UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Gtal
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Location: Germany

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Gtal » 11 Dec 2020, 08:50

Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.
I mean surely they are just positioning/posturing and will ultimately agree a workshare deal on FCAS to retain some indistrial baseline for the future especially if there's some EU money to lubricate the deal?!

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 11 Dec 2020, 09:22

Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Jake1992 » 11 Dec 2020, 09:37

Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

In terms of Tempest though I do believe we need to get one more partner on board that has some financial umph, I’d look to try hard in getting either Japan to come onboard in the end or S.Korea.

When it comes to can Europe afford 2 fighter programs I don’t think it should be looked at through the monetary aspect but more the political. For either our selves to fold up Temepest to joint them or for them to go the other way would be seen as a political desaster especially with the way leaders have acted through Brexit.
But the main concern I’d have is more to do with past experience in regards to joint “European” projects, from Typhoon to Tornado to Boxer and more someone always pulls out,others over promise orders and it is always delayed or rockets in cost due to the constant infighting on what it should be, who should supply what, who gets to lead and where most of it is built.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Dec 2020, 09:42

With 1 % of GDP and gvmnts that come and go,
the Italians are doing a good job, somehow.

Talking about EU money, they need 36 (e)bln right now. But that is a liquidity matter as the 750 bn will only start to flow in half year's time... not all of it to Italy, mind you.

Turning to equipping their AF, your question is pertinent, especially in the light of the ever-shrinking F-35 order (they put a lot of money into a full assemble line). But monies are somehow found (employment support, regional dvlpmnt... what have you. Hence they have sustained their warship building that draws a lot of comments in these pages).

With little money things tend to get 'elongoted' over decades. WHICH IS EXACTLY THE NATURE OF THE TEMPEST ENDEAVOUR. With our 5th/6th biggest defence budget rah-rah we have a 2+2+2 bde target for the army. Italy has a 3+3+3 target, but mind you, just like us are in want of a new MBT (and have slowed down their Freccia 'Boxer' production to a trickle) and hence their planned third heavy Granatieri di Sardegna brigade is understrength until the army finds the funds to acquire 257 main battle tanks as replacement for the current 200 Ariete tanks. And their planned third medium Sassari brigade is continuing to expand, but for lack of funds only one regiment is currently equipped with Freccia vehicles [the thanks for these details go to Thomas C. Theiner].
... somehow they always seem to get there. Whereas here we change the target so often that[b] not getting there[/b] is guaranteed.

LOOKS LIKE THIS IS THE THIRD ANSWER :lol: to a well founded question.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 11 Dec 2020, 11:27

Working with countries “partners” doesn’t mean they have to buy the plane, you can co develop technology that are mutually beneficial.

I give another maybe less contentious sub system we could work with others on, who is likely to be the ejector seat/life support system provider for a future tempest or FCAS. I would hope Martin Baker would it make sense to work together towards a common future design in this area.

Future weapon systems thru MBDA maybe another area of future collaboration.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Dec 2020, 11:50

SW1 wrote:Working with countries “partners” doesn’t mean they have to buy the plane, you can co develop technology that are mutually beneficial.

Clearly so with Sweden, but Italy escaped my mind. Do you happen to know how much of the work they are involved in is done in Edinburgh and how much in Italy?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 11 Dec 2020, 12:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:Working with countries “partners” doesn’t mean they have to buy the plane, you can co develop technology that are mutually beneficial.

Clearly so with Sweden, but Italy escaped my mind. Do you happen to know how much of the work they are involved in is done in Edinburgh and how much in Italy?


Couldn’t put a number on it but Luton heavily involved too.

Italy are involved with about 20% of the ej200 engine as well as a frame of reference.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Roders96 » 11 Dec 2020, 13:27

bobp wrote:
TheLoneRanger wrote:Given how France has behaved with Brexit,


Brexit maybe, but we have had some good collaborations with the French in the military sphere. As for the FCAS be assured the French will want to make a naval version for their new CV.


Part of me thinks we should write off the F35, limit the fleet to 48 air-frames, jump into bed with the Americans on their next catobar jet to maintain our credibility with Congress as defence Procurement partners and convert the QE's at mid life.

Lord knows the Americans don't like the F35 as it has turned out.

Their next batch of jets will definitely learn from its mistakes, they will understand.

Not France though, inferior kit for more money. Not to mention the theft of IP.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Pseudo » 11 Dec 2020, 13:38

Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Jake1992 » 11 Dec 2020, 13:44

Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.


I’m looking at more in the sense that if for example X number of frigates need to be ordered by the RN to keep UK ship building viable then the funding of those frigates shouldn’t full solely on the MOD/RN and BEIS should stump up some of the funds as that is what is needed not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Dec 2020, 14:49

Roders96 wrote:Lord knows the Americans don't like the F35 as it has turned out.
Is it across the board, or just the 'C'? The Marines would lose their own airforce without the 'B'.
Jake1992 wrote:not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.
Well, we are not v good at defining 'strategic'. The Chinese have a list of twenty sub-industries/ technologies and all their Unis that can come up with good ideas get practically unlimited funding to pursue them
- we should pick up the list, allocate them to land/ air/ sea and, er strategic commands, for them to utter which they see as bottlenecks and where they think there is ample supply through industry & the Unis

Cummings (the monster 8-) ) actually may have contributed something - we don't know - to the IR in this respect. Writing up Combat air strategies, National Shipbuilding Strategies and moaning about none such existing for Land may be useful, but any such are too narrow to define what is strategic for us now, in ten years and further out.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Jake1992 » 11 Dec 2020, 14:58

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Lord knows the Americans don't like the F35 as it has turned out.
Is it across the board, or just the 'C'? The Marines would lose their own airforce without the 'B'.
Jake1992 wrote:not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.
Well, we are not v good at defining 'strategic'. The Chinese have a list of twenty sub-industries/ technologies and all their Unis that can come up with good ideas get practically unlimited funding to pursue them
- we should pick up the list, allocate them to land/ air/ sea and, er strategic commands, for them to utter which they see as bottlenecks and where they think there is ample supply through industry & the Unis

Cummings (the monster 8-) ) actually may have contributed something - we don't know - to the IR in this respect. Writing up Combat air strategies, National Shipbuilding Strategies and moaning about none such existing for Land may be useful, but any such are too narrow to define what is strategic for us now, in ten years and further out.


IMO on the simplest of levels a strategic industry is one that allow the nation to build and maintain its own military equipment to meet its operational requirements. I.e if we lost our ability to build our own escort ships or fighter aircraft would that be the lose of a strategic industry ? IMO yes it would, so these industries need a minimum level of government funding through orders to survive, if they then branch out in to the domestic sphere then good on them but all the funding shouldn’t be solely on the MODs shoulders.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Pseudo » 11 Dec 2020, 15:01

Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.


I’m looking at more in the sense that if for example X number of frigates need to be ordered by the RN to keep UK ship building viable then the funding of those frigates shouldn’t full solely on the MOD/RN and BEIS should stump up some of the funds as that is what is needed not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.

Wouldn't it be easier just to reallocate that money from BEIS to the MOD rather than go through what seem like unnecessary hoops? What benefit does the RN gain from BEIS involvement that it wouldn't gain from that same money simply being allocated to the MOD budget instead of the BEIS budget?

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Jake1992 » 11 Dec 2020, 15:13

Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.


I’m looking at more in the sense that if for example X number of frigates need to be ordered by the RN to keep UK ship building viable then the funding of those frigates shouldn’t full solely on the MOD/RN and BEIS should stump up some of the funds as that is what is needed not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.

Wouldn't it be easier just to reallocate that money from BEIS to the MOD rather than go through what seem like unnecessary hoops? What benefit does the RN gain from BEIS involvement that it wouldn't gain from that same money simply being allocated to the MOD budget instead of the BEIS budget?


Not really as my aim would be to get HMG out of the mind set of it being down to the MOD to keep these industry afloat, as even if don’t and just reallocate some money from BEIS to MOD when down the line the MOD budget gets cut they’ll find it even harder to keep strategic industries going.

What I want is for HMG to act how the Italian government do, back at the original post it was asked how the Italian MOD do so well with such a small budget abd it because the projects draw money from other government departments due to the fact that they look at the projects not just as a military one but and over all strategic industrial one along with a local economic one.

Simple question is should it be down to the RN to keep UK ship building going or to the RAF to keep UK aero space going ? IMO no it should be down to the multiple departments that are there for this abd they should help fund the MOD projects that keep this industries going. By doing it this way it reset HMG thinking and helps protect the MOD from shoulder the full burden when ever cuts happen.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Pseudo » 11 Dec 2020, 15:35

Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.


I’m looking at more in the sense that if for example X number of frigates need to be ordered by the RN to keep UK ship building viable then the funding of those frigates shouldn’t full solely on the MOD/RN and BEIS should stump up some of the funds as that is what is needed not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.

Wouldn't it be easier just to reallocate that money from BEIS to the MOD rather than go through what seem like unnecessary hoops? What benefit does the RN gain from BEIS involvement that it wouldn't gain from that same money simply being allocated to the MOD budget instead of the BEIS budget?


Not really as my aim would be to get HMG out of the mind set of it being down to the MOD to keep these industry afloat, as even if don’t and just reallocate some money from BEIS to MOD when down the line the MOD budget gets cut they’ll find it even harder to keep strategic industries going.

What I want is for HMG to act how the Italian government do, back at the original post it was asked how the Italian MOD do so well with such a small budget abd it because the projects draw money from other government departments due to the fact that they look at the projects not just as a military one but and over all strategic industrial one along with a local economic one.

Simple question is should it be down to the RN to keep UK ship building going or to the RAF to keep UK aero space going ? IMO no it should be down to the multiple departments that are there for this abd they should help fund the MOD projects that keep this industries going. By doing it this way it reset HMG thinking and helps protect the MOD from shoulder the full burden when ever cuts happen.

Oh, I agree that the government should use its power to direct industries of national importance. Personally, I think that the country could do with a good bit of well thought out government economic intervention with long-term goals in mind. Though I'm not sure that we'll be seeing a Conservative government with libertarian leaning capitalist aspirations embracing what is in essence a fairly statist and interventionist economic policy any time soon, though if the government were to change track in that way then the double-whammy of Brexit and the pandemic is as likely as anything to provide enough motivation for it.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1808
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Jake1992 » 11 Dec 2020, 15:47

Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.


I’m looking at more in the sense that if for example X number of frigates need to be ordered by the RN to keep UK ship building viable then the funding of those frigates shouldn’t full solely on the MOD/RN and BEIS should stump up some of the funds as that is what is needed not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.

Wouldn't it be easier just to reallocate that money from BEIS to the MOD rather than go through what seem like unnecessary hoops? What benefit does the RN gain from BEIS involvement that it wouldn't gain from that same money simply being allocated to the MOD budget instead of the BEIS budget?


Not really as my aim would be to get HMG out of the mind set of it being down to the MOD to keep these industry afloat, as even if don’t and just reallocate some money from BEIS to MOD when down the line the MOD budget gets cut they’ll find it even harder to keep strategic industries going.

What I want is for HMG to act how the Italian government do, back at the original post it was asked how the Italian MOD do so well with such a small budget abd it because the projects draw money from other government departments due to the fact that they look at the projects not just as a military one but and over all strategic industrial one along with a local economic one.

Simple question is should it be down to the RN to keep UK ship building going or to the RAF to keep UK aero space going ? IMO no it should be down to the multiple departments that are there for this abd they should help fund the MOD projects that keep this industries going. By doing it this way it reset HMG thinking and helps protect the MOD from shoulder the full burden when ever cuts happen.

Oh, I agree that the government should use its power to direct industries of national importance. Personally, I think that the country could do with a good bit of well thought out government economic intervention with long-term goals in mind. Though I'm not sure that we'll be seeing a Conservative government with libertarian leaning capitalist aspirations embracing what is in essence a fairly statist and interventionist economic policy any time soon, though if the government were to change track in that way then the double-whammy of Brexit and the pandemic is as likely as anything to provide enough motivation for it.



I am very much a free market capitalist but to me there is a big difference between nationalising vast swaths of the economy like Corby wanted to and maintaining a needed balance of orders to industries that are needed in defence matters. When an industry serves a strategic national purpose from defence builder to steal production to national infrastructure I believe the govern should support them and help them grown to benefit both parties involved.

But back to the thread at hand the reason Italy will be able to in most cases match our own funding of Temepest is because their government will take a move over all look at the project incompasing industrial as well as military benefits and in doing so will allocate money from several departments. If we did the same Temepest would have a much better chance of being a full blown success.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 11 Dec 2020, 16:11

It’s not about keeping whole sectors going. You do not have to make every bit yourself nor should that be the aim. What you need to be able to do across the domains is to have the sovereign ability to integrate, assemble and test on a platform.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Dec 2020, 16:19

OK, we have a thread for UK defence industrial base, so this one will be the last from me on this thread :angel:
Pseudo wrote: libertarian leaning
Economic policy or 'social libertarian'?
Jake1992 wrote:a big difference between nationalising vast swaths of the economy like Corby wanted to and maintaining a needed balance of orders to industries that are needed in defence matters.
Goes back to my point that there are industries/ technologies that underpin the defence industries(' ability to keep up), so 'strategic' is still escaping being defined, as per
Jake1992 wrote:When an industry serves a strategic national purpose
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Pseudo » 11 Dec 2020, 17:03

Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Gtal wrote:Serious question, how are the italian going to make any sort of serious investment into any new fighter program? They were in a bad place pre-covid, don't know how to pay for their F-35s and are going to struggle post-covid.


The Italian's treat their military in a similar way to the German's. It's part military, part industrial endeavour. For an example see their Navy....they have got funding from their Business/Industrial Ministry for Naval vessels to keep the Italian shipbuilding industry busy. Can you imagine BEIS funding the MoD?


I’d love to see us take that approach, it makes complete sense for such departments to part fund projects that are propping up whole industries if HMG want those industries to not only survive but thrive, it is not down to the MOD to do the whole hog its self other wise what is BEIS really there for if it’ll not help save these strategically important industries.

My instinct would be to say that a Conservative government would likely be wary of such intervention for fear of ending up in a similar place as the NEB did in the 1970's where a number of pretty major companies (including Ferranti) were partially or in some case almost completely nationalised.


I’m looking at more in the sense that if for example X number of frigates need to be ordered by the RN to keep UK ship building viable then the funding of those frigates shouldn’t full solely on the MOD/RN and BEIS should stump up some of the funds as that is what is needed not just solely for military use but also for stetegic industrial needs.

Wouldn't it be easier just to reallocate that money from BEIS to the MOD rather than go through what seem like unnecessary hoops? What benefit does the RN gain from BEIS involvement that it wouldn't gain from that same money simply being allocated to the MOD budget instead of the BEIS budget?


Not really as my aim would be to get HMG out of the mind set of it being down to the MOD to keep these industry afloat, as even if don’t and just reallocate some money from BEIS to MOD when down the line the MOD budget gets cut they’ll find it even harder to keep strategic industries going.

What I want is for HMG to act how the Italian government do, back at the original post it was asked how the Italian MOD do so well with such a small budget abd it because the projects draw money from other government departments due to the fact that they look at the projects not just as a military one but and over all strategic industrial one along with a local economic one.

Simple question is should it be down to the RN to keep UK ship building going or to the RAF to keep UK aero space going ? IMO no it should be down to the multiple departments that are there for this abd they should help fund the MOD projects that keep this industries going. By doing it this way it reset HMG thinking and helps protect the MOD from shoulder the full burden when ever cuts happen.

Oh, I agree that the government should use its power to direct industries of national importance. Personally, I think that the country could do with a good bit of well thought out government economic intervention with long-term goals in mind. Though I'm not sure that we'll be seeing a Conservative government with libertarian leaning capitalist aspirations embracing what is in essence a fairly statist and interventionist economic policy any time soon, though if the government were to change track in that way then the double-whammy of Brexit and the pandemic is as likely as anything to provide enough motivation for it.



I am very much a free market capitalist

I know that you're saying that, but your agenda for these strategic industries is very much protectionist. That's fine by me, I agree with you. In fact, this sort of thing happens all the time, but I think that it's worth recognising these contradictions because free-market capitalism doesn't tend to be sustainable without a bit of government regulation, income redistribution and economic intervention to keep things going smoothly.
but to me there is a big difference between nationalising vast swaths of the economy like Corby wanted

Not a big fan of that either. I'm perfectly happy for parts of the economy to be nationalised if that's the best way to meet the objectives of keeping those industries and services sustainable, reliable and affordable, but I'm equally happy for them to remain in the private sector if that's the best way.
to and maintaining a needed balance of orders to industries that are needed in defence matters. When an industry serves a strategic national purpose from defence builder to steal production to national infrastructure I believe the govern should support them and help them grown to benefit both parties involved.

That's fine. I agree with you, but it's a fundamentally protectionist approach. It's also more or less the approach that led to the government to paying ~£350 for three River class OPV's a few years ago. Obviously, that sort of thing doesn't need to be the outcome, but it's where you're heading if you're guaranteeing support and you can't provide enough work and can't get enough export orders to keep the place going.

All I'm saying is that it's a great idea in principle, but it's one that really needs to be thought through and in the area of defence it might even require that British forces have to accept a few compromises in their requirements in order to make products more attractive to export. To my mind that's probably better than potentially losing the domestic production capability for a lot of this stuff altogether, but it's just worth bearing in mind.
But back to the thread at hand

Yeah. Fun little diversion though. :)
the reason Italy will be able to in most cases match our own funding of Temepest is because their government will take a move over all look at the project incompasing industrial as well as military benefits and in doing so will allocate money from several departments. If we did the same Temepest would have a much better chance of being a full blown success.

I don't really disagree and it would be a bit hypocritical of me if I did given my previous support for DfID building a couple of hospital/disaster relief ships that the RFA would operate and the RN could lease if circumstances required. It'd be interesting to see what British military procurement would look like if it was driven as much by industrial strategy as defence strategy. At the very least there'd probably be a bit more focus put on maintaining a steady procurement beat.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Pseudo » 11 Dec 2020, 17:11

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Economic policy or 'social libertarian'?

Mostly economic, but a bit social. But I did say that these were aspirations and as ever those aspirations only goes as far as they doesn't cause problems for their political, electoral and funding coalition. Though that's mostly the case with the aspirations of most political parties.

topman
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby topman » 11 Dec 2020, 19:15

Pseudo wrote: It'd be interesting to see what British military procurement would look like if it was driven as much by industrial strategy as defence strategy. At the very least there'd probably be a bit more focus put on maintaining a steady procurement beat.



It would be, I wonder if we'd end up with kit we didn't really want or need though? On the other hand it may well stop people dithering, you're getting xyz in 5 years get on with it.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Dec 2020, 19:28

topman wrote:On the other hand it may well stop people dithering, you're getting xyz in 5 years get on with it.


We would need to bring the 'establishments' back.

What do they do? Bridge the gap from 'rqrmnts' that float up in the air and by definition, if not subject to change, then at least interpretation.
to a prototype (or several; REF Tracer). Before the design is finalised and the production contract let.

We are, though, on the Combat Air thread, where the lead times are longer than for anything else (save for the carriers and T26; both weighed down by the fact that the 'paymasters' did not have a clear idea of what the RN should do/ achieve).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Gtal
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Location: Germany

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Gtal » 12 Dec 2020, 03:00

Working with countries “partners” doesn’t mean they have to buy the plane, you can co develop technology that are mutually beneficial.


Yes , I understand Sweden is so far only signed up for some cooperative RnD work.
If both partners are only interested in subsystems or upgrades, the stated(?) goal of a new fast jet program looks optimistic for the uk.

As for the FCAS be assured the French will want to make a naval version for their new CV.


I hate to say it but, I don't think Germany really minds the plane being nuke and carrier capable. FCAS is slated for 2040, let's add a 5 year delay overall and who knows,
by 2050 Germany might need those capabilities itself!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5187
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Dec 2020, 12:51

Pseudo wrote:It'd be interesting to see what British military procurement would look like if it was driven as much by industrial strategy as defence strategy. At the very least there'd probably be a bit more focus put on maintaining a steady procurement beat.


The UK's problem is that often procurement is driven by neither.

SD67
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SD67 » 20 Dec 2020, 11:32

My .02 Euro worth is that the synergies between civilian and military sectors of aerospace and shipbuilding are overstated. Over the last two decades we've had basically zero commercial shipbuilding, yet we've delivered Astute, CVF and Type 26 and are back in the export game. Conversely we have a world beating commercial vehicle industry but seem to have lost armored vehicle production.

Military requirements tend to be niche, I doubt that the success or failure of Tempest will have much impact on Airbus UK.


Return to “Royal Air Force”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests