Re-arming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

zen said:
Lot's of differences, like bulkhead thicknesses. Hence why the internal weapons bays be apparently smaller.
Not just different hatches, but strengthening around hatches and the changed internal arrangements.

All of which affects commonality of parts.
Click to expand...
Only if you have to replace those parts.

Operationally, you're looking at engines and doors.
 
Hood said:
I wonder what refuelling port they'll put in the GCAP?
Japan's KC-767s use the Flying Boom, Italy's KC-767s have a mixed boom/podded drogue system. It's only really the RAF who are the odd one out. Even more reason to get AirTanker to buy some booms.
Click to expand...

Latest imagery has UARSSI clearly visible. Although not visible in the same imagery they're daft if they don't include a retractable probe as well...takes up little real estate in a large aircraft and opens up so many options.

Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
It's likely that decommissioning and scrapping them would cost about as much as building new ones.
Click to expand...

That might be the case for cheaper munitions (or at least closer)...but not for a £1m Storm Shadow...

red admiral said:
AirTanker ends in March 2035 before GCAP though? So RAF can get whatever tanker variants it wants. With all the money from 3.5% GDP budget they can even get some gold plated toilets on them :)
Click to expand...

Yep. There will need to be a new 'arrangement' for A330 MRTT...there is zero appetite for new PFI deals any more, or extensions of such (they're as good as banned), let alone the famously ruinously expensive Airtanker arrangement. The only 2 possible deals at present are purchase of the existing A330 Voyager from Airtanker at the end of the contract (effectively a Transfer of Title arrangement) with a number subsequently having booms added....or a purchase of new A330 MRTT.

Given that the fleet will be 20 years old at that point, adding a boom will cost a considerable amount regardless, and the UK's A330 lack the cargo door (like the later A330 MRTT Fenix) that massively increases capability. Plus the A330NEO MRTT+ will arrive at the end of this decade...new aircraft will be a lot cheaper to operate...lower fuel burn and lower maintenance. I suspect Airtanker will try and be greedy as well....no change there...and may price themselves out.

Hopefully the RAF just buys a new fleet...and resists Airtankers doubtless many attempts to stay suckling at the taxpayers teat...either way, with Airtanker off contract in 2035 there will need to be some decisions made in the next 4 years....

Scott Kenny said:
Side note: It'd be really good for NATO to build an AMRAAM form factor ARM, or make a new seeker that allows for an ARM firing mode of the AAM.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Meteor MLU will bring some more of that capability....

Ozair said:
Expecting Tempest to be cheaper than the F-35, or Typhoon, to acquire or operate per hour is a road leading to disappointment.
Click to expand...

It won't be cheaper, sheer size takes care of that...but I think we can expect the initial very high costs per flight hour that both F-35 and Typhoon suffered from to be a key point for the customers and builders, particularly with the experience from Project Tytan to lean on...

zen said:
Also highly probable that Storm Shadow production is relevent to the next generation systems.

This could also be a move to persuade the UK to focus on these rather than say some Anglo-German system.
Click to expand...

It 'could' be. But I don't think there will be much carry over from Storm Shadow to TP15, even from refreshed MLU missiles. But I think its as much a realisation (albeit at the usual glacial speed) that Germany and the US will not supply Taurus and JASSM...so something needs to be done. The MLU stockpile was already going to cover us until service entry of TP15, but this may be a recognition that:

  1. MLU stockpile of c400-500 missiles is no longer sufficient given changes in threat
  2. Integration of TP15 to GCAP won't happen until mid to late 2030's
  3. Storm Shadow is still totally credible and survivable in a modern threat environment
  4. Storm Shadow 'could' stay as Typhoon specific until service exit, leaving TP15 for GCAP only (could save some integration funds there)
  5. There may be increased export potential for Storm Shadow in the interim...
  6. Previously it was expected that the line/cells/personnel for Storm Shadow would transfer from Storm Shadow MLU work to TP15 work....but, both Stevenage and Bolton are expanding rapidly...with additional capacity you no longer have to switch over and there is a training opportunity for new personnel.
 
timmymagic said:
It 'could' be. But I don't think there will be much carry over from Storm Shadow to TP15, even from refreshed MLU missiles.
Click to expand...
No I don't think I said that.
I said 'relevent' to TP15.
Which is obviously more about a production facility, supplier logistics and staff already versed in such a system's manufacturing.
Making the move over to TP15 at some stage a fairly reasonable and affordable process.

I suspect German intransigence is driving that 7,000 missile ambition towards Anglo-French collaborative efforts.
A licence for MRLS rockets would be a good idea. But arguably LPS should supply the future and be fully domesticated.
Though it would be nice if the French came onboard this.
 
timmymagic said:
It won't be cheaper, sheer size takes care of that...but I think we can expect the initial very high costs per flight hour that both F-35 and Typhoon suffered from to be a key point for the customers and builders, particularly with the experience from Project Tytan to lean on...
Click to expand...
I'd like to think that was true but seems highly unlikely. I cannot see it costing less to operate per hour than either of those jets and could easily see it being 50% more per hour just based on the size and scale of the platform, the level of technology incorporated and the size of the expected production run.
 
timmymagic said:
Yep. There will need to be a new 'arrangement' for A330 MRTT...there is zero appetite for new PFI deals any more, or extensions of such (they're as good as banned), let alone the famously ruinously expensive Airtanker arrangement. The only 2 possible deals at present are purchase of the existing A330 Voyager from Airtanker at the end of the contract (effectively a Transfer of Title arrangement) with a number subsequently having booms added....or a purchase of new A330 MRTT.

Given that the fleet will be 20 years old at that point, adding a boom will cost a considerable amount regardless, and the UK's A330 lack the cargo door (like the later A330 MRTT Fenix) that massively increases capability. Plus the A330NEO MRTT+ will arrive at the end of this decade...new aircraft will be a lot cheaper to operate...lower fuel burn and lower maintenance. I suspect Airtanker will try and be greedy as well....no change there...and may price themselves out.

Hopefully the RAF just buys a new fleet...and resists Airtankers doubtless many attempts to stay suckling at the taxpayers teat...either way, with Airtanker off contract in 2035 there will need to be some decisions made in the next 4 years...
Click to expand...
I like your optimism but I can't see the MOD and Treasury going back to owning and operating its own tanker assets. For one, the capital outlay probably wouldn't enable even a 1 for 1 replacement of the current numbers - and an underfunded and insufficient tanker fleet would be a serious drawback - and no doubt some Treasury wag is rubbing their hands with glee thinking that talk of transatlantic range for Tempest means that the RAF will need less tankers while ignoring the F-35s and Typhoons still in service.
 
timmymagic said:
Hopefully Meteor MLU will bring some more of that capability....
Click to expand...
That would be an amazing option! Just remember to install a fragmentation sleeve around the solid fuel section to take advantage the big boom that happens when a solid fuel rocket breaks up while burning...
 
FighterJock said:
It is time the MOD and RAF should start to own their own tanker fleet Hood, get back to the good old days if I say so myself. the whole public private partnership thing was just a fad that should never have happened.
Click to expand...
Public private partnership is just about paying to some private company equivalent of having latest and greatest in tanker capabilty , only for that private company to fly barely airworthy planes from the boneyard.

Example Omega Aerial Refueling Services
Omega currently operates 2 converted Boeing KC-707-338Cs and 2 converted McDonnell Douglas KDC-10s basicaly jets Airforces long retired .
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
I'd like to think that was true but seems highly unlikely. I cannot see it costing less to operate per hour than either of those jets and could easily see it being 50% more per hour just based on the size and scale of the platform, the level of technology incorporated and the size of the expected production run.
Click to expand...

It won't be cheaper but given the success of TyTan I suspect sustainment costs from day one will be on the radar, so to speak. Rather than a realisation years down the road...hopefully we won't see the inevitable sky high initial sustainment costs sustained over a period of years

Hood said:
I like your optimism but I can't see the MOD and Treasury going back to owning and operating its own tanker assets. For one, the capital outlay probably wouldn't enable even a 1 for 1 replacement of the current numbers - and an underfunded and insufficient tanker fleet would be a serious drawback - and no doubt some Treasury wag is rubbing their hands with glee thinking that talk of transatlantic range for Tempest means that the RAF will need less tankers while ignoring the F-35s and Typhoons still in service.
Click to expand...

I don't think they'll have any choice this time. Even the Treasury are firmly against PFI these days, and contractor owned and operated is only seen as useful for initial capabilities.
 
Mr.T said:
Public private partnership is just about paying to some private company equivalent of having latest and greatest in tanker capabilty , only for that private company to fly barely airworthy planes from the boneyard.
Click to expand...

To be fair that was not the case with AirTanker...it was world class, brand new A330 MRTT. RAF could genuinely claim to having the most modern, capable AAR fleet on earth on service entry (on a per aircraft basis). Obviously it was expensive, but MoD were given the choice of the PFI or nothing by Treasury. The inflexibility of the contract were obvious from day 1 and have only grown as time has gone on, a similar position to all PFI deals (speak to anyone involved in hospitals and schools...). It's worth noting that Treasury is well aware of these...and loathes PFI now (truth is most of Treasury always did, it was a political choice...).
 
timmymagic said:
To be fair that was not the case with AirTanker...it was world class, brand new A330 MRTT. RAF could genuinely claim to having the most modern, capable AAR fleet on earth on service entry (on a per aircraft basis).
Click to expand...
Even not being equipped with booms made perfect sense back in 2003 when the specifications were written. The large-aircraft drogue didn't really start going the way of the dodo until Airseeker.
timmymagic said:
truth is most of Treasury always did, it was a political choice...
Click to expand...
A committed long-term expenditure? Of course Treasury hates it.
Grey Havoc said:
PFI's supporters are trying to sneak it back in though, if recent media reports are any bit accurate.
Click to expand...
If they think government borrowing is expensive, nobody show them the costs of commercial finance.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Armed Forces recruitment rebounds say Government

The government says it is making progress in tackling the armed forces’ long-standing recruitment and retention challenges, though peers have raised fresh concerns about how psychological pressures and digital-era warfare may affect future enlistment.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Good news that didn't get much attention.
 
jsport said:
View: https://youtu.be/7lU0Ys5Qz68?t=1148


Some startling opinion on curbing UK Army ambition starting @ 22:22....how humiliating.
Click to expand...
Some of us have been saying this for ages. It's currency inside military enthusiasts debating online and experts for at least the last decade if not the last 20 years. I would know since I've been having this conversation since 2001.
So I don't see it as 'humiliation' in any sense.
Historically we've needed large Armies less than large Navies.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain buys new air defence missile systems

The Ministry of Defence has announced a £118 million purchase of six Land Ceptor missile launchers, a move that will double the British Army’s deployable Sky Sabre air defence systems.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

This is a contract for 6 launchers, not for six full systems (one radar, one command and control vehicle and four launchers).
 
There reportedly has been another recent control signed for the procurement of support items for the Sky Sabre system.

If I'm allowed some personal speculation, perhaps this purchase precludes the funding of a greater capability for Sky Sabre in the autumn DWP? CAMM-ER has long been speculated for the BA.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain launches Project ‘NIGHTFALL’ for ballistic missile

The UK has formally revealed its intention to pursue a new ground-launched tactical ballistic missile under Project NIGHTFALL.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Another long-range fires project. AFAIK, there's the FC/ASW, PrSM, Anglo-German long-range strike missile, the sovereign hypersonic weapon, Brakestop and now this sovereign ballistic missile.

Whilst it's important to have sovereign capability, I wonder whether the BA might be better served by procuring these ballistic missiles from South Korea, for example. Unless this is intended as a jumping off point for eventually replacing the Trident?
 
200kg payload a.k.a 440lb.
What's a low yield nuclear warhead weigh?
 
Why not go all the way and design and build a land based nuclear tipped ballistic missile with MIRVs and have our own independent nuclear deterrent that would solve a whole lot of issues about who owns the warheads out right.
 
FighterJock said:
Why not go all the way and design and build a land based nuclear tipped ballistic missile with MIRVs and have our own independent nuclear deterrent that would solve a whole lot of issues about who owns the warheads out right.
Click to expand...
Takes time to get there, you need domestic production of large diameter solid rocket motors first. TBMs are the first step, and once you get over a certain diameter you can very quickly develop ICBMs from those motors (as can be seen with North Korea).
 
Elsewhere, in a paper shared with The i Paperand due to be released next week, the UK In A Changing Europe (UKICE) think tank warns that Britain may face a fresh obstacle in its battle to secure access to the EU rearmament fund, due to the EU’s “restrictive” intellectual property rules.

The UK is seeking to get British defence firms access to weapons-making projects started under the EU’s €150bn (£126bn) rearmament fund, known as SAFE, after signing a security and defence partnership with Brussels.
Click to expand...
But EU sources have already indicated that access will come with conditions attached, including demanding payments from the UK to Brussels, as British defence firms will benefit from the bloc’s loans.

There could also be restrictions on how much of any arms product is British-made, as some member states led by France want the EU to have autonomy over its defence.

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary John Healey has already emphasised the importance of “retaining UK intellectual property” in any deal.

But in the UKICE paper, Jannike Wachowiak will warn “this will be far from easy”.

“The EU’s restrictive IP rules have in the past hampered cooperation with third countries in defence projects under the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO),” she will add.

With the EU setting a 30 November deadline for requests for loans under the Safe scheme, “time is tight” for negotiations “if the UK doesn’t want to miss out on joining procurements”.
Click to expand...
inews.co.uk

UK visas for 50,000 young Europeans every year could seal new Brexit deal

Youth mobility scheme for under-30s has been sticking point in Starmer plan for new EU agreement. But Brussels source suggests visa breakthrough is possible
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom