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
I think Bob is about right with “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.” Just two (small) things
1. The 2017 will obviously shift with big export orders? Some ramping up will take place, but a massive one would destroy the profits
2. No1 Group, yes, if we are thinking of the same interview, he said 5 + 1; the 7th being in FAA?
If we looked to work with France on a new FJ we would have exactly the same problem we had with Eurofighter – they would want to be lead designers and manufacturers, and would insist on a CATOBAR-capable design. Mind you, had we jumped ship from Eurofighter with the French we might now have two Rafale equipped CATOBAR carriers in service.
I wonder, would there be any mileage in a partnership with the USN – they’re none too keen on F35C and may well try to divert some of the F35 money into a new project, CATOBAR capable again though.
As for going it alone, well that would need a brave government to take such an enormous risk, but I would love to see it happen. Invest UK taxpayer money in UK industry for a change. I agree with Chris B that the technology base is there, though we might need to bring a few designers out of retirement. Surely RR could supply the engines? But realistically it’s going to be F35A isn’t it?
@ Chris B
The problem is not that companies won’t do it. It is that the people who own all of or part of the intellectual property for this technology in almost all of those cases are not the companies but various governments.
Why do you think the US Government picked up all the F-136 engines and the design work associated with it? Sure GE and RR have some (much) of that knowledge but anything they developed under the F-136 program can be restricted from being used again without lengthy negotiations AND the US government likely claiming export restrictions.
The same thing goes for radars and everything else. I would assume the IP rights for CAPTOR and CESAR are owned by the Eurofighter group. Are they going to release them to a competitor? And if it is replacing Eurofighter they might jump on it or they might not. If they do they will want work share and then you are just building EF version 2 aren’t you? It is no longer a UK product.
It is way more complicated than saying you can find companies to build the things. I also doubt that even in 20 years the UK would find itself in a position to build a plane vastly superior to the F-35 as the F-35 in 20 years will be a very different beast than it will be the day it rolls out. You certainly are unlikely to make a capability jump anywhere in the ballpark of the leap that you will see from EF to F-35.
@Waddi
All of this is true – but BAEs is not our only potential supplier and we are talking about a 25-30 year lead time: the next generation of planes after the current Gripen so Saab could become interested in such a project.
I do fully take on board your point about the cost of FJ generally. FWIW this problem is about to bite USA just as hard as it has bitten everyone else and they will not be able to afford their enormous FJ airforces going forward either.
The best industrial strategy for us might be to concentrate on developing cheaper, less fighty force multipliers to fill market gaps that do currently exist and will increase in importence in the future. I mentioned above Harrier 3 and a SRVL medium utility platform.
For the Pacific Air-Sea battle America is going to need carrier capable MPA/ASW planes (they have none), carrier capable EW & AAR (to replace Super Hornet variants). We will want to have such capabilities, so creating clever flexible ways of delivering them is a win/win.
Our missile development programme seems to be going really well at the moment. Things like Brimstone, Meteor, Perseus look top notch. Perhaps we should we be looking at developing an ‘Arsenal Plane’? A cheap, long range, unfighty, platform that can pack a whole raft of sophisticated stadoff missiles? (OK, so its a modern B52 – but there must be ways to make it better?). After all we might need to do a ‘Black Buck’ one day? Oops, just mentioned the thing that must not be mentioned…
Challenger’s thought occurred to me, too
“Why go through all that cost and complexity when you can buy a very decent aircraft off the shelf?”
- if you count the use of “sovereign” as attribute to something (desirable?), it must beat off the self at least 1 to 5
- isn’t this at odds with VFM?
@ Peter Elliott
One of the problems fighter designers have is of predicting the future, you are spot on with the lead times but with UCAVs the current flavour of the month the thinking will be what could a piloted vehicle in 20 years time do that a future UCAV couldn’t at a lower cost. Similarly the current missile buzz word is “loitering”, in 20 years time a 767 with a bomb bay could drop its weapons miles away from the target, scuttle off, and the missiles would find their own targets with video images relayed back to base for final instruction. So given this kind of development it is brave manufacturer that signs off on a 20 development programme which may be obsolete long before it actually flies. If UCAV/loitering turn out to be dead ends then the danger is then that this skill set is long retired.
@Waddi
You’ll never win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket.
Lets be developing something, or lots of things, that way we might have something to sell in 20 years time.
If we develop nothing I guarantee we’ll have nothing to sell.
x
“wind up those here wear a dark blue suit for a living”
I thought you were dark blue
I also agree.
Interesting debate here people, I for one would be cool for a small B fleet for the RN sooner to man a carrier and then a larger fleet of A’s for the RAF – like Italy. Alas, no-one’s in the loop so we speculate on.
I would say the future is not quite yet totally unmanned… and Europe will be more slower to adopt the ‘UAV mentality’ because of funding and public distrust/disinformation about the subject.
More likely the ‘optionally manned’ types will come first, such as the USN’s current ideas.
That or BAe can release this puppy;
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/5438d1158259858-sexiest-ever-planes-jpgs_ucav_bae-ucav.jpg
obviously just musings.
Developing the lottery theme we should focus our sovereign new product development on Small & Medium sized companies.
That’s becuase (a) its probably true about BAEs fucking off to America (b) that will give us more irons in the fire (c) small companies tend to be more innovative, and more able to deliver VFM.
Peter
What would the less fighty harrier be used for? Low threat close air support ect.
Well what if its a helicopter instead of a harrier 3. Currently apache is expensive and capable but its slow limited with its altitude and quite vulnerable in higher threat airspace compared to fastjets. So what if the next generation based on x3,x2 type concepts i mentioned early allowed 230knts cruise and turbo prop type altitude with helicopter flexibility perhaps that could be your cheap less fighty a/c.
As for typhoon replacement in future F35A with one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology
there no appetite for anything else.
@ Jeremy,
So where did the Sampson and Artisan radars come from then? You paint a dire picture that simply doesn’t exist. If it did, no work would ever get down. There are scores of companies that produce radars, electronics, software, engines, etc. Nobody could prevent us from building a modern aircraft with AESA radar etc. And why are you so down on Rolls Royce? They’re probably one of THE most experienced engine manufacturers in the world.
I just don’t understand where all these false barriers have come from that you keep throwing up?
@ Chris B.
You mistake being down on someone with thinking it would not be economical to pursue at this time. I am not “down” on RR. They could certainly build you an engine without having any ITAR issues provided you want to feed them enough money.
But I do think that Sampson and Artisan are a world different from an fighter-borne AESA. Some of it will transfer, but much of it would not. Again, it is not so much a technological barrier as a financial one. Any good builder of radars could provide you with an AESA that would be 100% the UK’s to do with as they pleased and sell to whomever they wanted. It just comes down to how much money you want to throw down that hole.
Again, these are not technology but cost and legal barriers to deal with. Just ask Spain about the C-295 and ITAR. Like it or not that kind of stuff is a very big deal.
I think you’re overstating the legal barriers and the reluctance of people to get involved in highly lucrative contracts somewhat.
Yes you would have to fund it, as you would any project. The Carrier project, Type 45, Type 26, FRES, Astute, all have cost us money to develop. So why do we do it? Because we feel that we need the capability, and because we want to foster our domestic defence industry.
We could have replaced the Typhoon program with an F-16 buy from the US, but we didn’t because we wish to keep certain skills, capabilities and programs domestically.
Like I said, if Sweden can find the funds for a domestic multi-role combat aircraft, I don’t see why you feel it would be such a challenge for us to do it? Much of the cost for things like Typhoon was driven by partnerships which cause delays and wrangling for many years at the start and disrupted the project along the way.
The alternative is to turn our back on one of our more lucrative manufacturing businesses, especially in terms of exports.
ACC,
I believe we are thinking of the same interview, and I suspect that is what is going to happen, a face-saving “FAA” squadron that is still under the command of the RAF through No1 group just as happened in the dying days of JFH and one RAF squadron.
Production extension depends on the export order, the programme was extended from 2015 by reducing the annual production rate so a small order could be filled simply by going back to the original rate; it would have to be a nig order to push the end date back.
I like some of the thinking here. Especially when you pull it away from Harrier III or Typhoon II.
To me, we should not build a jet/fighter for export. We should make sure the economies work for us alone – like the French with Dassult. If we then get exports (like we did with Harrier) then that’s just a bonus, not something we should strive for.
Stop trying to emulate the Americans – we need to build an Elise, not a Ford GT40.
To be honest I think we should go for a turboprop CAS aircraft that can takeoff and land on very short and bumpy runways… or decks
and carry a concerning amount of Snakeeye and Brimstone. A sort of British, nippy, slightly smaller, A10.
@Peter Elliott
“If however F35 turns out cheaper than expected then I suppose Typhoon may get run down by 2030 to be replaced by F35A.”
This is almost certain. But, in 2030, there will be F-35E or F or something. Or some very intelligent hypersonic scram-jet UCAV, armed with microwave-cannons, to be launched vertically from a Mk57 VLS.
ChrisB
Yep copy the Swedes with the Gripen. Do not reinvent the wheel. Licence in existing bits into a program we have control of.
@Simon
It’s called a Helicopter.
The problem I see in tryng to branch into other fields like UAV tech right now is that other countries have a very strong lead which can be hard to catch up to, and that the development field is still in flux. Why would I want to get the Watchkeeper or Hawk when Israel has proven designs like the Hermes (which is almost the same bloody thing as the Keeper) or the Searcher? Or if you’re looking to be a bit more destructive, why not the US Reaper? In a market like this, it is hard to be a newcommer, made worse by tight pursestrings worldwide. It might be best to let the economy settle and let UAV designs settle to “common” designs, then catch up by following the crowd. Otherwise, you might end up spending millions just to find out you went down the wrong path and might have been better off burning the money for heat.
The problem with an F-35E etc is that the size of the aircraft is pretty much set now, which will make it difficult to incorporate future advances in radar and engines. Power requirements, antenna size and fuselage volume restrict just what degree of improvements you can achieve.
By comparison, you look at the US Navy which is already thinking about what the next stage will be in manned aircraft beyond F-35. Then you have the Russian Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA, with features like L-Band radars to help it detect low observable aircraft. There is a heck of a lot of advancement to be had yet over the F-35.
I agree with Peter Elliot with the idea that money and time always needs to be spent on R&D, mostly because it’s the only means of staying one step ahead of the game, seeking out gaps in the market and being prepared to maximise the return on potential opportunities.
In terms of ‘sovereign’ technology I think most people agree that British defence products are a good thing, however at the same time I really think that the ends have to justify the means.
Taking the example of a wholly British jet, I agree to a point that it would be feasible to design and build such a product. That’s just the first step though, you need a market to justify the costs and the 100 or so airframes that Britain would buy does not cut it by a long way. You may as well pay the workers a few hundred thousand each to NOT design and build the thing, because doing this would still save you a hell of a lot of cash and with none of the hassle thrown in!
I think the British defence industry has a bright future if it focuses on what is needed out there in a big old world, and also what British companies are good at doing. People have flagged up missiles (Brimstone and Meteor amongst others) as well as radar/electronic’s such as Artisan, both great examples of the kind of thing British industry should/could be investing in.
The reason that Lightning will be so successful is that the US itself is a huge customer and will offer a very lengthy/extensive support structure to foreign participants. All told the whole deal is just too good for most countries to ignore.
The British defence industry has got to run largely separate of the British armed forces because the MOD will never order enough stuff to keep business’s afloat. If British built kit ends up in British service, as it may occasionally do, then great! However the needs of the nations defence aren’t the same as the needs of it’s defence industry, they haven’t been synchronized for a long time, it’s only now that people are waking up to this realisation.
So yeah, step 1 put plenty of cash in-to R&D. Step 2 identify what the global defence market is asking for. Step 3 make products that satisfy these needs. Step 4 turn a good profit. Meanwhile the MOD buys off the shelf, regardless of whether that shelf is in Britain or elsewhere.
@ Challenger,
See I disagree. The primary purpose of British defence industries should be to develop weapon systems for the use of the British military. Exports are an added bonus or something that companies can pursue of their own volition. When you look at the Type 45 Destroyer for example, it may not have picked up additional export orders, but then that is not what we paid BAE for. We paid them for a Destroyer to protect our naval assets, so our requirements take/took primacy, and rightly so.
I would agree that spending on R&D to de-risk future technologies would be money well spent, with my preference being that QinetiQ should be bought back into wholly government ownership and used as the development and proving ground for new technology.
Hi Jeremy,
at the trans-Atlantic level you are spot on, but isn’t it the same company that supplies both the EF and Rafale AESAs, RE
” I would assume the IP rights for CAPTOR and CESAR are owned by the Eurofighter group. Are they going to release them to a competitor?”
- a bit like the “world beating” towed array, the later derivatives of which have been sold at least to Italy, France and now the USN (when the home-grown ASW for LCSs was ditched)
Hi Mike,
The USN designs struggle to achieve the stipulated range even without a pilot, and carrying only 2 SDBs, RE
“More likely the ‘optionally manned’ types will come first, such as the USN’s current ideas.”
- they are now Super Hornet size
- you could go up 25% in weight as the EMALS will allow that (and you can presume to be landing minus weapons and most fuel) but will the lifts etc be able to handle a much bigger size?
Thanks Mark, from your wiki link I understand now why the F136 partners offered to invest $ 2bn of their own money to finish the design:
“The ADVENT engine was originally targeted at the Air Force’s 2018 Next-Generation Bomber, but uncertainty in that program has led Rolls-Royce (RR), one of the primary developers involved with the project, to predict that the ADVENT engine will be better suited for a potential 2020 engine upgrade for the F-35 Lightning II. RR, who is partnered with GE Aviation on the embattled F136 alternate engine for the F-35, has suggested that the ADVENT development contracts are all the more reason to continue the F136, as any engine upgrade from Pratt & Whitney (makers of the F135 engine currently used in the F-35) would have to be separately funded, either internally or to additional government cost.[6]
In light of this threat, Pratt has funded an adaptive fan variant of its F135, that may qualify for the follow-on adaptive engine technology development (AETD) program under the US Air Force Research Laboratory.[7]“
This today’s story on Wired.com reminded me of the price tag for the Stryker having been pushed up by 100% (not inflation adjusted) since its introduction
“the Senate has a point: the Army’s process for buying stuff is a total, bloated mess. A 2011 inquiry found that between 35 and 45 percent of its R&D budget is simply wasted due to unrealistic requirements standards. The Joint Tactical Radio Program has been such a mess that the Pentagon quietly disbanded the office that runs it. And everyone remembers how the Army’s last expensive technological push, called Future Combat Systems, died a humiliating death. Much of the initiative behind WIN-T is actually a legacy of Future Combat Systems.”
- there must be a limit to the degree that hardware can be enhanced by electronics
- therefore such procurement budgets are equally prone to cuts
USN F/A-XX is a pipe-dream and the USN knows it; DoD officials have said as much.
The idea that F-35 is running out of development potential is nonsense; the two key drivers in aircraft component development are weight reduction and miniaturisation whilst current engine R&D programmes are designed to reduce fuel burn and engine weight. The idea that the F-35 is going to be a static airframe is absurd; the type is to remain in production for the USAF until 2035: Look at what the late variant F-16s can do compared with the F-16A Block 1/5/10.
AAC
Oh yes, still a long way off and such, though the carriers are able to handle the large and heavy C2/E2 fleet as well (which have also increased in weight). Timewise, this is beyond F-35C.
The optionally manned is an idea that I think will be more desireable and praticle towards an all singing and dancing UCAV, as we see with certain UAV helicopter types just coming into test – optionally manned types would offer felxibility, an airframe that can do the UAV style opertations but also the more intense manned flying/fighting that is just not possible at this moment with current and near future tech.
The USN F/A-XX programe has soured relationships between USN and USMC heads, but they havent the money for it – seems the USAF’s ‘next gen bomber’ is more a priority when it comes to new military aircraft from the US (they should be far more concerend with their next gen tanker and AEW…). But there is a feeling that the USN is not as excited for the F-35 as its light blue and green partners.
Actually Bob, the “jointness” of the F-35 requirements brings more to mind the times when the US tried the same thing back in the McNamara era. Or in the words of some commentators “the McNamara Error”. We’ll see if the F-35 will end up like the TFX project, though the resultant F-111 was a fair bomber. The F-14 “jointness” on the other hand resulted in the “worst engine/airframe match in history.”
Time will tell I guess. Time will tell.
Observer,
Such comparisons are simply not valid. Whereas the F-111 programme was attempting to create two niche types out of a single airframe (a high speed, high altitude interceptor and low altitude strike aircraft) the F-35 programme seeks to create a single generic type (a tri-service multirole tactical fighter) and in many ways is an evolution of the original Lightweight Fighter Programme that produced both the F-16 and the F/A-18. For that matter it can also be compared to the F-4 Phantom programme that became tri-service, because of McNamara, and can only be regarded as one of the most successful combat aircraft programmes of all time. It also has a marked similarity with the French Rafale programme. The real ambition in the F-35 programme is the STOVL element. As for engine matching; it was originally intended that the F-14 programme would switch to the B variant (equipped with the F-401) after just two years production, it was budget constraint in FY71 that stopped it happening. It also has no relation whatsoever to the F-35 programme where all versions are using the same highly advanced and extremely capable engine rather than relying in their early versions on a previous generation design as the F-14A did with the TF30.
@ Mike
I don’t really see how the US is not concerned with their next generation tanker or AEW project. The tankers are being designed and will start being built shortly. The E-3 continues to get upgrades. The E-2D radar (APY-9) probably provides a basis for moving forward at a fairly reasonable cost to a full AESA solution either on the E-3 platform or the 767 platform if and when it is deemed necessary. Wedgetail was a variant of a radar the US was building for the E-10 so they can pick that development line backup to and stick it on a 767 or 737 if they want.
The fact is a long-range bomber is a vital platform for a power in the US’s position with ambitions to play a major role in the Pacific. That is why it is moving back to the top of the pile.
@Bob
Hope they get it working. Despite me sounding very sour on the F-35, and to be honest, I am very sour on the project, not the plane, I do hope it does succeed, for the simple reason that if the project folds, many countries would be short of a light bomber/fighter in the near future as there isn’t a lot of other developments out there with the projected support and future development drive as the F-35. Lots of eggs in one basket and all that.
RE “The fact is a long-range bomber is a vital platform for a power in the US’s position with ambitions to play a major role in the Pacific.”
-That is why it is moving back to the top of the pile
- Sorry to have taken the last sentence out of the quotation marks; It is the punch line
@ Bob,
I don’t think anyone said the F-35 is running out of development potential or that it’ll be static. I’d be frankly stunned if it didn’t go through a myriad of upgrades and tweaks along the course of its life.
But fundamentally the size and internal structure of the aircraft is reaching its production stage, at which point it’ll have to be frozen. From there on out you can make small alterations in future models/batches, but you cannot conduct a radical redesign without essentially creating a new aircraft.
Thus, while you can enhance the F135 engine to produce more power or to lighten it somewhat, there is a realistic cap on how much power can be added. You can update the radar, but space will realistically cap the amount of extra power that could be added. You could enhance the DAS or add new distributed sensors, but again, there’s a limit to what will ultimately be achieveable.
By comparison, look at the upgrade program for Typhoon. Each of the tranches will represent a step up from the previous tranche, but it’s a series of steps and ultimately there are limits to how far that aircraft can be advanced.
Perhaps someone can correct me but isn’t the NGAD / F-XX project supposed to replace the SH and Raptor.
I don’t see that working. The SH is successful because it’s rather simple, easy to keep running and… cheap. Also, it’s not an air-dominance fighter.
Reading between the lines, is it possible this F-XX project is really a Tomcat replacement (albeit a little late)? Is it also therefore possible that it may follow a similar design philosophy as F35 in that they’ll try and design a common “core” and then have an F14 and F15 flavour?
Chris,
Perhaps you could explain what wonder plane is going to result in the near-term outdating of the F-35?
@ Bob,
Well a fight with a T-50/PAK FA, would certainly be a close run thing (if unlikely to ever occur).
Why do you seem to think people are talking about something appearing next year or in the next few years? That’s a strawman because nobody has made that argument. We’re talking 2030 and beyond here, once aircraft like Typhoon are starting to get on a bit. There might very well be an aircraft that will outclass the F-35 by some way in 2030 that currently only exists as a rough sketch in the home study of some designer.
But that 17-18+ year crystal ball you’ve got which makes you sure nothing like this could happen, well you should start selling peeks into it to economists and military planners. I’m sure they’ll pay handsomely.
@Bob
That’s a different topic.
What I think he means is that there is a limit as to the degree of modding you can do to a plane, not that there is a F-37+ waiting in the wings to blindside us.
Though I’m starting to be a serious proponent of someone stealing the F23 prototype and simply mass producing it. Damn Americans and their ITAR. And damn the “Congressionally mandated level of stealth” of the F35. They’re trying too hard to play their cards close to their chest that they are losing the ability to profitably construct these planes. See what happened to the F22. No foreign sales, no profitablilty, and now, no future production.
@Chris
You’re resorting to insults again.
@ Observer,
Trust me, Bob’s not afraid of throwing a few lines about himself. Besides, you once told me that I “really was an arrogant prick”, so a bit less of the pot calling the kettle black.
@ Observer
The F-22 is not the right plane for anyone but the USAF really. If you can only afford one type the F-35 makes the most sense. You basically get the a good piece of the F-22′s capability and a strike platform that could be describe as an F-117 on steroids to boot.
The F-22 is an amazing platform but it is going to be a finicky beast to maintain its whole life I think. The F-35 benefits from a ton of lessons learned on the F-22 on how to put together a practical low-observable fighter aircraft. I just don’t see the F-22 (or YF-23) as a real useful GP fighter for most nations. For the US that can run out the F-22 as a very high end air to air fighter and SEAD platform and still run out a bunch of F-35′s and bombers and other things it makes sense.
For the UK or Australia (or any other nation buying around a 100 planes) it just does not make a lot of sense.
May have a point there Jer, but there is a very large market segment out showing a lot of interest for the F-22, including Japan, Australia (F-111 replacement), Korea and Taiwan.
If you’re living near someone who isn’t above sabre rattling, it’s surprising how things like cost effectiveness and maintainence seem to take a back seat to firepower.
The fact that the J-XX is coming into service just increases the worry factor.
Australian interest was pretty much political, they never seriously wanted the F-22. It was an interest driven by people there who should know better (the ones who think a new model of the SU-27 is going to eat the F-35 alive) and the other political party which was just making a stink. Australia basically asked so they could be seen as asking about it.
For Japan the F-22 made a lot of sense but the F-35 makes just about as much sense for them. For what they want to do the F-35 when updated to carry 6 AMRAAM’s internally (certainly will happen before J-20 enters service by many years) will do the majority of the things the F-22 can do in the Air to Air realm.
Taiwan would take anything they can get at this point but they have about as much chance of getting an F-22 as I do. They would stage a parade to get an F-35 but I doubt they get that either in the end.
I have not heard of any serious South Korean interest and it would be a bad mistake for them. The North Korean AF is a bunch of old pieces of crap and would get eaten alive by the F-15′s the ROK has, let alone F-35′s. They need the capability to rapidly engage ground targets if things went to crap there and the F-35 or even more F-15E variants make the most sense for them in that regard.
Well said, Jeremy “a strike platform that could be describe as an F-117 on steroids to boot”
Some early design parameters for F-35
- can take over from F-117 for strike but will be all-weather and survivable. That last point must have specified the(in addition to stealth) “accelerate like an F-16″ parameter, but not turn like one. Ie. an economy model, to be produced in sufficient quantities to be able to supplement the F-22 air superiority fighter.
- must have been a Navy addition that the weapon load must be equal to a Hornet’s (before they would come onboard)
USAF and the Koreans practising how to get enough fire power up in the air quickly enough
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/120302-F-RB551-160.jpg
- N. Korean air force may be what Jeremy says, but their rocketry is based too close for comfort; hence the Joint HQ is being pulled out of Seoul under the pretext that Koreans will be in charge from there on
- and it is quicker to fly a few fighter wings over the Pacific than put a couple of divisions in place
Chris,
My mistake appears to be expecting a coherent argument from you, thus far you have failed to produce one beyond, “well, rem, err, maybe, possibly, sometime in the future, who really knows, something that is a step-change up from F-35 may come along and therefore F-35 is rubbish”; thus far that is not very convincing.
I wouldn’t make any assumptions about a successor to the F35, much less an all British aircraft.
The progression of fast jets types over the last half a century has been each generation having exponentially increased cost over its predecessor, with a corresponding reduction in numbers purchased.
The cost of developing the Typhoon played its part in stuffing the UK defence budget, as has the cost of the F35 stuffed the US defence budget. You wouldn’t bother developing a new aircraft unless you intended it to be materially technically superior to what exists already; so the first obstacle to a sixth generation jet is, applying the inevitable rule that whatever is new will far exceed the cost of what went before, who is going to stump up the money to develop it?
The second obstacle is, with the unit cost being higher, is the RAF going to volunteer that its 7 squadron strength become a strength of 4 or 5?
It is reasonable to ask, that having got to where we are in capability is it necessary to go any further? Or if we want to go further shouldn’t we go for incremental upgrades on an existing airframe rather than quantum leaps?
Meanwhile, while UAV’s currently have no where near the capability of a jet, the capabilities of UAV’s are growing rapidly and the cost differential of a few million per unit for a UAV versus a few hundred million for a future jet, is going to tell.
@ Bob,
HA!
First off Bob, I’ve never, never said that F-35 is rubbish. I’ve been one of the people on here defending it heartily against the “we should just buy F-18′s” etc crowd.
Secondly, I did mention the T-50/PAK FA, which you conveniently skipped over.
Thirdly, what are you expecting? 2030 is a little over 17 years away. Are you saying my argument holds no weight because I’m not able to predict with absolute certainty almost 20 years into the future?
And at the same time you’re saying aircraft design will stay static till then? Nobody, anywhere in the world, will attempt to make an aircraft that can compete against the F-35? Nobody will attempt to look at the F-35 and then look at new technologies and try to build a better plane? Nobody will try and develop a new technology specifically to give them the edge against F-35?
History tells us that you’re being exceptionally optimistic.
One thing you need to consider is from a kinematic performance point aircraft in the west are unlikely to advance beyond f35 without a lot of money being spent. Which may most likely be the preserve of the USA and a possible f15/f22 replacement. The human body can’t really take much more as was the case when f16/18 were designed 30 years ago that appears to be the best overall balance which is why it’s the f35 baseline.
Yes sensor and power requirements will change and progress as always this will need consideration and f35 was designed with the intention of changing the hardware ever 4 years in its IT systems to avoid obsolete bits. This is part of the reason the next gen engine is predicted to fit in an f35. Eg a 20% reduction in fuel consumption for the same power as current jets amount other things.
The f35 design and omls have been frozen for sometime but you could in theory see a 2 seat a version in the longer term ala f16.
Chris is right we can’t predict the future and new designs or conflicts may change thinking or however remote f35 may not work but at this time money tights and it’s unlikely in the uk will look beyond current program’s.
@ Mark,
I agree it would cost a tidy sum, which is why R&D investment now is so important.
At the same time, with the Governments new push in support of the aerospace industry, I can’t see them just letting our domestic design and construction capability to just wither on the vine.
Doesn’t it all depend what the mission requirement is? Actually, sorry it’s not really a question… It depends on the mission requirement as to whether or not we design and build another jet. If F35 satisfies the requirements we will not.
I mentioned speed in a previous comment. Intercept or low-level run strike speed has no effect on the human body and a Mach 5-6 jet will outrun nearly any missile.
Plus, and I’ve said this before, the F35 “stealth” or LO will be worth nothing in only a few years because… it is cheaper to advance sensor technology that it is to design a new jet.
You then have to look at the F35 as a fully visible jet and then ask it it’s any good. My take on this is that it is an F16, not an F15/22/Typhoon. This is why I have grave reservations about us becoming an all F35 force.
Please don’t think I am slating the F35, I’m not, it’s a great multi-role jet and will give us the edge for a decade or so, but after that when other powers field an equivalent… well.
ChrisB
I think theyll keep that skill thru the civil wing design. Both Bombardier and Airbus have recently set up major composite wing design,construction and r and d facilities in the uk. As well as GKN doing similar on major composite component manufacture. It is also worth noting qinetiq do quite a bit of airbus’s aero work also. That should keep the majority intact there is a very specialist small group required regarding fastjet a/c which thru are involvement with f35 should hopefully be kept busy or perhaps if we sell hawk to the usa that could maintain the skill set. It by no means perfect but I dont think the government is totally serious with there support.