UK Future Fighter
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.......
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.......
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Valiantone; 30th Jun 2018 at 00:16.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/Multi...eet-9-9233.pdf
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
doubling the number ordered reduces the price across the board.
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.
Evertonian
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.
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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’.
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’.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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.
"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.”
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......
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......
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....
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!