across the board.
isn't that a false argument?
The MOD buys 100 at £100 a pop. Later a foreign AF buys 100 and pays £50 a pop. The average cost is now £75. Does the MOD get a refund? No because that £25 is notional, no money changed hands.
OTOH, if 4 Governments at the outset bought 400 the cost would only be - wait for it - £100 a pop.
The only winners after the initial order are the companies and the MOD on follow on orders. Then the MOD can apply cost averaging.
Buster Hyman
30th Jun 2018, 07:05
isn't that a false argument?
It was a simplified example that minimises the exposure of my limited financial acumen...
You'd be silly to be the launch customer & pay the highest price though. Taken to the nth degree, no project would ever get off the ground under your example PN.
Pontius - you overlook the details that
1. The MoD owns the design (because it funded it) and so gets a license fee on every foreign sale.
2. The RN Type 26s have yet to be built, so the unit price when they do will receive the volume cost benefits of the RAN order.
3. UK contracts for large MoD programmes are "open book", so the MoD is able to see and verify that these cost reductions are applied - it's not just blind faith.
PDR
rjtjrt
30th Jun 2018, 07:11
1/3 of £20bn is a lot better than 0% of £20bn, which is the alternative.
Heathrow Harry
30th Jun 2018, 07:43
Heathrow Harry - the worlds leading expert in **** all!
To quote a US authority "like the Red River in flood - a mile wide and 3 ft deep" ;)
Heathrow Harry
30th Jun 2018, 07:45
Pontius - you overlook the details that
1. The MoD owns the design (because it funded it) and so gets a license fee on every foreign sale.
2. The RN Type 26s have yet to be built, so the unit price when they do will receive the volume cost benefits of the RAN order.
3. UK contracts for large MoD programmes are "open book", so the MoD is able to see and verify that these cost reductions are applied - it's not just blind faith.
PDR
I guess you spread the design cost of 20 units rather than say 10 - should be an overall saving to the taxpayer......... plus the fact you have on-going production lessens the push to get all your costs back ASAP - you have more of a vested interest in keeping things ticking over
Buster15
30th Jun 2018, 15:32
Aim: Design and produce a warplane for RAF with export baked in from the start.
Assumptions: UK lead and export desire rules out US partnership.
France and Germany ruled out as a break away team.
More partners desired to stump up for costs.
Fewer partners desired to avoid NETMA-esque shambles.
My £5 goes on an achievement that absolutely nails ‘expensive mediocrity’.
Specifically what NETMA shambles are you referring to????
Hi Buster - from my recent time in Capability jobs my view is that the multi nation constructs and procedures surrounding Typhoon have been an impediment to getting the warfighter battle winning equipment on time and at a reasonable price.
Perhaps shambles was a poor choice of word as it implies disorganisation as opposed to organised to the point of impotence. (Noting that there are national channels for Typhoon mods etc of which I’m fully aware and seem to me to be the exceptions that prove the rule).
FWIW NAO and OGC reviews seem to broadly align with my opinion. (Which is just an opinion that I am unlikely to foist on others but equally unlikely to change!)
Still not convinced that we’ll end up seeing Performance, Time and Cost savings from a ship building partnership with Australia (where they build the ships on the other side of the world to a unique sensor and weapon fit) but it would cheer me up if we did.
Yours,
Orca.
Buster15
2nd Jul 2018, 14:27
Hi Buster - from my recent time in Capability jobs my view is that the multi nation constructs and procedures surrounding Typhoon have been an impediment to getting the warfighter battle winning equipment on time and at a reasonable price.
Perhaps shambles was a poor choice of word as it implies disorganisation as opposed to organised to the point of impotence. (Noting that there are national channels for Typhoon mods etc of which I’m fully aware and seem to me to be the exceptions that prove the rule).
FWIW NAO and OGC reviews seem to broadly align with my opinion. (Which is just an opinion that I am unlikely to foist on others but equally unlikely to change!)
Still not convinced that we’ll end up seeing Performance, Time and Cost savings from a ship building partnership with Australia (where they build the ships on the other side of the world to a unique sensor and weapon fit) but it would cheer me up if we did.
Yours,
Orca.
ORCA, this explanation is both much appreciated and quite understandable.
I have worked on both Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon programmes and as with most things you don't get positives without the negatives. However, it is still my view that the positives have given us two extremely capable aircraft including large export revenues that we would otherwise not have benefited from.
I do agree though that Typhoon in particular has been 'held back' to a degree by lack of ambition and funding of the 4 nations. Even now, some 14 years after EIS it is only beginning to catch up with the latest technology and weapons fit.
This did not affect Tornado quite as much due to the Cold War environment. I have not been involved with TP400 but this seems also to have been affected by the even more complex 5 nation consortium.
2. The RN Type 26s have yet to be built, so the unit price when they do will receive the volume cost benefits of the RAN order.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/29/australia-officially-announces-26b-frigate-contract-here-are-the-build-details/
"Stewart said the plan was for the Hunter-class build to follow the Type 26 activity in the U.K. by around five years, which will serve to de-risk the Australian program. BAE is due to deliver the first ship, HMS Glasgow, to the British Royal Navy in 2025, with entry into service in the 2027 time frame.
“We cut steel for the first Type 26 in the U.K. in June 2017, and we’ll cut steel for full production of the Hunter class in South Australia in 2022,” he said. “We’ll run at an 18-month drumbeat in the U.K., and somewhere between 18 months and two years in Australia. That will keep a five-year gap, which is almost perfect. You are de-risking the Australian program in the U.K. and you don’t get the obsolescence issues you would if there was a longer gap, so it’s a really good program overlap.”
Not_a_boffin
2nd Jul 2018, 15:22
The benefit to the UK of the order is primarily in equipment supply. AIUI, the propulsion system pretty much as supplied to UK T26 will go in the Hunters so good news for RR.
There will also be a secondary benefit in that a significant amount of detail design work will need doing to reflect the significant changes in combat system equipment and other items, which will in all probability be done in the UK. That's paid work for a hundred bods or more for a couple of years that would otherwise mean firing them (they don't subsequently tend to come back to the industry, so you have to rebuild that skillset from a lower base) or would in someway land on UK contract overheads or make contracts BAE were bidding in the UK (even) more expensive.
What it won't stop is the SNP whinging about not getting their frigate factory at Scotstoun......
Buster15
2nd Jul 2018, 18:20
Strange but I thought that this post was supposed to be about Future UK Fighter.....so why are people referring to BAE Ships??
BEagle
2nd Jul 2018, 18:46
It still amazes me that 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space and 't lads oop at 't werrks can build a ship which actually floats....
WingsofRoffa
2nd Jul 2018, 19:00
Aren't we due up to 138 F35's and an additional 2 more Typhoon squadrons?
Sts121
2nd Jul 2018, 19:13
I have been lurking round these forums for a few years now. As a former air cadet in my youth I am fascinated by all things aviation, clearly I don’t have as much knowledge as you guys on here which is why I have never registered to post, until now.
i grew up going round the many RAF stations and seeing the variety the RAF had to offer. Back in the early 90s with the buccaneers just going, Jaguars, tornados, harriers etc. I think if memory serves me right then Marham was still operating the Canberra back then. Anyway I digress.
I cant see how the British will ever produce aircraft they once did. So my question is why aren’t we just buying off the Americans? Many other countries do and we seem to be in bed with them every time somewhere kicks off. I know the F16/F18/F15 are all getting on a bit but isn’t it more sensible to become a customer and buy “off the shelf” and have an airforce of good proven capability and with it a decent number of jets?
i haven’t yet seen this question asked on here so forgive me if I missed it, I’m sure it must be a flawed argument so I look forward to being educated and out right!
NorthernKestrel
3rd Jul 2018, 08:51
On the Aerosociety Insight blog today 'UK Mulls Sixth-generation Fighter Project'
More news at Farnborough/RIAT/NATO summit?
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-mulls-sixth-generation-fighter-project/
Not_a_boffin
3rd Jul 2018, 11:46
It still amazes me that 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space and 't lads oop at 't werrks can build a ship which actually floats....
You do realise that it's the Laird of Lateness and his jockinese slave factory that are involved here? Not the denizens of the Fylde.......
STS121
You have to cater for support to U.K. industry, ability to use the system whenever you want (and be assured of it), it being better than the opposition and value for money - oh, and contribution to international relationships. F-35 hits 2-4 of those depending on your view point, Typhoon 2-4 as well, but differently.
Heathrow Harry
3rd Jul 2018, 20:28
Aren't we due up to 138 F35's and an additional 2 more Typhoon squadrons?
looked at the Budget predictions lately???
https://www.ft.com/content/818c6b98-7fca-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475
UK in talks with Sweden over next-generation fighter jet
The UK has held initial discussions with Sweden about collaborating on a future fighter jet, as it prepares to reveal a long-awaited combat air strategy at the Farnborough air show later this month.
As part of the strategy, the government is expected to commit to launching a next-generation fighter programme by 2020 in a sign of its post-Brexit ambitions to retain cutting-edge combat air expertise. The strategy, which is expected to set out a timeline for awarding a firm manufacturing contract by 2020, has yet to be given final cabinet approval. But it aims to deliver a strong signal to potential international partners that the UK is determined to press ahead with such a programme, despite being left out of a Franco-German future fighter project last year.
The statement is expected to set out the criteria for international collaboration, stressing that the UK intends to play a leading design role in any partnership to develop a fighter to replace the Typhoon jet from 2040. Sweden — whose defence flagship, Saab, makes the Gripen combat aircraft — has indicated its potential interest and would be a natural partner, according to several sources.........