European Defence spending and strategy

[The Ham]

This is a difficult one. Developing military aircraft is an expensive business and a multi-national agreement is no bad thing as long as the goals of the participating countries are aligned. The UK has proved that it's capable of being involved in such arrangements (Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon), but we also used to be rather good at developing our own aircraft, as well as exporting them around the world.

I'm not comfortable with the US being in charge of a particular project. The F35 and its use by Israel is a contentious issue.

Perhaps this should be a topic for a separate thread, but I'm not all that convinced that NATO has much relevance these days, especially when Tango Man Trump has hinted that action against a fellow NATO member (Denmark) might be on the cards.

Trump refuses to rule out using military force to take Greenland and Panama Canal

“We need them for economic security,” says the U.S. president-elect.

www.politico.eu

If there were issues with NATO (due to one member) I do wonder if there could be an adjustment (or a new setup which was basically the current NATO membership minus one) where membership was widened to include others.

For example allowing any country who signed up to an agreed set of principles.

They would likely include an agreed amount of spending, that the attack on one was an attack on all and that any military action (where an attack hasn't happened) taken by one had to raised with a quorum of members before it could be actioned without other members not having to defend that member from the consequences*.

That could allow allies from other continents to join such a setup.

* This list point could allow a pre emptive attack on a country where it's known they are building up troops to attack, but only with support of (say) enough members that you had support from enough countries so that 35% of the memberships spending was covered (with a clause capping large spending countries to each only be able to count a maximum of 8 of that 35 even if their share was higher, so there had to be at least 5 other countries in agreement)

That would likely mean agreement with one or more of The UK, France and Germany (depending on membership that could also include Saudi Arabia, India, Japan and South Korea, as well as assuming that the top three spending countries of the US, China and Russia are less likely to be members).

You could also set other things on a similar rule, so you don't get one nation setting all the standards. This would mean that if they left, the procedures, systems, military operations, etc wouldn't be dependent on just one country. It could also create better buy in if there was the potential for things to be setup within members countries (which they could see as economically beneficial).

 

[JonasB]

This is a difficult one. Developing military aircraft is an expensive business and a multi-national agreement is no bad thing as long as the goals of the participating countries are aligned. The UK has proved that it's capable of being involved in such arrangements (Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon), but we also used to be rather good at developing our own aircraft, as well as exporting them around the world.

I'm not comfortable with the US being in charge of a particular project. The F35 and its use by Israel is a contentious issue.

It is very expensive to develop military equipment. Multi-national agreement is not a bad idea, even better if it truly is multi-national and not dominated by a single country. We have the capability to do it in Europe, but everything can't be built in every country. Which can be seen in Sweden, the armed forces still use a lot of domestic built equipment but they've also started buying equipment from other countries.

 

[HSTEd]

This is a difficult one. Developing military aircraft is an expensive business and a multi-national agreement is no bad thing as long as the goals of the participating countries are aligned. The UK has proved that it's capable of being involved in such arrangements (Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon), but we also used to be rather good at developing our own aircraft, as well as exporting them around the world.

Cooperative programmes don't tend to work particularly well.
Tornado and Typhoon especially have been beset by issues, with the Typhoon being easily outcompeted by the F-35 and the Rafale.
After the crackdowns on BAE bribery, it has proven essentially impossible to sell Typhoon abroad, and I am of the view that the programme shoudl be put out of its misery.

The F-35 purchase should be expanded to ensure enough airframes are available for interim air policing, and the Typhoon force packed up and shipped to Ukraine as military aid.

Developing a fairly advanced combat aircraft was within the resources of Sweden, an economy with a fraction of the size of the UK in the very recent past, so I don't think a consortium is necessary. Doing so independently would however require procurement skills far beyond the current staff at the MoD, that couldn't even procure Ajax without it turning into a disaster.

The immediate problem is, obviously, that the F-35 is easily superior to the European jets available due to its stealth characteristics and advanced electronics.


Personally, I think the real problem with defence can be broken into three factors:

1. The MoD is incapable of running procurement or organisation, and fundamental reform and likely mass staff changes would be required to fix this.
2. Politicians and the armed forces heirarchy remains obsessed with nominal strength above other considerations, resulting in a huge mass of infantry battalions without the equipment necessary to fight and win. The Army must shrink and use the savings to buy equipment to make it able to fight. The Navy has to stop buying expensive ships with negligible combat power, such as overgrown patrol vessels (River Class) and the Type 31, which is essentially useless in a shooting war.
3. Beyond this, the military keeps desperately trying to get shiny capabilities like the RC-135 Rivet Joint procurement, or the massive strike carriers, without the resources to actually use them properly.

 

[Gaz67]

Cooperative programmes don't tend to work particularly well.
Tornado and Typhoon especially have been beset by issues, with the Typhoon being easily outcompeted by the F-35 and the Rafale.
After the crackdowns on BAE bribery, it has proven essentially impossible to sell Typhoon abroad, and I am of the view that the programme shoudl be put out of its misery.

The F-35 purchase should be expanded to ensure enough airframes are available for interim air policing, and the Typhoon force packed up and shipped to Ukraine as military aid.

Developing a fairly advanced combat aircraft was within the resources of Sweden, an economy with a fraction of the size of the UK in the very recent past, so I don't think a consortium is necessary. Doing so independently would however require procurement skills far beyond the current staff at the MoD, that couldn't even procure Ajax without it turning into a disaster.

The immediate problem is, obviously, that the F-35 is easily superior to the European jets available due to its stealth characteristics and advanced electronics.


Personally, I think the real problem with defence can be broken into three factors:

1. The MoD is incapable of running procurement or organisation, and fundamental reform and likely mass staff changes would be required to fix this.
2. Politicians and the armed forces heirarchy remains obsessed with nominal strength above other considerations, resulting in a huge mass of infantry battalions without the equipment necessary to fight and win. The Army must shrink and use the savings to buy equipment to make it able to fight. The Navy has to stop buying expensive ships with negligible combat power, such as overgrown patrol vessels (River Class) and the Type 31, which is essentially useless in a shooting war.
3. Beyond this, the military keeps desperately trying to get shiny capabilities like the RC-135 Rivet Joint procurement, or the massive strike carriers, without the resources to actually use them properly.

Well apart from a few points about the MOD I disagree with all this, however it's your opinion and your entitled to it. Regarding Typhoon ( an aircraft I know intimately) yes it was a slow start and not easy but we now have one of the finest jets in its class, a massive export success for UK plc and keeping thousands of people in good jobs. Putting the programme "out of its misery" as you say would end military aircraft production in the UK. We would just be a rather large sub contractor for LM and the good old USA. RC 135 is being used properly over Ukraine with Typhoon escort.

 

[Giugiaro]

I'm not an expert on military matters at all. But given the current attitude from the US it's my opinion that the F35 is the wrong choice. It might be developed together with a couple of European countries, but it is a mostly American plane. But there are European alternatives, like the Gripen (built in Sweden) and the Rafaele (built in France).

If I'm not mistaken, Portugal stunned NATO when it decided to replace the C-130 Hercules it owned by the Brazilian Embraer KC-390 with the final assembly in Portugal.

The fighter fleet is completely dominated by American aircraft, although Portugal is no stranger to Dassault, owning and operating three Falcon 50 and one Falcon 900.
Yet, I do wonder if the Gripen would be a much more suitable aircraft for Portugal, considering its well-developed and dense road network.
When the country struggles to finance its own decisions, using its already existing assets to its best potential feels like a no-brainer.

I do know that for aircraft to be operated off of motorways and other roads requires these to have a specific layout and equipment around the "airfield", but retrofitting existing roads to function as airfields would be considerably cheaper and advantageous than relying on a few key sites that can easily be destroyed by an enemy strike.

 

[tomuk]

Cooperative programmes don't tend to work particularly well.
Tornado and Typhoon especially have been beset by issues, with the Typhoon being easily outcompeted by the F-35 and the Rafale.
After the crackdowns on BAE bribery, it has proven essentially impossible to sell Typhoon abroad, and I am of the view that the programme shoudl be put out of its misery.

The F-35 purchase should be expanded to ensure enough airframes are available for interim air policing, and the Typhoon force packed up and shipped to Ukraine as military aid.

Developing a fairly advanced combat aircraft was within the resources of Sweden, an economy with a fraction of the size of the UK in the very recent past, so I don't think a consortium is necessary. Doing so independently would however require procurement skills far beyond the current staff at the MoD, that couldn't even procure Ajax without it turning into a disaster.

The immediate problem is, obviously, that the F-35 is easily superior to the European jets available due to its stealth characteristics and advanced electronics.


Personally, I think the real problem with defence can be broken into three factors:

1. The MoD is incapable of running procurement or organisation, and fundamental reform and likely mass staff changes would be required to fix this.
2. Politicians and the armed forces heirarchy remains obsessed with nominal strength above other considerations, resulting in a huge mass of infantry battalions without the equipment necessary to fight and win. The Army must shrink and use the savings to buy equipment to make it able to fight. The Navy has to stop buying expensive ships with negligible combat power, such as overgrown patrol vessels (River Class) and the Type 31, which is essentially useless in a shooting war.
3. Beyond this, the military keeps desperately trying to get shiny capabilities like the RC-135 Rivet Joint procurement, or the massive strike carriers, without the resources to actually use them properly.

Aside from the MOD procurement point your views on F35, Typhoon and Rafale are eccentric to say the least. And on RN vessels even more out of touch.

 

[JamesT]

If I'm not mistaken, Portugal stunned NATO when it decided to replace the C-130 Hercules it owned by the Brazilian Embraer KC-390 with the final assembly in Portugal.

The fighter fleet is completely dominated by American aircraft, although Portugal is no stranger to Dassault, owning and operating three Falcon 50 and one Falcon 900.
Yet, I do wonder if the Gripen would be a much more suitable aircraft for Portugal, considering its well-developed and dense road network.
When the country struggles to finance its own decisions, using its already existing assets to its best potential feels like a no-brainer.

I do know that for aircraft to be operated off of motorways and other roads requires these to have a specific layout and equipment around the "airfield", but retrofitting existing roads to function as airfields would be considerably cheaper and advantageous than relying on a few key sites that can easily be destroyed by an enemy strike.

Are the missions the Portuguese Air Force would carry out likely to be ones that need that capability? Various other NATO countries that used to fly F16s are ordering F35s. Commonality of equipment has some value.

 

[tomuk]

Are the missions the Portuguese Air Force would carry out likely to be ones that need that capability? Various other NATO countries that used to fly F16s are ordering F35s. Commonality of equipment has some value.

The Gripens austere operating base feature is a distraction. Gripen is a fine aircraft with operating costs four times lower than F35a. Purchase price is a bit high comparable to a good deal on F35a at around $80+m

 

[Severnia333]

Long meandering post, but maybe one people will find interesting.

With the political will, GB is a big enough country with the scientific and skill base to have a self sufficient defence industry. (it would require an armed forces about 50% larger in terms of people and larger again in big ticket equipment, and revitalisation of some neglected supporting heavy industry).

Given we are allies with the US and most of Europe this would probably not be worth it, but more independence to suit our own requirements would be welcome.

Any realistic small increase in defence spending in the next ten years should probably go on retention of personnel and spare parts/ammunition, as well as the ability to quickly and cheaply manufacture these things and send them to frontline units

Defence procurement and contracting of services also needs reviewing. Not just into headline (ships, jets, tanks etc) equipment production but mundane things like IT provision, catering, cleaning, etc.

If you want to go into the equivalent of crayons on maps then in no particular order here's a few:

Air defence batteries for major cities.

Anti ship missile sites on the east coast+northern Isles.

Rolling motorisation/mechanisation of the Army's infantry units.

A cheap, modular drone design for the Army to use.

A class of fast, well armed corvettes to be based at a new Naval Base in Newcastle.

(More) reliable, survivable communications and internet networks.

Offensive EW and counter EW systems for all three services (see both sides in Ukraine).

 

[Yew]

Looks like defence review has been kicked down the road again, end of year now. My humble guess is HMG doesn't want to order any more Typhoons to keep line and skills at Warton viable for a few years. Again just my guess work but they are hoping that Turkey will do job for us, latest strongish rumour on this is 20 Typhoon s from Germany to Warton for conversion for Turkish Air Force with 20 new builds following on. Hope there is still an order for RAF but don't see it personally. Anyway important Warton stays open or that's us out of the fast jet game.

Whilst the Typhoon is a nice plane, unfortunately the design has too large of a radar cross-section for the modern battlefield. Perhaps there are some mitigations that can be put in plase, but I'd imagine that for the moment, we're talking about F35s and in the future Tempest as the serious combatants.

 

[JonasB]

Yet, I do wonder if the Gripen would be a much more suitable aircraft for Portugal, considering its well-developed and dense road network.
When the country struggles to finance its own decisions, using its already existing assets to its best potential feels like a no-brainer.

I do know that for aircraft to be operated off of motorways and other roads requires these to have a specific layout and equipment around the "airfield", but retrofitting existing roads to function as airfields would be considerably cheaper and advantageous than relying on a few key sites that can easily be destroyed by an enemy strike.

I have no idea and it probably depends on what Portugal is looking for. But road bases don't have to be that complicated, the most basic version is just a piece of straight road, long enough for an aircraft to take off and land. With refueling and rearming being done by mobile teams. But there are also fancier road bases with widened roads and parking areas.

But if you ask the Swedish Air Force, road bases are not only for fighter jets, they can be used by larger planes as well.

 

[Yew]

I'm not an expert on military matters at all. But given the current attitude from the US it's my opinion that the F35 is the wrong choice. It might be developed together with a couple of European countries, but it is a mostly American plane. But there are European alternatives, like the Gripen (built in Sweden) and the Rafaele (built in France).

Unfortunately, the Gripen, Rafaele and Eurofighter are just all a lot more vulnerable to radar-guided weapons than the F35. They're all 4th Generation fighters, rather than 5th.

Do the US sell fully-specified euipment to their allies, or do they follow the Soviet practice of export-models with the same designation, but inferior equipment ?

I've heard of similar things happening with European sales, particularly around software and weapons. I'd imagine that the US guard the complex sensor-synthesis algorithms rather closely.

If you want to go into the equivalent of crayons on maps then in no particular order here's a few:

Air defence batteries for major cities.

Anti ship missile sites on the east coast+northern Isles.

Rolling motorisation/mechanisation of the Army's infantry units.

A cheap, modular drone design for the Army to use.

A class of fast, well armed corvettes to be based at a new Naval Base in Newcastle.

(More) reliable, survivable communications and internet networks.

Offensive EW and counter EW systems for all three services (see both sides in Ukraine).

I'd probably sacrifice those air defence batteries and anti-ship missiles to upgrade those Corvettes to Frigates and Destroyers. The Type 45's are very capable, but they are only 6 of them out of the original order of 12.

 

[GusB]

Unfortunately, the Gripen, Rafaele and Eurofighter are just all a lot more vulnerable to radar-guided weapons than the F35. They're all 4th Generation fighters, rather than 5th.

Other than China, who else has the capability to knock out those 4th generation fighters, though? Oh, the US does - which is why we should trying to develop our own capability (with or without European collaboration).

The F35 is only as good as our relationship with its main country of origin, and we've seen how quickly things can turn sour in that regard.

 

[Yew]

Other than China, who else has the capability to knock out those 4th generation fighters, though? Oh, the US does - which is why we should trying to develop our own capability (with or without European collaboration).

Anyone that has bought any radar guided anti-air missiles in the last 30 years?

The F35 is only as good as our relationship with its main country of origin, and we've seen how quickly things can turn sour in that regard.

Indeed, and we are working with Tempest, but the planned service date for that is 2035, that can perhaps be improved given the recent Japanese involvement, but most likely not by more than a few years.

 

[Gaz67]

Whilst the Typhoon is a nice plane, unfortunately the design has too large of a radar cross-section for the modern battlefield. Perhaps there are some mitigations that can be put in plase, but I'd imagine that for the moment, we're talking about F35s and in the future Tempest as the serious combatants.

Well the third squadron of F35s is due to stand up in the mid 2030s , Tempest is at the moment a single development aircraft being built in Lancashire, the production variant if it makes it that far is 10 to 15 years away, no country can base its air defence and future deployments on either of those. It's Typhoon for the foreseeable and we need more, upgraded obviously.

 

[Giugiaro]

Considering the window of opportunity, I do ask if it would be in our best interest to participate in the GCAP or FCAS.
Portugal may not have much of a budget to contribute to either program, but extra money is always extra money, and it would still get us a jet to replace the 28 F-16 with Sixth Generation non-US fighters.

Because Airbus has facilities in Portugal, namely Airbus Atlantic and Airbus Global Business Services, I would bet that Portugal, if given the choice, would choose the FCAS program over GCAP.

EDIT: Meanwhile the Portuguese Airforce also has an order for 12 Embraer Super Tucanos for close air support. If Embraer decides to develop a fighter, they'll probably get orders from Portugal

 

[Giugiaro]

The Portuguese Minister of Defence, Nuno Melo, said in an interview that Portugal gave up procuring the F-35, as the geopolitical environment caused by the election of Donald Trump turned the United States into an "unreliable ally".

Nuno Melo dismisses the purchase of F-35s from the US because of Trump. "The world has already changed"

 

[Gaz67]

The Portuguese Minister of Defence, Nuno Melo, said in an interview that Portugal gave up procuring the F-35, as the geopolitical environment caused by the election of Donald Trump turned the United States into an "unreliable ally".

Nuno Melo dismisses the purchase of F-35s from the US because of Trump. "The world has already changed"

Unite were campaigning at Westminster a couple of weeks ago for a Typhoon order for the Raf. The points they were making were based on a further order of 24 F35s compared to the same amount of Typhoons and what it means for UK manufacturing jobs. Don't have the exact figures but here goes, F35 - 2 months work for 2,000 approx, Typhoon -4 years work for 10,000 and work for too many sub contractor to name , Rolls Royce being the obvious one. The above figures are from memory but the info is out there and maybe even starker.

 

[DustyBin]

Whilst the Typhoon is a nice plane, unfortunately the design has too large of a radar cross-section for the modern battlefield. Perhaps there are some mitigations that can be put in plase, but I'd imagine that for the moment, we're talking about F35s and in the future Tempest as the serious combatants.

Mitigations have been put in place, certainly on the latest versions anyway. The radar cross-section was never actually that large to begin with, although you could argue it’s a moot point in this context; it’s not a stealth aircraft at the end of the day.

I think it’s important to remember what the Typhoon’s primary role is. It was designed as an interceptor and air superiority fighter, and although its multi-role capabilities have increased over the years, that’s not its forte. This is, I believe, why the French went their own way with the Rafael as they had/have a different requirement. In its primary role, the Typhoon is only convincingly outclassed by the F-22; anything it will come up against in reality is going to find it very difficult to deal with. When it comes to taking out incoming aerial threats as far from the UK mainland as possible, it excels.

In my opinion the F-35, far from rendering the Typhoon obsolete, actually compliments it. If you need to penetrate enemy airspace and take out ground-based air defences send F-35s. If you need to deal with incoming bombers or win an air-to-air “scrap” the Typhoon is perfect.

Just as a final thought, the US is in the process of procuring a large number of new, heavily updated F-15s (F-15EX) to work alongside it’s 5th generation fighters…

 

[Cloud Strife]

Unfortunately, the Gripen, Rafaele and Eurofighter are just all a lot more vulnerable to radar-guided weapons than the F35. They're all 4th Generation fighters, rather than 5th.

I think however, Ukraine has proved that you don't need the latest and greatest planes to do damage and to defend. Spending a huge amount on 5th generation planes just doesn't seem to make much sense, especially when the only real threat comes from Russia. I'd be rather looking at getting the cost per hour down, so that it becomes affordable for smaller nations too. I'd also suggest that there's a strong need for these European planes to be deployed in a cooperative manner, so all the manufacturers can benefit.

 

[tomuk]

Unite were campaigning at Westminster a couple of weeks ago for a Typhoon order for the Raf. The points they were making were based on a further order of 24 F35s compared to the same amount of Typhoons and what it means for UK manufacturing jobs. Don't have the exact figures but here goes, F35 - 2 months work for 2,000 approx, Typhoon -4 years work for 10,000 and work for too many sub contractor to name , Rolls Royce being the obvious one. The above figures are from memory but the info is out there and maybe even starker.

Every F35 rear fuselage has been built by BAE in Lancashire, that's over a thousand and counting. Every F35B has the liftfan supplied by Rolls Royce, although noting large part id Rolls USA.

In reality we need both a further order of F35B and Typhoon, F35 to bring aircraft numbers up to a level for proper carrier operations and Typhoon to replace the out of date Tranche 1 aircraft and provide a bridge to Tempest.

 

[Annetts key]

Remake some Vulcan bombers is what I say. Instead of unguided bombs, use long range guided missiles. That way they can stay out of enemy air defence range. And once the enemy SAM systems have been eliminated, the sound of the Vulcan bombers should be enough to cause the enemy conscript soldiers to foul themselves...

 

[AM9]

Remake some Vulcan bombers is what I say. Instead of unguided bombs, use long range guided missiles. That way they can stay out of enemy air defence range. And once the enemy SAM systems have been eliminated, the sound of the Vulcan bombers should be enough to cause the enemy conscript soldiers to foul themselves...

Do we have any indigenous long-range air to surface missiles other than Storm Shadow cruise missiles though? The Typhoons are perfectly good dogfighters as proven in Red flag and defence of airspace is viable in Europe rather than storming in with air superiority in a situation like Ukraine vs Russia.

 

[DustyBin]

Do we have any indigenous long-range air to surface missiles other than Storm Shadow cruise missiles though? The Typhoons are perfectly good dogfighters as proven in Red flag and defence of airspace is viable in Europe rather than storming in with air superiority in a situation like Ukraine vs Russia.

I don't believe we do, and the air-to-surface version of the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) isn't due until 2030.

 

[Annetts key]

We used to make all sorts of missile systems. One type of (now obsolete) hot axle box detector (HABD) was based on some of the U.K. missile system technology.

Of course, this was long before anyone had even heard of GPS...

I'm sure that if the U.K. worked with Europe and other friendly countries (other than the U.S.A.) various modern missile systems and guided bombs could be developed and produced. The missiles required include:

• Ground or ship launched interceptor missiles primary designed to take out incoming ballistic missiles but which could if needed be used against enemy aircraft at a long range.
• As above, but air launched.
• Ground or ship launched long range missiles to take out important enemy targets such as command posts, bunkers, bridges and any other important targets. A modern version of ATACMS.
• Air to air missiles, short, medium and long range for use against enemy aircraft of all sizes. Cheaper and hence more plentiful than the type designed for being ground launched like in my earlier bullet points.
• Ground/ship air defence missile systems.
• Radar guided cannons like the Flakpanzer Gepard to help take out drones.
• Other low cost drones or missiles for defence against drones.
• Laser defence systems

I'm sure there's others but you get the idea.
Of course, some of these already exist. But we currently often use U.S.A. missiles instead of European kit.

 

[tomuk]

We used to make all sorts of missile systems. One type of (now obsolete) hot axle box detector (HABD) was based on some of the U.K. missile system technology.

Of course, this was long before anyone had even heard of GPS...

I'm sure that if the U.K. worked with Europe and other friendly countries (other than the U.S.A.) various modern missile systems and guided bombs could be developed and produced. The missiles required include:

• Ground or ship launched interceptor missiles primary designed to take out incoming ballistic missiles but which could if needed be used against enemy aircraft at a long range.
• As above, but air launched.
• Ground or ship launched long range missiles to take out important enemy targets such as command posts, bunkers, bridges and any other important targets. A modern version of ATACMS.
• Air to air missiles, short, medium and long range for use against enemy aircraft of all sizes. Cheaper and hence more plentiful than the type designed for being ground launched like in my earlier bullet points.
• Ground/ship air defence missile systems.
• Radar guided cannons like the Flakpanzer Gepard to help take out drones.
• Other low cost drones or missiles for defence against drones.
• Laser defence systems

I'm sure there's others but you get the idea.
Of course, some of these already exist. But we currently often use U.S.A. missiles instead of European kit.

Have you heard of MBDA? CAMM, Aster, Storm Shadow, ASRAAM, Meteor, Brimstone, Sea Venom etc

 

[Annetts key]

Have you heard of MBDA? CAMM, Aster, Storm Shadow, ASRAAM, Meteor, Brimstone, Sea Venom etc

Yes! Did you not read my last line in the post that you quoted?

 

[tomuk]

Yes! Did you not read my last line in the post that you quoted?

Yes. But I felt your emphasis ie long list of things we need to build ourselves followed by a footnote down played the situation.
By the way are there aby American missiles you think should be replaced first?

 

[Gaz67]

Every F35 rear fuselage has been built by BAE in Lancashire, that's over a thousand and counting. Every F35B has the liftfan supplied by Rolls Royce, although noting large part id Rolls USA.

In reality we need both a further order of F35B and Typhoon, F35 to bring aircraft numbers up to a level for proper carrier operations and Typhoon to replace the out of date Tranche 1 aircraft and provide a bridge to Tempest.

Trust me when I say I know exactly how many rear fuses and HT and VTs have gone through Samlesbury. This work is very welcome and without it BAE would have shed a lot of of skilled workers .
However this work is limited and is largely structural , an awful lot of apprentices are in the system at BAE with an eye on working on Tempest and other unmanned projects in the future. Working solely on F35 will leave large gaps in their capabilities that only working on newbuild Typhoon will bring . This is one of the many points Unite we're raising.

 

[DustyBin]

Trust me when I say I know exactly how many rear fuses and HT and VTs have gone through Samlesbury. This work is very welcome and without it BAE would have shed a lot of of skilled workers .
However this work is limited and is largely structural , an awful lot of apprentices are in the system at BAE with an eye on working on Tempest and other unmanned projects in the future. Working solely on F35 will leave large gaps in their capabilities that only working on newbuild Typhoon will bring . This is one of the many points Unite we're raising.

I agree with you (and Unite, which must be a first!).

Dassault have plenty of export orders for the Rafale, along with an extended order from the French themselves, and these will keep them going whilst their 6th gen plane is being developed. The Typhoon order book looks rather less healthy, so if the only way to keep the production line running is for the UK to order some that’s what we should do. We wouldn’t just be buying them for the sake of it though; they’re still excellent aircraft that will strengthen our airforce.