Lots of interesting snippets on Tornado Out of Service Date, cost savings on the shipbuilding Terms of Business Agreement, the Terrier armoured combat engineer vehicle and the Future Combat Unmanned System (FCAS) contract announcement.
Details at the BAE website
View the document and presentation
Interesting to see BAE following a lot of other manufacturers by increasing their share of income from after sales services.
So much for all the time and effort spent on ILS to minimise Life-cycle-costs. Major flaws in the early analysis carried out at huge costs with the aim to influence the selection and design. Companies are abysmal at predicting how design and development will progress, and thus far less likely to be any where remotely near in forecasting support. Also better to downplay support so the project does not stumble at the approval stage. Companies can then rake it in.
Tornado out of service by 2019 is interesting.
That move could increase the likelihood of the T1 Typhoon’s being retained, at least for a few years post 2020, perhaps until a follow up Lightning buy is pursued and a fleet of UCAV becomes active.
A force mix in 10 years time of 160 Typhoon and 48 Lightning sounds far better than the sort of thing id have thought feasible just months ago.
Challenger
Typhoon tranche1 may get to 2021 at a push but the fatgiue life is an issues. Typhoon fatgiue life is currently cleared to 4000hrs in its progress to a full 6000hrs life. I suspect tranche 1 typhoons will be replaced by f35 hopefully the b version. Remember also that this batch consists of a number of 2 seat trainers which with the introduction of the very capable hawk t2 and typhoons excellent handling and simulators may no longer be required. Should the wish be to retain the single seaters in tranche 1 beyond that date a fatgiue program extension will be required at a cost of several hundred million more and they will not be as capable as the later tranches.
There will be no ucav in uk service this side of 2035.
It’s interesting that Oman typhoons are tranche 3 a/c perhaps from the uk tranche 3b order that has been extremely unlikely for some time.
The precursor to an announcement we will go to an F35A/F35B strike fleet with Typhoon Fprioritised for AAC but with a minimal strike capability? Remember in the murky world of Politics we told the US we would buy X number of F35 and now we are looking at Y. Given the commonality of F35 it would not be a standard 3 jet fleet and more A variant could be introduced as Typhoon left service.
Well I’ll admit Mark that I’m not expert and you sound pretty clued up.
However I am positive I heard from somewhere that they have tested a Typhoon for fatigue on the airframe and are currently on 18000 hours and counting! Id also point to the fact that most aircraft types stay in service a fair whack longer than planned (Tornado will have done around 40 years by 2019, albeit with extensive upgrades). The tranche 1′s will have done at most 18 years by 2021, that can’t be seen as acceptable.
Bear in mind that I’m not attempting to give you concrete facts, this is merely my opinion that’s lightly furnished with some of the supporting evidence out there.
Perhaps the T1 Typhoon’s will go out of service around 2020 and be replaced by the Lightning, but I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion, plus I think the decision (whatever it is) will be a lot more political and far less practical than you are suggesting.
APAS
I think at some point in the future we will end up with an all f35 fleet of a and b versions I hope a even split.. How much strike weapons we put on typhoon will I think depend on how much we want to sell typhoon to foreign governments Saudi are keen for storm shadow ect as the us wont let them put such things on there f15s
Challenger the 18000hrs is what the ground fatigue test will be tested to to clear the typhoon fatgue life. Fighter aircraft in general and certainly have an airworthiness requirement of a 3 to 1 ratios. Eg 3 hours in the ground rig clears 1 hrs worth of flight only recently the test rig passed 12000hrs hence the 4000 hrs life
It makes sense to ditch Typhoon T1 as F35B comes in.
Also, we haven’t yet received all the T2 Typhoon have we? Ultimately we’ll end up with 67 T2. I suggest this is enough to cover QRA.
It will be interesting to see if we ever get T3 with all the features. I don’t really see the point. I think we’ll aim for 72 Typhoon and 72 F35B… a figure I think Mark suggested sometime ago.
If we’re obliged to then I guess the 40 T3 will end up just extending the service life of the Typhoon fleet regardless of the capability.
Maybe we should start work on a Typhoon replacement? Something 100% domestic.
Chris B, or dodge the heartbreak and billion pound over runs and buy F35A
I see both sides of the Typhoon vs F35A argument. Its hard to predict which way it goes until we know the actual unit cost of an F35.
If F35 turns out to be dear then we will only be able to afford a few, which will have to be prioritised for naval use, which will mean we have to carry on developing Typhoon to fulfil the other roles out to 2040.
If however F35 turns out cheaper than expected then I suppose Typhoon may get run down by 2030 to be replaced by F35A.
There are also the industrial and export advantages of keeping the Typhoon line open and development ongoing. I doubt we’d pull the plug until the fat lady sings on the Indian procurment for instance.
@ APATS,
You never know, maybe without having to deal with any political partners and just going it alone we’ll be able to produce a nice, functional, on budget, on time multi-role combat plane.
Why are you laughing?
@ Chris B
So what sort of shape would a British designed successor Fast Jet be?
For my money we need to aim for a single design covering all roles. That would mean a decision making process on whether to fit CATOBAR equipement to the QEC at mid life. That in turn will probably depend on how safe/practical SRVL works out in practice. I would like to think given the progress on computer controlled approaches that clunky ship mounted technology like CATOBAR might be on the way out medium term.
If SRVL works really well then we could potentially save even more money by getting rid of the vertical landing element altogether in the successor plane, keeping just enough downward thrust for a slow glide in.
(As an aside on SRVL: if it works really well then perhaps we should use it to try and develop a carrier capable ‘slow jet’. A multi mission ISTAR / ASW / AEW / AAR / COD platform of about 20T dry weight that can land on board without having to catch an arrestor wire. For maximum jointery the same airframe should do all our tri-service ISTAR tasks, also replacing R1, E3, Rivet Joint and whatever else is around by then. Ro-ro modular workstations and equipment pods on hardpoitns of course!)
Back to the successor FJ: should we be maximising LO to penetrate enemy airspace or Standoff weapons so we don’t have to?
Long range inernal fuel could be a winner given what a ball-ache AAR can to be. Lots of export customers probably have even less AAR than we do and and every new plane recently seems to get criticised for ‘short legs’.
Other wacky ideas that occur to me is whether we should look at a military version of Skylon – on the grounds that if we don’t some nutters like China or Russia will probably nick the idea first and be scaring everyone shitless with it in 15 years time.
The good thing is at the moment we probably just need to push some seedcorn funding out there for people like Saab to get to work on some concepts. Serious spending won’t come until after we know what F35, Typhoon and Anglo-Frog UCAV can and can’t do for us. That would be after SDSR 2020 I expect.
Peter
There is one other advantage to f35 a world wide support network and training facilaties thanks to uncle sam. Also the integration on future missions if we’re all flying the same jets with the same mission systems and communications. Though typhoon is very capable I worry our partners on the program are less than reliable in its future development.
Priovided numbers of fast jets in general stay large enough around 150+. And if it’s deemed that an all stealth fleet is not required a land based future gripen varient could possible say replace typhoon in a high low mix with f35 though not likely and i doubt we have the budget but it could fit in with Chrisb half serious idea.
Don’t get this integration thing – that’s just a bolt on system, which should be able to fit on just about anything. It’s the same for the engine, the flight controls, the weapons systems, etc.
It’s only really the airframe that’s unique in a jet… or at least it should be.
When there are a couple of key global competitors (LM and BAe/Dassult???) we’ll end up with a Ford/GM concept where you pick your engine, tune it up a bit, add your air-con, 3d retinal missile targetting system and shove it all in a well designed body made of the latest and greatest materials.
@ Peter E,
How much pocket money do we have to spend?
It seems reasonable to presume that given the amount of aerospace work we do here, coupled with the Replica that BAE built which looks remarkably like the concept art they and Northrop Grumman initially put forward for the F-35 program, plus the boys at Rolls Royce, plus the fact that we domestically produced the Sampson radar for Type 45 that we could build us a pretty handy aircraft if we wanted.
BAE has had a lot of involvement in the inner workings of F-35 (I think the helmets are theirs for a start) so we should have more than enough knowledge to build a decent multi-role jobby.
Starting from scratch – in this decade – I think you’d eschew low observability except for some reasonable design measures to reduce frontal signature and internal weapons carriage, in favour of defensive aids and stand off weapons. Put the best AESA radar you can in the nose, make sure they can all talk to each other, make sure you incorporate the lessons of F-35 from an air to ground perspective, make it relatively easy to maintain, stick plenty of fuel in it and be away.
Don’t dick about with carrier qualifying something that might never go near a carrier. You’d be replacing Typhoon anyway, the F-35B would still have a lot of life in it.
Any manned replacement for typhoon for me has to be BAE Dassult combo. Or we just redo typhoon. I’d be warry of buying american, after all the f35 may have already left sour tastes in the mouth just with project management. If they do retire tonkas theb they best put there foot down and start upgrading typhoon. F35 will take some time to become the all rounder we would require.
Burning the countries entire money supply and spilling nuclear waste onto the streets of London are two things that should be considered preferable to working with Dassault Aviation. The problem with France is that they’re too much like us, as are Germany, in the sense that you sit those three countries down around a table and they’ll all think – with some justification – that they’re the number one player.
If you want a partner, and god knows history has taught us by now that international partners do the precise opposite to what they’re supposed to (adding to project cost instead of helping to reduce it), then you’d want to work with someone like Saab who would be happier to take the role as a lesser partner.
If the T1 Typhoon’s really will absolutely have to go out of service in the early 2020′s (perhaps as some people have suggested kept on for a bit longer than expected to cover the gap between Tornado retirement and the Lightning build up) then I think only a couple more questions present themselves.
1.Will additional Lightnings be ordered to replace the T1 Typhoon’s and add to the general build up of the fleet?
2.If this is the case then which variant will they go for?
I think this is a tricky thing to guess at, both because we don’t know exactly what plan will materialise for the Typhoon fleet, and also because the relative costs, advantages and limitations of the Lightning variants aren’t currently known.
It won’t be until post SDSR 2015 that a clear picture will emerge.
RE: An all British fighter…
I think that is something you will never see again. The UK can’t afford to buy enough of them and no one is going to sign up to buy them abroad. There would just be way too much risk of the program not making it. I also think many of you are vastly oversimplifying the process of building a major fighter aircraft.
Yes the UK has knowledge from the F-35 and Eurofighter but it is not a complete picture knowledge really. Not all of that technology can just be ripped off. A lot of it is going to be pretty protected so you are going to be re-inventing the wheel to some extent, unless you really want to piss off your allies and their defense contractors that you are poaching things from.
There is a hell of a lot more to do than just pick an engine, attach an avionics suite and patch together a frame around it. The software alone is cripplingly expensive and difficult to design and is essentially custom for each aircraft.
Also for those bagging on the F-35 I have to ask if Euroighter was really a more well run program? It suffered from delays and cost overruns to and it was really not all that cutting edge (it has a lot more in common with an F-15, F-18 than it does with an F-35). It is not exactly a cheap airplane either. The F-35 does a lot of things the EF does not and if (when) it goes into full rate production the acquisition price should be fairly comparable with the F-35 holding a pretty comfortable capability edge.
Frankly I don’t think anyone can cast stones about military procurement. For every F-35 and F-22 there is a Eurofighter or A400M or Nimrod.
@Mark
I agree 100%, Europe wont but a UCAV of practical utility into the air any time soon, at least not anything that would be a tornado/F-35/typhoon replacement. Europe still has a ways to go to catchup in the UAV field just to get to today’s state of the art in my view.
Can’t imagine BAE Sys ever making or contributing bits to another manned plane ever again, at least in the military market. Missiles, UAVs and satellites are where the future money is.
Hi Jeremy, RE
“way too much risk of the program not making it. I also think many of you are vastly oversimplifying the process of building a major fighter aircraft.”
- I agree
- luckily we have guinea pigs:Korea/ Turkey caught up with tank technology by combining their efforts. The fighter jet project might be a bridge too far
– Japan will make it, but by what decade (hence the F-35 purchase that has to be delivered plenty-quick)
– India started in 1954 and has not fielded a usable fighter yet (hence co-developing from the existing PAK-FA basis)
Against this background the Swedish Gripen achievement is amazing, but they of course did it incrementally, over many jet generations, starting with the Mig-15 like Saab Tunnan
An all British jet is a bit of catch 22. All of the previous reasons why it isn’t viable are very valid, but I think the most obvious one is this. British government/industry won’t invest in something that big unless it has export potential (except for a few special cases), but we live in a world were export sales are damn near impossible because for the foreseeable future all nations looking to buy a western jet will go for the Lightning. It’s support package, commonality and apparent capabilities will be just too tempting to miss.
As Red Trousers said it’s missiles and unmanned programmes that’s where the moneys at!
Speak of which I thought the Mantis UCAV (whatever the hell it’s called) might reach initial operating capability in the early 2020′s. Or am I confusing that with the purely UAV Telemos/Scavenger programme?
I would disagree there are literally loads of uavs out there and none above the tactical level are as cheap or easy to operate as origional thought. They offer persistence and little else. we should be looking in miltary terms is three areas podded systems able to be fitted to helicopter/Uav/fixed wing a/c, defensive aid systems and Also using political and r and d spending on getting rolls Royce involved with the advent engine program. Push the bae hawk to the hilt in overseas competitions and it’s training systems
But if you really want to develop an new a/c the in my view it should be a helicopter. With the NH-90 make f35 look like a well run program and a requirement for increased speed and performance. Analysis of one of either eads x3 the us x2 concept or using the tilt rotor develop a common propulsion method on a next genetion helicopter family of light attack, medium and heavy lift. In my view this is a market not well catered for and has a civil and unmanned cargo lift possibilities. Leave the fighter market and Uav to the excellent and long term solutions already in build.
Hi Mark, I agree with your analysis
“…either eads x3 the us x2 concept or using the tilt rotor develop a common propulsion method on a next genetion helicopter family of light attack, medium and heavy lift. In my view this is a market not well catered for and has a civil and unmanned cargo lift possibilities. Leave the fighter market and Uav to the excellent and long term solutions already in build.”
The problem here is that the bigger markets put them into the same category as tanks; want to build them in-country, just in case there is a need to ramp up total strength quickly
Mark
I agree that there is a gap in the market for a medium ‘utility’ platform. The V-22 Osprey is a class apart at the moment but there should be room for at least one serious competitor.
Something able to lift around 10T payload whithout needing a CTOL runway. More range and altitude than Osprey. Like you say lots of alternative podded systems and even maybe the opportunity to bolt on a stand-off weapon or two.
Apart from conventional rotary there are other possibilities for how to acheive this. Tilt-rotor, tilt-wing, some sort of SRVL cargo jet, a coanda effect jet. All seem to have possibilities that have not been fully exploited yet in either military or civil fields.
Challenger / All,
A clear picture has already emerged, it has just not been stated yet. Tornado will retire in 2019 and the squadrons still operating it will disband and reform with Typhoon T3. As F-35B comes along the remaining Typhoon T1 Squadrons will disband and reform as F-35B squadrons. By 2030, Typhoon T2/T3 will be replaced by an F-35 variant. The Typhoon currently has a stated OSD of 2030, based on current programmes the only US or European fast jet in production in 2030 will be F-35 (last USAF airframe to be delivered 2035). Typhoon production has been extended to late 2017 meaning it fits almost perfectly with the Tornado OSD. The number of F-35B’s ordered suggests that the RAF may fall from its current 8 squadrons to 7; this would also not be surprising given the 2010 statement from the Commander of No1 Group that the force could fall to as few as 6 squadrons.
@Bob
I broadly understand what you’re saying, I agree with most of it as well.
What I don’t understand is the OSD for Typhoon.
Is Typhoon retiring in 2030 an absolute imperative because of the condition of the airframes, or is it more of a political decision based on a reluctance to fund life extension/upgrades and the desire to transition to an all Lightning force as soon as possible?
Challenger
The only version of the typhoon struggling on fatgiue life is the tranche 1 jets. This is solely due to the governments decision to suspend typhoon force build up in the mid 2000s while adding requirements to the force.
Tranche 1 jet have an added issue there unable to accept things like the aesa radar, conformal tanks and the heavier air to ground ordnance. Is it worth therefore spending money on them to get them beyond 2020.
Tranche 2/3 jet could continue past there proposed osd of 2030 and have no limitations on upgrades. There is a finite pot of money and i think there replacement with f35 is longer into the future.
@Mark
So really the only area of speculation is when the Tranche 2/3 Typhoon’s get replaced, and what type of Lightning does the replacing.
So let me get this straight; nobody batters an eye lid that Sweden can fund a modern 4.5 generation aircraft, a canard no less, with all the added fly by wire complications that causes. Or that France can single handedly build something like Rafale, which is arguably the equal of Typhoon.
But apparently Britain, with fresh experience as a lead design and manufacture authority on Typhoon, current experience as a major player in the F-35 program (including electronics) and having recently built probably the most advanced air defence radar ever fitted to a warship could not hope to build such an aircraft ourselves?
What utter rubbish.
@Challenger
Combining mark and Chris B’s points you could argue that (a) Tranche 2/3 Typoon could easily be extended out to the 2040s and (b) 30 years is plenty of time for either BEe, or Saab, or someone else to design and build a sovereign UK replacement.
FWIW I don’t see it happening either. The attraction of a single type FJ fleet is too strong and we are tied to F35B for the carriers. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen if we really wanted it to.
@ PE,
I’d agree that it seems unlikely given the current plans, unless something is being spoken of in dark corners, but if we wanted to we could absolutely make it happen. Without question.
@Chris B
I don’t think everyone is saying that a future British jet programme would be impossible, just very expensive and very difficult.
Why go through all that cost and complexity when you can buy a very decent aircraft off the shelf?
It’s just not worth it.
You could make it happen but considering what France spent on rafale is it worth it when f35/typhoon does everything we need for the foreseeable future. After all only 108 rafales have been built so far and dassault has only delivered 4 a/c to the French forces so far this year.
Looking in the crystal ball both Rafale and Typhoon will have closed their lines. The F35 will dominate the export market and the Grippen will proably hoover up any crumbs at the ‘value’ end of the CTOL market.
But maybe we ought to dust of designs for ‘Harrier 3′ as a low cost alternative to F35B for international operators of ‘Harrier Carriers’? Subsonic with a VAAC cockpit, AESA radar, and the latest missiles. Could be a good seller to second tier navies.
That will in turn put us in a better psoition to design our own ‘tier 1′ STOVL successor in decades to come.
“…Why go through all that cost and complexity when you can buy a very decent aircraft off the shelf?…”
Then why did we do it with Tornado and Typhoon? There were perfectly decent American products available at the time.
If you don’t go through the “cost and complexity” you lose your capability. If manned jets do indeed have a very finite lifespan then maybe this is why we don’t care about losing the skill set.
Peter Elliott,
I’d hazard a guess that many will just say “stuff it, we can’t really afford naval aviation”.
However, I like your thinking. Personally I think there is still mileage in Harrier II with fly-by-wire and a systems upgrade. As long as it comes in at 50% the cost of F35B they’re probably worth it for the less dangerous CAS (I’m quoting survivability from the F35 sales spiel) type missions.
If this were available I bet F35B would have been canned.
PS: Was PCB ever tried?
@ ChrisB
I hate the 4.5 designation. If someone call tell me the difference between a Gripen and a late model F-16 I would love to hear it.
Also I think you should familiarize yourself with the Gripen and what it is, and isn’t. What people think it is is an aircraft built almost totally in house. In reality it is an aircraft that uses US engines and weapons from all over the world. Hell, they needed help from NASA to get the FBW to work properly when they put the thing together the first time.
The problem for the UK building a fighter on its own right now is that no one will be lining up to help them. The US will look to protect the F-35. The EF consortium will likely be looking to protect any future EF sales or hawking their own wares. Where are you going to get a modern engine for a high performance aircraft? What about a radar?
Those partners are not going to help the UK kneecap programs that are important to them by building something that competes.
Simon that was a different time and the us market was a closed shop for gaining work and thats what f35 changed. Orders guarentee work without the development cost.
Also European fleets are significantly reduced since tornado was born.
@Simon
We went through it all with Typhoon, and look at how much time, energy and money that has cost everyone.
The problem with building a purely British jet is the fact that Lightning will totally dominant western (and to an extent global) exports for decades to come, any other product just won’t be able to compete.
Why bother, we can save all of those billions that are required and invest it in other areas with growth potential.
Mark,
The US wasn’t a closed shop for us. Not sure I understand what you mean for gaining work? We purchased Phantom from them why not F14/15/16/111?
As for the European fleet sizes, you have a point… trouble is, I’d ask, why are they so diminished?
Challenger,
“…other product just won’t be able to compete … Why bother…”
That’s very defeatist
I agree that it will be difficult to compete with F35, but the F35 is really the Ford Escort/Focus, there’s still room in the market for everything else… assuming there is a USP.
One example is “speed” since even the US are investing in hypersonic research.
You could purchase what you like from the us. The problem was design and development work was a closed shop and there was large industries in Europe that had aircraft work in a steady stream since the war.
Mark,
Are you really suggesting that European fleet sizes were a hang-over from the war? Nothing to do with the Cold War???
I guess it boils down to large powers needing an enemy.
@ Jeremy,
I’m well aware of what Gripen is. Show me a fighter, or indeed any large defence project, that is not a mish mash of components from different places, with different manufacturers pitching in their expertise to help build the final product (look at the Carrier Alliance and the number of sub contractors for example). The point is that Saab found the partners they needed and built Gripen. If they can do it, it would be folly to presume we could not.
As for people not lining up to help them? Pull the other one. There is more than just one company that produces radars, engines, etc. People who would be more than willing to bid for new work.
Where do you get engines from? Rolls Royce springs to mind. General Electric. Perhaps a partnership between the two again? Radar. Build it domestically, but it in from the US, buy it in from Europe, there are scores of companies that do this work. Again, we built the Type 45 radar, you’re telling me we couldn’t put that experience to use to build an airborne AESA? Poppy cock.
As for Eurofighter, if this thing was slated as a replacement for Eurofighter then the EF consortium are going to have a hard time arguing against it. You don’t think BAE and Rolls would jump on this project like a fat person at a free buffet?
Who do you sell it to? Domestic, obviously, plus nations that can’t get their hands on F-35 for whatever reason. If this was a replacement for Typhoon it would be 20 years down the pipe so likely would represent the jump in capability over the F-35 that the F-35 currently presents over Typhoon. That would certainly be of interest to countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Malaysia, India, Brazil, South Africa etc, all the kind of countries that have looked at Typhoon in the past.
As to why, why build it and not buy off the shelf American?
- Jobs
- Trade
- Sovereign capability,
To name but a few good reasons.
@ Chris B
I am too busy dying of ‘flu’ to do much beyond wind up those here wear a dark blue suit for a living. But you are right, why not? There is a little bit too much “it can’t be done” thinking in the UK, perhaps that is why we are slowly slipping down the world order? I am going to be sick again now. Just wanted you to know I agree with you.
BAE has the capability, at present to design a new fighter, but it won’t be pushing for it for the UK. This is company with shareholders not a govt department. Remember BAE walked away from a politically inspired deal with EADS to head for the US market and has been on a massive spending spree over there. It is now a US defence company with a head office in the UK. The Golden Share arrangement will eventually go when BAE inevitably merges with another US company (Northrop/General Atomics?) and it will then move to the US. We may see the shipyards demerge just like Huntingdon Ingalls in US as this is low margin metal bashing stuff, the US and Swedish land systems may go the same now the Afghan MRAP boom has passed? BAE like others have worked out that building fighters loses you money. Selling expensive, upgradable electronics, design and support services is where the profit is. BAE is positioning itself in the US, in cyberwarfare and in drones. Everything else and anything that involves making heavy bits of metal are being downsized eg. Brough, Elvington, Portsmouth.
All of BAE’s UK aeropsace designers have been working on UAVs and nothing else for years now, they are still the same people that designed the Hawk and Typhoon but with prices now so high fast jets are simply uneconomical to build, the likely sales volume does not cover the development cost. The skill set will not go, UCAVs are more complicated than Typhoon and UK designers are cheap and good, however,the actual vehicles could be made anywhere.
Even the F35 needs overseas customers to get the cost down. Correctly BAE sees JVs with US co.c as far more valuable than JVs with EADS/Dassault, as F35 will make them a series wedge something neither Jaguar/Harrier/Tornado nor Typhoon have ever done. The Gripen is a great product that nobody wants, BAE tried to sell it and failed, the future market is high end F35 and low end SU30/PAK-FA. Rafale and Gripen may pick up heavily discounted and politically inspired deals but if the Russians up their service standards (no spare parts or after service) then the niche for pretty 4G Euro fighters is a particularly small one.
The Euro market is, now post Glasnost, very small and is likely to get smaller as Euro customers have no money and perceive no realistic threat. These are hard nosed businessmen, they judge that future big value customers will not want what the MoD wants e.g. nobody wants the T26. India, Indonesia, UAE, Brazil with huge populations growing rapidly are BAE’s target customers, selling services rather than bits metal and promises of industrial development. The MoD is just too small and too awkward to bother with, the process started 10 years ago, BAE will do whatever the Pentagon wants not Whitehall.
@ x,
“Just wanted you to know I agree with you.”
“Selling expensive, upgradable electronics, design and support services is where the profit is.”
Which is why combat aircraft are still/will continue to be, a viable market.