UK Defence Forum

Like the Army the RAF is looking ten or more years into the future and crossing its fingers as well, though not as tightly as the Army. three E-7s for example allows you to have one protecting UK air space and that is about it. We cannot even refuel them without phoning the USAF at Mildenhall!

Maybe this should have been posted in the E-7 thread.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... is-summer/

LONDON – Britain’s effort to develop a sixth-generation combat jet is on track, with the concept and assessment phase of the program expected to be signed off by industry and government imminently, according to officials involved in the discussions.

An announcement by the Ministry of Defence on a contract starting the next phase of work on the British-led Tempest future combat air program is expected in the next few weeks, said a BAE Systems spokesman.

“We are making good progress on the route to the concept and assessment phase, with the shared aim of launching the next phase of an international program to jointly develop and deliver world-leading future combat air capability. We expect to agree the concept and assessment phase contract in the summer,” the spokesman said.


They may even tell u it’s name

[quote="SW1"]contract in the summer,” the spokesman said.


They may even tell u it’s name [/quote Typhoon, Tempest.. what came next?)

So advancing in lock-step with the IR follow-on paper

Lord Jim wrote:Like the Army the RAF is looking ten or more years into the future and crossing its fingers as well, though not as tightly as the Army. three E-7s for example allows you to have one protecting UK air space and that is about it. We cannot even refuel them without phoning the USAF at Mildenhall!

Maybe this should have been posted in the E-7 thread.

Just like C17, P8, Airseeker. Not a problem for 20 years with the C17, why should it be a problem for E7?

With the E7 we may want to keep one airborne for longer than internal fuel allows, especially with only three in the fleet. The same goes for the P8s. At present when shipping stuff east with the C17 we have been lucky enough to have a refuelling station on Cyprus. If the urgency of a situation arises that dictates the C17 flies direct to a destination then it may need AAR.

Look at flight radar, see a Voyager refuel a MC130, Typhoons being refuelled by a KC135, If E7 need refuelling over the U.K., it will happen, obviously you have not seen the military sales requirement by airseeker to Brazil of two MRT330? Which potentially two new with booms.

Tinman wrote:Not a problem for 20 years with the C17, why should it be a problem for E7?

The latter flies around in circles, and (as stated) three can, if available, be counted on maintaining that presence in the prescribed airspace.

Tinman wrote: obviously you have not seen the military sales requirement by airseeker to Brazil of two MRT330? Which potentially two new with booms.

Airseeker is obviously an unrelated aircraft/ mission type, but do we call Brazil instead of Mildenhall, or...? I have difficulty with following the train of thought with that statement

refuel them without phoning the USAF at Mildenhall!

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Tinman wrote:Not a problem for 20 years with the C17, why should it be a problem for E7?

The latter flies around in circles, and (as stated) three can, if available, be counted on maintaining that presence in the prescribed airspace.

Tinman wrote: obviously you have not seen the military sales requirement by airseeker to Brazil of two MRT330? Which potentially two new with booms.

Airseeker is obviously an unrelated aircraft/ mission type, but do we call Brazil instead of Mildenhall, or...? I have difficulty with following the train of thought with that statement

refuel them without phoning the USAF at Mildenhall!

Air Tanker not Airseeker. Auto correct typo.

Tinman wrote:Auto correct typo.

I type in several languages and never bother to switch the English autocorrect off = potential for dropping a clanger several times, even within the same sentence
... so I v much sympathise

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I type in several languages

At the same time too

Still butt-hurting from the commas dispute ?

"Scotland" to benefit £800million from involvement in Tempest Programme..


Edinburgh defence contractor will benefit from £800 million fighter aircraft project windfall

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/ ... ll-3251749
.
.
.
.
............. i guess since they are part of the UK for now so we cannot say no - but given the self destructive path the SNP nats are on, this will be bought closer to "home" soon enough..

Commons written answers 1st June 2021 :-

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 05-21/5158

It would appear the brief honeymoon period is over in the SCAF camp:



Currently fighting with the Der Spiegel paywall. Will try and see if there's any more interesting quotes to be found.

Bad news for Tempest if the option of "cost saving and greater european co-operation" comes back to the table and the french/germans get involved in tempest.

ideally we would want this falling out in 7-10years from now when too many facts have been established and all the french and germans are left with, is tempest's built in england!!!!!

this is therefore a good news and bad news situation ..

I just know I can feel it my bones that the French and Germans want to try rope us into a joint project somehow by any means ,sod off ,but bet down the line a future uk gov especially if more pro euro get in will jump at the chance ,and even this gov I wouldn't put it past them to jump into bed with the French just to say look we out of EU but we still best of friends ,here have all our latest tech ,cos treasury says we got to save cash ,so no one be surprised down the line when it all gets tied together in on big shitty program

https://teamtempest.podbean.com/

Listen to episode four of Future Horizons, where in part one, we explore the findings of a new report which analyses Tempest’s projected impact on the UK aerospace industry and the wider UK economy. In part two, listeners are given VIP access to an exclusive tour of the Tempest cockpit, to get a pilot’s view of the future of flight.

Suzy then joins a wider discussion with Emma Ulmann, Principal Engineer, MBDA and Jonathan Smith, Head of Capability, Major Air Programmes, Leonardo, to help us understand how this remarkable technology is going to help the pilot think and act in ways that have never been possible before.

SW1 wrote:Jonathan Smith, Head of Capability, Major Air Programmes

A new Capability Director title?
- quite appropriate, looking at the expenditure we will be... looking to
- in plural, the prgrms, though? Lanca?

inch wrote:I just know I can feel it my bones that the French and Germans want to try rope us into a joint project somehow by any means ,sod off ,but bet down the line a future uk gov especially if more pro euro get in will jump at the chance ,and even this gov I wouldn't put it past them to jump into bed with the French just to say look we out of EU but we still best of friends ,here have all our latest tech ,cos treasury says we got to save cash ,so no one be surprised down the line when it all gets tied together in on big shitty program

God I hope not, praying that french nationalism saves us from such a fate. You could see it being politically convenient though on about 2030 a different government says “well done chaps you’ve developed all this lovely tech now let’s team up and rekindle the spirit of Concorde!”
The other big wild card is the next German elections - the Greens are leading in some polls (!)

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

SW1 wrote:Jonathan Smith, Head of Capability, Major Air Programmes

A new Capability Director title?
- quite appropriate, looking at the expenditure we will be... looking to
- in plural, the prgrms, though? Lanca?

He works for leonardo not the MOD

SW1 wrote:works for leonardo not the MOD

Thought that was with DE&S, where
the Capability Directors (typically) are from the Services, so as to avoid overlapping investments in err, capabilities

IMHO FCAS will become reality , at least I hope for the Germans.

Germans knew from the beginning what was the nature of FCAS and other military joint project with the french.

They are kickbacks in exchange of French cooperation on a political level. It is way cheaper for the Germans to pay for the FCAS, than having the French opposing on stuff like.

-Refugees/immigration policies (worker short out in Germany)
-A favorable exchange rate (University of Berlin estimate it is worth 12,5%-25% of German export)
- Lobbiyng for things like the port monopoly (a reason for example why Netherlands vetoed Romanian entry in Schengen was to not loose trade to other ports)
-Etc.... Etc...

IMHO they are just tasting the terrain with the French to see until which point they can push, but I really hope they realize that paying for the FCAS is the best choice

And i really hope they dont entangle us as others wrote.

Meriv9 wrote:I really hope they realize that paying for the FCAS is the best choice

You do (?) realise that there were 'swappies' as for who was to lead, ehhrm
1. Germany on tank
2. Germany on 'Next fires' - whatever that might be
3. France on 'air'... until there was this utmost, stupid thing about several prototypes
... but now we know it is all about Rafale (XL, as promised to Belgian Parliament)
= airframe, engine, what else (to freeze the spec with)???

Let's take turns. I'll go first. Trust me, I'll let you lead the next time.

Riiiiiight

I give you a description of the (industrial) political landscape
... and you give us; WHAT???

With some hooray-Henries actually voting for the s@ite??

Are you (a nice one : one or several ) stuppidoes, or something