Tempest - UK Future fighter programme

litzj

BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
205
Reaction score
0
Website
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
Is there any response of UK government more than proposal from BAE?

Any good proposal cannot leave paper without political support...
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
1
mrmalaya said:
No propeller, so no interest I assume ;D
It was parked outside but heavy rain most of the weekend so many people stayed inside the museum. I saw quite a few soggy pictures of it, but nothing new coming out.

@litzj

Yes, at Farnborough the MOD signed a contract for £2bn study with BAES, RR, Leonardo MW and MBDA.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,727
Reaction score
79
https://twitter.com/AirForceDays/status/1038866785267802112
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
8
http://aviationweek.com/defense/dragonfire-laser-could-inform-next-british-fighter-weapon?elqTrackId=559f96f354d94e2cb04a665b596a4e04&elq=7ab5903004934b05af047c9b5df67450&elqaid=16720&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=14285&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=16720&utm_medium=email&elq2=7ab5903004934b05af047c9b5df67450

During 2019, British industry will demonstrate a directed-energy laser weapon for potential use on land and sea.

But the team behind the UK’s Dragonfire industry consortium developing the weapon is also beginning to consider how such a weapon could be mounted onto a future combat aircraft.

Dragonfire will demonstrate a fiber laser with a 50 kW output in 2019 tests.

Laser will put a focused beam the size of an English penny 5 km away.

The UK’s vision for a future combat aircraft—like that shown in mockup form at the Farnborough Air Show in July (AW&ST July 23-Aug. 19, p. 38) —envisions the integration of such a weapon, not only for self-defense, but also in target identification and visual range combat.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20181004/k00/00m/010/192000c.amp?

https://r.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO36698460Z11C18A0EA3000

Short version: Japan has no further interest in Tempest due to US sensetivities. F-22 restart or 'all Japan dream team'. Former is cheaper.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,173
Reaction score
168
Erm... That's not what I read?

The Ministry of Defense has strengthened its policy to develop a successor to the Air Self Defense Force's F2 fighter aircraft. Government officials revealed. Three U.S. and U.S. companies had suggested the introduction of capacity enhancement type of existing models, but judged that they do not meet the requirements of Japan side in view of cost and performance. We will include development policy in the next medium-term defense buildup plan to be formulated at the end of the year, with the aim of joint development with foreign countries, we will also advance Japan's own technology development with engines and others. [Akiyama Shinichi]


 The air force currently owns 92 F2, but it has exceeded its useful life since the 2030s. Because development of fighter aircraft takes more than ten years, the Ministry of Defense has been considering three proposals: (1) international joint development (2) domestic development (3) purchasing capacity enhancement of existing machines. We thought that defines the implementation strategy of the successor to the prospect of the end of the year now.

 In FY2006 - FY 2006, we asked domestic and overseas companies, the U.S. and U.S. governments to provide information on new development of fighter aircraft and renovation of existing machines three times in total. Until this July, Lockheed Martin Company, F 22, Boeing Company F 15, British BAE Corp. had made refurbishment improvements based on existing machines of Eurofighter Typhoon. However, the renovation of the F22 with state-of-the-art stealth performance is costly and it says "There was no clear explanation about the prospect of the US government's export ban measures to be lifted" (executive in the Ministry of Defense). For the other two plans, the performance of the aircraft will not reach the level required by the Japanese side, and the Ministry of Defense will not wait to adopt the capacity enhancement type of existing machines.

 However, it is difficult to newly develop a fighter aircraft that costs a budget of several trillion yen. In defense industrial groups and the LDP who want to maintain the domestic production and maintenance infrastructure, there is a strong voice to propose domestic development, but in that case the total development costs will be borne by Japan. Japanese companies lacking development experience of fighter aircraft are living anxiety in terms of technology.

 The Ministry of Defense conducted a technical research on next-generation fighter aircraft such as engines and electronic systems over about 190 billion yen in FY09 - 2006, but at the stage where the developed domestically produced engine is still confirming basic performance, flight experiment It is not standing by me.

 For this reason, the government is seeking to share development costs with international co-development with Britain and the German Federation and France, which are considering developing fighter aircraft. However, there is a risk that it will be difficult for co-development to adjust the timing, required performance, share of development field, etc. Meanwhile, the allies' United States has just begun full-scale operation of state-of-the-art F35 stealth fighter aircraft, and the development plan for the next model is not materialized. At the end of the year, the Ministry of Defense has decided to set up a new framework of new development, postponing the final decision on joint development or domestic development, and there are plans to advance technology development and negotiations with foreign countries.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
Got it from Twitter. Phone does not translate pages.

Also a pain to link this site to Twitter. Here is my attempt!


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The hybrid F-22/F-35 offer for Japan is reportedly dead. The Mainichi Shimbun reports the Japanese have decided to go with an all-new design. I probably owe a <a href="https://twitter.com/AaronMehta?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AaronMehta</a> a pumpkin spice latte, which I plan to remit next August. <a href="https://t.co/e1g2WLksiA">https://t.co/e1g2WLksiA</a></p>&mdash; Steve Trimble (@TheDEWLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1048287617085845504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">According to latest Nikkei update, the F-22 proposal is not exactly dead, but is being held up to give &quot;All-Japan&quot; coalition a more time to prepare its proposal so that two could be compared in 2019. Working with UK on Tempest unlikely due to Japanese fear <a href="https://t.co/XA25uYBySF">https://t.co/XA25uYBySF</a></p>&mdash; Faceless Man (@FacelessManTwit) <a href="https://twitter.com/FacelessManTwit/status/1054851088766115846?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


EDIT: Having got back on a laptop I agree with Red Admiral's can kicking comment, although the Nikkei article is mostly behind a pay wall and that is the one cited on Twitter as mentioning Tempest.

Although Google Translate can make things a little confusing, its translation of "Japanese companies lacking development experience of fighter aircraft are living anxiety in terms of technology" is about the most honest thing that anyone can say about all these fighter projects!
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
1
There's been much leaking from various people in Japan with varying agendas so the latest position changes week by week. But the underlying truth is that no decision has been made. If anything this latest just seems to be kicking in the can down the road another year.

One of the recent stories was that F-22 still under export controls, with no assurances they'd change - hence not an option. But there's some serious geopolitics in this decision.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
36
Yes, it reads to me that the only option that's off the table is any warmed-over 4th gen fighter. And that seems a reasonable assumption given the 2030s timeframe.
Japan are understandably hesitant about a multi-national development programme, that is something fairly alien to them. Most of their military aircraft programmes have been solo efforts or licence-produced US types.
It feels to me that the US option is still the most favoured but obviously it depends on political factors relating to exporting technologies, which to me seems nonsensical given the wide participation in the F-35 programme.
Tempest is still a possibility but perhaps Japan is right to be sceptical. We still don't really know what the end result of Tempest will be, an interceptor first and foremost or a swing-role type. I think Japan is probably not interested in the air-ground capabilities that might be on offer.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
With Russia, North Korea and China next door I would imagine Japanese planning has a different focus from the UK. Even post-Brexit I don't think France, Belgium and Norway are quite such an immediate threat. A few Bears down the North Sea each month are not the same as potential shoals of fighters etc. coming straight at you.

The need to keep the US on side makes sense as they are the ultimate defender of Japan. Perhaps it would be via US links that the UK may stand a better chance of a joint programme.

Global partnerships and exports are fraught affairs. BAE's links to Saudi Arabia and Turkey must be concentrating a few minds at the moment. I don't think Japan would be keen on such markets in any case, and other possible partners (Sweden, Germany) have different rules over such things.

Getting requirements, budgets, work share, ethics etc. lined up was difficult enough with close (in every sense) allies in the 1980s around EFA. Establishing a new alliance, and sustaining it, would make things more interesting.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
The rest of that twitter post ran something along the lines of "Tempest is not being considered because the Japanese are worried about Trumps's reaction to them ditching the US".

Not exactly technical.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
968
Reaction score
6
mrmalaya said:
The rest of that twitter post ran something along the lines of "Tempest is not being considered because the Japanese are worried about Trumps's reaction to them ditching the US".

Not exactly technical.
Tempest and Japan's next-gen fighter are gonna be much longer programs than any single (legal) Administration. Seems like they might be hedging while they wait to see what the longer-term trend in US politics is.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
I agree. It doesn't sound plausible, but neither does a revamp of the F22.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
3 squadrons of each?

https://www.janes.com/article/84058/raf-looks-to-typhoon-lightning-tempest-force-in-2030s
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
6
Harrier said:
3 squadrons of each?

https://www.janes.com/article/84058/raf-looks-to-typhoon-lightning-tempest-force-in-2030s
Very little information in the article and certainly no mention of squadron numbers.

Doubt anyone surprised by the fact that that the Typhoon’s service will overlap with what ever replaces it.

The interesting point is if it will be the tailend of the F-35 order or that ultimate Typhoon replacement that will replace the Tranche 1 Typhoons and if that replacement (the Tempest or an international, most likely pan-European project that emerges from the Tempest and parallel work in other European countries) can really be realized (technically, politically and financially) in time for the Tranch 1 replacement while likely being concurrent with the tailend of the F-35 procurement.

May be the case that the aim right now is for the Tranche 1’s knowing that if the Typhoon replacement is delayed (which is highly likely) it should still hopefully be in place to replace the Tranch 2’s & 3’s (with F-35 order to fill the gap).
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
957
Reaction score
4
When exactly is the Typhoon's out of service date? This has been annoying me for some time. :-\
 

Jackonicko

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
RAF Typhoon OSD currently planned at 2040. Tranche 1 OSD set at around 2030.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
36
How come Typhoon gets to retire before I do? :'( Life just ain't fair.
On the bright side, I might get to see Tempest in service before I'm too old and addled to remember what an aircraft is.

I guess the OSD for the later Tranches might change depending on availability of F-35s and new Tempests. Much will depend on the future structure of the RAF.
The RAF in 22 years time might look as different from today as it looked in 1996 from today in terms of size and manpower. If the number of squadrons goes up or down then the demand for airframes will change. If it continues to shrink then a two-type frontline fast jet mix may well look totally uneconomic.
 

Jackonicko

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I doubt that Typhoon OSD will move much. There will have been very careful calculations about fleet size, flying hours and likely attrition, as well as lifetime buys of particular spares that may otherwise be subject to DMR or obsolescence, and this will effectively place a fairly hard limit on how long the aircraft can last. It's not just about fatigue life consumption. A few years before OSD (perhaps as much as a decade) the RAF will start making decisions on support contracts that will then make the OSD absolutely 'set in stone'.

That's why the Jaguar left service when it did. The fleet still had unused fatigue life, but the support contracts for engines, ejection seats and a host of other systems all ran out at a particular point, and extending them would have been impossible in some cases, and prohibitively expensive in others.

Extending the Nimrod R1 in service by a few months was a really big deal - and it was not possible to stretch that aircraft's life sufficiently to bridge the gap between its planned retirement and the in service date of the Rivet Joint, despite a pressing operational need.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
6
Jackonicko said:
I doubt that Typhoon OSD will move much. There will have been very careful calculations about fleet size, flying hours and likely attrition, as well as lifetime buys of particular spares that may otherwise be subject to DMR or obsolescence, and this will effectively place a fairly hard limit on how long the aircraft can last. It's not just about fatigue life consumption. A few years before OSD (perhaps as much as a decade) the RAF will start making decisions on support contracts that will then make the OSD absolutely 'set in stone'.

That's why the Jaguar left service when it did. The fleet still had unused fatigue life, but the support contracts for engines, ejection seats and a host of other systems all ran out at a particular point, and extending them would have been impossible in some cases, and prohibitively expensive in others.

Extending the Nimrod R1 in service by a few months was a really big deal - and it was not possible to stretch that aircraft's life sufficiently to bridge the gap between its planned retirement and the in service date of the Rivet Joint, despite a pressing operational need.
Not sure I quite agree with you; there is likely to be substantial “give” for extension for the Tier 2 & 3 Typhoons (obviously at a cost).

The Jaguar left service when it did as prumarily as a budget measure (ahead of its planned Typhoon replacement) while the Nimrod had become a dangerous museum piece prior to its final withdrawal (the airframe a victim of being kept going too long with some bad planning, engineering and decisions made).
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
How interesting. This does support the idea that the UK intends this aircraft to go into service (and appears to be calling it Tempest).

If they are planning for it, then surely they are confident of it progressing beyond the mock-up stage (contrary to many an opinion on the web).
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
6
mrmalaya said:
How interesting. This does support the idea that the UK intends this aircraft to go into service (and appears to be calling it Tempest).

If they are planning for it, then surely they are confident of it progressing beyond the mock-up stage (contrary to many an opinion on the web).
The UK is clearly interested in their efforts being seen as “credible” re: potential future partners.
However as a project it is being born at an inauspicious and somewhat “unreal” time (unclear Brexit deal of yet unknown “hardness”, a weak minority government, etc.).
And that’s before considering if the UK really has the capacity and will (financial, technical and political) to really go it alone when all remotely recent experience suggests they don’t.
The Tempest may prove to only be an important way-point to something similar but different.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
733
Reaction score
8
Tempest is the latest folder of a cross-administration continuously funded effort. It's not something dropped one day on a stand, it's the real deal as we know any major program today: read money, real R&D, real sustained technology, real demonstrators being test flown... and now we are introduced to the beginning of an architecture of systems. I know that at the age of fancy GCI this could look as an old fashioned classicism but still, those are flesh and spinal for any serious project.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
This RUSI discussion is interesting:

https://youtu.be/edsHFIskKUc

Senior figures say a number of things that clarify the situation. Tempest is a team, not the concept plane.

Most of the technology talked about is of open systems rather than fighter planes - indeed it is said it is wrong to even use that term.

If the outcome is UK sovereign software that does the job then the aeroplane it is in hardly seems to matter to several of the speakers.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
6
Harrier said:
This RUSI discussion is interesting:

https://youtu.be/edsHFIskKUc

Senior figures say a number of things that clarify the situation. Tempest is a team, not the concept plane.

Most of the technology talked about is of open systems rather than fighter planes - indeed it is said it is wrong to even use that term.

If the outcome is UK sovereign software that does the job then the aeroplane it is in hardly seems to matter to several of the speakers.
Agreed; at this stage probably best seen a technology development project to keep up to date (and remain a potentially “worthy” project partner) rather than a “traditional” aircraft project.
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
1
kaiserd said:
Agreed; at this stage probably best seen a technology development project to keep up to date (and remain a potentially “worthy” project partner) rather than a “traditional” aircraft project.
Yes, but as Richard Berthon pointed out, the decision to do "something" in the future has been made, and a proper acquisition programme is being launched this year.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
OK, never in the history of British fighter design was so much hidden from so many, by so few.

Well maybe not. Are you saying that Tempest is a team developing some software to put in an aircraft? What software and what does that mean?

There seems to be a clear divide here between the more academically minded who are fighting shy of attaching the name to an aircraft, and those who are using "Tempest" as shorthand for the development of the RAF Typhoon replacement.

Perhaps the confusion is deliberate.

From the talk, they are still clearly referencing an airframe being built and whilst they aren't calling it a fighter (that is too prescriptive), it is being worked on by Team Tempest in the same way as Team Typhoon are delivering future Typhoon capabilities. I think the aircraft is being called Tempest and the addition of "Team" just helps illustrate it is a wider effort designed at providing much better value than if one prime contractor was in charge.
 

Jackonicko

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Team Tempest exists.

An aspiration to build an airframe also exists, but no more than that.

That airframe is unlikely to look much like the model being trucked around various air shows, and that many people are getting excited about and calling 'Tempest'.

I'm not sure that 'Team Typhoon' exists in anything like the way that you suggest.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Agree that Tempest in its model form is not representative of any aircraft that will fly. As to Team Typhoon, I got that from the RAF AM Atha, who opened that RUSI talk (around 12 mins in).
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Based on all the talk of increased combat mass from the RUSI talk and paper, "loyal wingman" based on lessons learnt from Taranis for the UK then?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
733
Reaction score
8
from rusi.org linked above
Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) offer a number of key advantages in high-intensity conflict scenarios, including expendability, comparative simplicity of manufacture, and combat endurance. Since UCAVs do not have to be flown regularly and in large numbers to maintain an aircrew cadre, they can be produced in relatively small numbers and regularly upgraded and iteratively improved as the threat picture changes over time, while still representing a potent combat asset.[...]
A mix of next generation manned combat aircraft limited to a modest level of technological ambition beyond the capabilities offered by current fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22, coupled with a stable of regularly evolving UCAVs in low-rate production, could offer both a way to rapidly expand NATO airpower if a crisis appeared imminent, and in a worst-case scenario at least offer a latent capability to replace losses and draw the worst attrition away from scarce manned assets in a high-intensity conflict. [...]
More importantly, an UCAS offers operational readiness with peer aggressors at a lower budget. Drones doesn't need to be trained. Systems only require continuous upgrades and development while only their interactions with humans necessitate regular training and OP refining. You then can own a large fleet of UCAS and regularly use only a fraction of the fleet produced. This is a clear path for the 5th and beyond generation of warfighters. Then your budget can be recapitalized upon preventing armed conflict to degenerate in a large confrontation (OP readiness, deployment of assets...).

Instead of focusing on a 1980 2.0 scenario, Europeans that have for their intends to be taken seriously, should refocus on improving their logistics and in-theater deterrence. The real 6th generation manned EU airframe will be the platoon soldier.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
I have an article in the December 2018 RAeS Aerospace magazine:

'Thirty Years of Hurt?'

https://www.aerosociety.com/publications/aerospace-magazine-december-2018/

Basically it is asking if there is a future for UK combat air design.

I did not want a TSR.2 picture, but they seem mandatory!

It is an edited version of the '1985' paper here:

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/about/cds/low-cost-by-design

It may go up on the RAeS Insight blog next week.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
975
Reaction score
10
Italy and Netherlands join Team Tempest, pretendidamente:

Google Translate of http://www.defensa.gob.es/gabinete/notasPrensa/2018/12/DGC-181203-caza-europeo-ngws.html
------------------------------------------------
Spain urges its participation as a full partner in the future European hunting
12/03/2018Twitter
The Minister of Defense, Margarita Robles, has transferred by letter to her French and German counterparts, Florence Parly and Ursula von der Leyen, the Government's firm interest in being part of the future European fighter of the 21st century, better known as the Armed Forces System. New Generation (NGWS) that drive France and Germany.

In his missives, Robles requests that the Spanish incorporation be formalized, through the signing of a Letter of Intentions (LOI, in its English acronym) or a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The cost of being a member of the program is estimated at around 25 million euros for the next two years.

The NGWS aims to be the fifth-generation fighter aircraft that will replace European fighters in service, such as the Eurofighter and the Rafale, starting in 2040.

Currently there are two projects that aspire to be the eurocaza of the 21st century: the Franco-German program and the British Tempest, to which the Netherlands and Italy have joined. From the Ministry of Defense is convinced that both programs will eventually merge, given the huge investment that requires its development.

Despite this, and with the interest to participate in the project from its initial phase, Spain has decided to join the project of Paris and Berlin.

The NGWS is conceived as a fighter aircraft with a pilot developed to operate in conjunction with a swarm of drones that will make weapons platforms and advanced sensors. In turn, the NGWS will be integrated into a panoply (the Future Air Combat System or FCAS) of which the mid-altitude and long-range drone (MALE, in which Spain participates with 23%) are part, satellites or cruise missiles.

In the next few years, before 2025, the Air Force must replace the 20 US F-18 fighters deployed in the base of Gando (Canary Islands); and by 2030, the remaining 65.
----------------------------------------------

In a two horse race expect some 'jockey swapping' as things progress!
 

Attachments

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
6
Re: the article above I am finding no other public reference to any Netherlands national involvement or interest in “Team Tempest”. As a participant in the F-35 programmer and with no Typhoons or Rafael’s to replace unlikely Netherlands will have any interest in any potential procurement until decades in the future.

Similarly while there is Italian industrial involvement (Leonardo) not yet any clear indication of any Italian national interest or involvement (particularly given its current government).

Hence any claims re: these countries (or Spain) in the article should be taken with a big pinch of salt.
But a forecast of all of these European programmes ending up as the one combined project does not appear far-fetched subject to Brexit being resolved in manner that doesn’t leave all bridges burnt (by the UK).
 
Top