BAE Systems has announced the establishment of FalconWorks, a new addition to its Air Sector.

FalconWorks is presented as an agile research and development centre, aiming to deliver advanced combat air capabilities to the UK and allied nations.

According to BAE, FalconWorks will mainly focus on idea generation, promoting innovation, and facilitating collaboration with a diverse array of partners. These include academic institutions, research organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and governments.

The goal is to swiftly develop concepts of new products and services that meet the evolving needs of air force customers.

FalconWorks’ specialists are tasked with identifying emerging trends and proposing solutions leveraging digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum sensing, and robotics. Additionally, the division plans to work collaboratively in fields such as autonomy, synthetic environments, and electrically powered air systems.

Dave Holmes, Managing Director of FalconWorks at BAE Systems, said in a press release: “Defending our freedoms is becoming ever more unpredictable – the only constant is change. The creation of FalconWorks is a reflection of the changing environment and our goal to ensure innovative technology development is at the core of everything we do.

Holmes further stated, “This new division builds on our established expertise in world-leading combat air programmes such as Typhoon, F-35 and Tempest to unlock opportunities to expand our portfolio and deliver the breakthrough technologies which keep our customers ahead.

Over the past three years, BAE Systems has invested £800m of its own funds into research and development, demonstrating a significant commitment to technological advancement within the defence sector.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

94 COMMENTS

  1. A most disturbing story about the woke mindset which permeates British society regards British defence companies:
    Banks are closing down defence companies’ accounts, Government warns
    Banks face an investigation by the Ministry of Defence after closing the accounts of military contractors to the department.
    The MoD launched the investigation after dozens of defence companies complained that they were being denied banking services or charged higher rates because of the nature of their work. Defence experts have blamed the growth of environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies, which encourage firms to invest “ethically”

    James Cartlidge, the minister for defence procurement, is in talks with ADS, the trade body representing 1,200 firms in the aerospace, security, defence and space sectors, to discuss how the Government can end the practice.
    Ministers are concerned that it could jeopardise jobs and undermine the competitiveness of the sector, which employs 417,000 people and provides equipment to the Armed Forces.

    “Russia’s illegal invasion has highlighted why we must advocate for a strong defence industry, without which we could not have supplied Ukraine with the means to defend its freedom,” said Mr Cartlidge.
    “Defence businesses large and small have told me that ESG rules have undermined them, from facing more expensive finance to being denied basic banking facilities.

    “We are currently investigating the extent of this challenge – but I am clear that a strong defence industry supports well-paid jobs around the UK and enables our Armed Forces to keep us safe in dangerous times.”

    Larger firms struggle to raise capital
    Smaller defence businesses have been refused accounts, or told existing accounts will be closed and their balance refunded.
     
    They have also been refused insurance, while larger firms struggle to raise capital. Research by ADS found that the proportion of investment funds that exclude the defence sector on ethical grounds has risen from 59 per cent in 2021 to 91 per cent this year.
     
    An ADS spokesman said: “The aerospace and defence sectors have already seen reduced access to investment and financial services, due to investor concerns about ESG performance or other reputational risks.
     
    “Our small and medium-sized enterprises are facing unprecedented barriers in accessing the finance they need. This can range from high-value investment rounds, down to difficulties faced accessing basic business banking services due to overzealous interpretation of risks from banks.
     
    “For many funds, defence stocks have overtaken tobacco as less desirable, despite the vital role defence plays.”
    Review of the rules
    It comes amid a row over the closure of the accounts of “politically exposed persons” (PEPs) after several public figures, including Nigel Farage, complained that their accounts had been shut without warning.
     
    Treasury officials have ordered the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the City watchdog, to urgently review rules around PEPs.
     
    Andrew Griffith, the economic secretary to the Treasury, has written to the FCA asking it to speed up a review of the rules.
     
    “Given the strength of concern on this issue, I would expect that the FCA will prioritise this important review over the coming months, and if there are ‘easy wins’ along the way will implement those expeditiously,” he said.

      • Re defence, short sighted. If our military is short of funding or our arms industry can’t produce what we need… Fact is, defence is the most important function of government. Everything else depends on keeping the wolf at bay. Likewise, what’s better. Buying British produced arms that partially contribute to the British economy, or buying foreign produced arms where the equipment comes with conditions and any profit goes to foreign companies/countries? The money will be spent anyway.

    • It about time people made a stance rather than giving up and giving into this pathetic bullshit that is insidiously creeping into the mindsets of all and sundry.
      Trouble is most oldies cant be arsed with the ‘enlightened’ on social media who like to proclaim loudly and at length their green & diverse credentials , shouting down all those that have the audacity to challenge.
      I know I cant be arsed with it -so maybe I am part of the problem.

      • Hi Grizzler. There is an avalanche of woke s**te out of all proportion to their tiny numbers on the ground-so much in fact that even some moderate older guys like me start to doubt oneself. We have to believe in the Power of One- we need to vote with feet and money against these outrages as did the US public in the States against the Bud Lite debacle. Time for Monty Pythons ” Ordinary decent people” to stand up and say-enough!
        On subject, Brits have always been genius innovators so good luck to Bae’s new facility.

        • To be honest there has always been arguments over what is and is not appropriate responses to moral dilemmas. It is nothing new. The word woke is a far right term that was used so ridicule anything that the far right did not agree with. It is now being used to denigrate anyone who cares about anything… And is very decisive on purpose. Wokism as it appears to be termed is then blamed for everything that is going wrong rather than looking at what is actually causing the problems (Mostly totally inept middle and senior management in most UK companies). On top of that, many instances of wokism that are reported either did not happen in the way it is reported or simply did not happen at all (see the case of a pupil apparently identifying as a cat – which by the way did not actually happen). Stop worrying about so called wokism and start worrying about the actual facts that point to why certain things do or do not happen. We are all very easily lead by wanting to think something conforms to our beliefs and values even if those things are just not true.

          • Thank you for your comment. Let us not give what i am talking about a label, but here are a few examples of the things that worry me-a Train conductor being disciplined for saying “Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen, a teacher for refusing to call a biological male “they “(might just be because it is incorrect English inasmuch as a single human cannot constitute more than one person), an educated and intelligent woman being banned from addressing students at Oxford because they don’t like her moderate views, a Stop Oil protester from blocking my right of way(even though i would support his general views on the ill effects of fossil fuels), a Banker closing my account because my opinions might upset other customers etc, etc.
            Regards from Durban

          • Right, I agree with you to a point. But those things have always and always will happen. People are allowed to protest and I do not agree with the way they are protesting (I think it is better to bring people onside rather than what they are doing. However people disagreed with how the suffragettes protested too and look what they achieved). Banks are closing accounts because of a few reasons. One is that their financiers want them to and as they pay for everything then they get to say what goes and what does not (That is capitalism). Another is that the Government introduced very strict anti-money laundering rules that has meant a lot of people are caught up in the banks simply abiding by the law (something which the banks warned the Government about before they introduced the legislation). Hardly the banks fault is it? As for the other examples. I am not sure if any of those are false or true… I can find no reference to a train conductor being disciplined for doing that. (Please provide a reference if this is actually true). As for Oxford Uni banning a speaker (I assume you are referring to Kathleen Stock?) This is also seemingly untrue. It appears that what actually happened was that the Oxford Union was refused a stand at a freshers fair over an entirely unrelated issue. Oxford Union is independent of the University and is a fee charging private club. The speaker was not banned by the University.

            Oh and “they” is indeed correct English. “when referring to a generic person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context”. You may not like people feeling a different gender to the one they were born as, but it has not changed for probably the entire course of human history, it just has been taboo to talk about it as the Religious think it is an abomination and that anyone who thinks differently to them should go to hell… Remember we effectively killed the greatest mind the UK has ever produced and a war hero (Alan Turing) for being gay… Alan had to hide it for fear of being locked up and when he was discovered to be gay he was forced to be chemically castrated! There is no way people would have claimed to be a different gender as that would have likely incurred even greater penalties!

            Now, should someone be criticised for accidentally calling someone a term that the person is not happy with? No not at all. However if someone refuses, you have to ask why they are refusing as what harm is it causing? Lets concentrate on why politicians are so corrupt (causing real harm to people) and why only 1% of rapes are convicted (again real harm) rather than what someone wants to be called. I mean we have to go to great lengths to make sure we are not offending religious people and that religion is respected without question and that is entirely made up! How is that different from someone wanting to be referred to as “they”?

          • LNER says its conductors will be warned to not use the greeting “Ladies and Gentlemen”. OUTRAGEOUS and an Orwellian attack on the right to free speech. “They” refers to more than one person and has never/should never be used to refer to multiple personalities. This debate has strayed from the subject at hand and we should not abuse our host.
            Kind Regards from Durban

          • Warned… Not disciplined. They are very very different things. I warn my children not to talk to strangers, that is not punishing them it is advising them… I have been warned of multiple things in my working life, I was not being disciplined I was being reminded of the companies policies…

            And “they” being used for singular is not up for debate. It always has been used in this way as any English speaker will know and will have used many times without even realising.

          • Warned = next step disciplined. As an English speaker I would never call any he or she, “they ” and I suspect that most on this site would agree with me although I reckon you might regard most of us as old school reactionaries beyond help!
            When I was a wee boy in Ireland, my Aunt referred to me as “IT ” when I was misbehaving, no doubt used in anger but it is gender neutral and definitely applies to one only, so…..

          • A warning does not necessarily lead to being disciplined as the next step, However it might if you are clearly going against company policy. For instance if I do not put the company logo in the correct colour on the website I would be warned about company policy, if I did it again out of defiance then obviously I would expect to be disciplined, if the logo was accidentally displayed in the wrong shade of blue it is likely that I would again be warned about the company policy…

            Again “they” is often used as a singular. For instance, if you were to see someone in the distance climbing over a fence you would say “They climbed over the fence” as you would not know who they (again a use of “they” for singular) were.

            If you were speaking to a person who you could not tell if they were a man or a woman then you would again refer to them as they if you were describing them to someone.

            It is normal English language terminology.

            A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos.”

          • So you can’t see that the Oxford Student Union, banks & Compnaies banning someone or forcing them to adhere to policies dictated to by a small/vocal group & who are more interested in protecting an image only for that group is exactly the concern people have.
            You arguments are flawed & I disagree with you completely- but the real point is…it doesn’t matter what I think does it as my voice would just be cancelled- and thats the real issue.
            but prob not a topic for this site tbh.

          • I have worked more many many companies and all of them have policies that staff have to adhere to. Some of the policies make total sense others are non-sensical but that is what you sign up for when you join. The Oxford Student Union was not banned from having a speaker, they were simply denied a stall at freshers week that was seemingly due to other issues. Please stick to facts rather than rumour. I am not sure what is flawed in my arguments but you are free to your opinion.

            However I do not seem to see many people jumping up and down on this site about the Government cancelling people, it just seems to be when some right winger is cancelled… Is it not a bit more worrying when you are cancelled for mere criticism of the Government (You know, the people we elect to represent us and who should always be held accountable)?

          • Yes the hate of the human differences is the basis of anti- human hate in Marxism.
            Since the social class exploitation mechanism was not giving enough profits so there is need of expand it to race, sex whatever. Basically Fascism corporatism.

            “It is normal English language terminology.”
            Haha. It is normal to confound plural with singular then. Aren’t you discriminating quantities? I am sure if there is some university profit to get from it i am sure you are…

          • I really think you do not understand Marxism…

            University profit…?

            1. they – Pronoun
            2. /ðeɪ/ 
            3. (used as the subject of a verb)
            4.  
            5. people, animals, or things that have already been mentioned or are easily identified
            6. “Where are John and Liz?” “They went for a walk.”
            7. They (= the things you are carrying) go on the bottom shelf.

            This is from the Oxford English Dictionary….

          • Silly comments.. that you can’t edit….

            The dictionary reference is also applicable to singular

          • people in authority or experts
            They cut my water off.

            The Oxford English Dictionary locates a singular “they” way back in 1375

          • Oh i know Marxism very well, it is a rhetoric mechanism to have total power over people.

            That is why whatever have been implemented in whatever culture, skin color, Europe, Asia, Africa we had genocide.

            The path to modernity have been made by restricting the suzerain power.
            Marxism the inverse, a primitive reactionary movement to implement total power of the suzerain , the state over people.
            No checks and balances, no separation of powers.

          • Marxism and Dictatorships are not the same thing. The fact Marxism has been used as a way to become a dictator is different to the initial aims of Marxism. Marxism is actually the opposite of a dictatorship it is supposed to spread power among the people and decentralise it. Now we know that Marxism in the real world does not work very well but the fact it has been abused by those that want ultimate power is not the aim of the movement at all. I mean there have been a number of Capitalist dictatorships too… But then we know total capitalism is also not a workable solution and even when it is not a dictatorship it becomes a situation where a few people have all the power.

            Recognising other peoples feelings is nothing to do with either Capitalism or Marxism….

    • Whilst I’m here, here’s another very interesting story regards the MOD and the Woke band wagon:

      MoD civil servant sues over ‘attack on white people’ in diversity course
      A Ministry of Defence civil servant launched a discrimination claim after a diversity training course featured an academic paper which he claimed attacked white people.
       
      Daniel Powell claimed that the MoD had harassed him by making research called “The Psychosis of Whiteness” available as a resource for managers who were running the mandatory Operation Teamwork exercise. An employment tribunal heard that the paper, described as a “detailed academic treatise”, is an analysis of two slavery films and defines “whiteness” as a “Eurocentric worldview that produces the privileges of white skin which can become normalised and invisible”.
       
      Mr Powell, a civilian based with the MoD in Glasgow, claimed that the paper suggests white people are “psychotic, cannot be reasoned with and must be destroyed”. He sued the Government for race discrimination and harassment, claiming the way that “diversity and inclusion” is being implemented within the MoD breaches the Civil Service Code as he considers that it represents a “Left-wing and Marxist political ideology”.
      His case has been dismissed, however, because while the tribunal found that the “Psychosis of Whiteness” paper had been part of the material given to managers, Mr Powell had “fundamentally misread” its meaning. It also concluded that the MoD had never directly disseminated it to staff, had never used it in training, and did not endorse its contents.
      MoD ‘taken over by subversives’
      Instead, an employment judge said it was important for democracy that papers like the one in the case “challenge” people’s views and, as such, its use by the MoD could not be found to be discriminatory against its staff. The tribunal in Glasgow heard that Mr Powell, who works in a witness liaison role in the ministry’s litigation team, began working for the department in 2005. As part of his claim he said he believed that the MoD had been “taken over” by its diversity and inclusion team and described them as “radicals, subversives and insurgents”.
      He alleged that this team had waged “psychological warfare against staff and the British public in general”. A tribunal report said: “[Mr Powell] has formed the view that the way in which diversity and inclusion is implemented in the MoD’s organisation goes against government policy and is divisive.“He objects to certain… concepts underlying this, such as critical race theory, which he views as an attack on white people.” The paper was published in 2016 in the Journal of Black Studies. The MoD said Mr Powell’s allegations that he was harassed by its diversity policies were “ridiculous”. “Mr Powell simply has a skewed view and sees himself as a spokesperson for downtrodden white men,” the MoD told the tribunal.

        • Sure I remember when the only course that mattered was if you could take the s..t thrown at you, and shape up. No diversity needed you were all mates going through the same c..p .
          Maybe I’ve got too old and miserable to see any sense to any of this anymore.

      • The enemy within. I can’t help but wonder about the ethnicity of this ” team” ? But it would appear the MOD do admit white men ( not women apparently) are downtrodden. It’s all down to our politicians, allowing too many civil servants to be employed. They have too much time on their hands and idle hands do the devil’s work, especially in the cocoon of their own dwelling. Wallace, get your finger out and start cutting the MOD down to size comenserate with the reduction in armed forces. Using p45s like the bullets out of a machine gun !

        • A massive and instant boost to the honours system business too surely, creating numerous jobs making all those resulting new gongs and imagine the extra bar staff needed at the Whiskey bar in the HofL.

      • The man in question seems to have been a far right nutcase and sided with all sorts of odd conspiracy theories including anti-vax. He has by the way lost his case as it was found he was not discriminated against.

    • Welcome our new gracious overlord Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, we, the Banks and Financial Services sector of Britain take pride in doing business with you Sir on whatever terms you grant us and hope in so doing you take into consideration when deciding upon our fate the important role we played in allowing you to March down Whitehall. Oh and ww are more than happy to screw the British public even more to provide immediate funds to pay for you to replace that appalling wall paper in Number Ten.

    • Interesting if not a little alarming. Do you think along with your other comment this is orchestrated by some fifth column or just the general effect of our Marxist university’s coming to fruition?

    • Big companies, including the banking section seem at present too be bending the knee too groups such as Blackrock and their hold on vast monetary ventures expecially Pension funds, their MO is that of a Mafia by way of an ESG rating the higher the score business will be easy the lower the score the harder too gain finances and investment , Elon musk didn’t bend the Knee and his environmently sound Tesla car only scored 30 out of 100 yet Enron the oil company scored 80 out of 100 its a massive Woke Scam if your not in the club your not getting so too speak .Biden has let this company Blackrock too dictate financial management of the free world who can and who can’t do business

        • It’s a Stake holder not a Stock holder a Stake capitalism ,more like top down feudalism there be no competitive market it will end up just monopolised with no room for competition

    • All under a supposedly conservative government. I’m a conservative but could never vote for this mish mash of left wing socialism, corporatism, nepotism and pure incompetence. Margaret Thatcher would be turning in her grave to see every one of her successors. If they could bring her back from the dead I would vote for her every single day and twice on Sunday.

    • It’s the problem when the government creates legislation then encourages ESG movements in the finance sector to take on task that should be carried out by government itself. Creates unintended consequences.

      • Would that be any better, government silencing and cancelling people rather than organisations? I would image the likes of Farage wouldn’t fair well if either Tories or Labour had the power to cancel people. No fan of Farage but 100% believe in choice and free speech.

        • The Government are cancelling people! Only certain (friendly) journalist being invited on trips etc…

          Guest speakers at the Cabinet Office will have their social media accounts vetted to check whether they have ever criticised government policy before they can take part in events, according to new rules.”

    • Agree, though important to note that the pension industry has been acting this way for many years.
      ‘Ethical’ investing may work for an individual, who can select what sectors their pension invests in.
      But it may become a deadly serious disease if the same attitude permeates the entire industry.
      Defence of the realm is the primary duty of any government, so as part of this, it should guard the behaviour of the finance industry.

    • What’s this got to do with woke or Britain. Social responsible lending / stocks is market led, which is ultra capitalists and is a global topic.

    • As far as I am aware some (or all) of this is due to money laundering rules brought in by the government. If so the banks are simply following the rules.

        • Applying rules. The banks warned the Government about the unintended consequences of the law change but they refused to listen. Banks are heavily regulated and have to follow laws very strictly or they could be shut down and the directors can go to prison!

          • PEP status has never meant banks can just decide not to allow someone an account- it merely means they have to be sensitive to the possibiliy of fraudulent activity on that account due to their customers status & exposure.
            It seems it now seems Coutts’ rationale was not so cut and dried as the account balance following Farage’s Data Subject request.
            It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

          • Nigel Farage appears to have had his account cancelled due to not sticking to the terms of service. He also acknowledges that he was not sticking to the terms but he still wants to shout that he has been the victim of political bias as that is all he has to hang on to now that he has fallen away from the public eye. He is an attention seeker and always will be. So unless you have some proof that they closed his account for political reasons then you really need to stick to the facts until anything is comes to light. It is not as if he is averse to expanding the truth…

            Again why are you not so bothered about the Government cancelling people (actual free speech issues) rather than private entities cancelling people?

          • Well the apology seems to indicate there were other dupliticous reasons used to remove him as a customer.
            Coutts shoud have just ensured they stuck to their original statement and not recorded additonal rationale- they have given him a platform from which to shout and he has done so.

            It is indicative of a worrying trend for establishments to do as they want under the pretext of some rule or trend or other & its that I find concerning- as should we all.
            That was exactly the point I had been trying to make.

            No matter what your political persuasion (and don’t get me wrong I find Farrage an odious man) that should not stop you from free speech or being able to function in society – unless of course you are an advocate of violence or hatred.

            As for the government – who says I dont find their attempts at censorship an attack on free speech & concerning , feeble and/or humourous in equal measure.

            Their politik is just as bad as Coutts, two side of the same coin.

          • Coutts apology is for comments that were made not for the closing of the account. His account is still closed and will not be reopened. They have re-iterated their offer of moving him to a Natwest account as he is no longer eligible for the Coutts account for the same reasons it was closed in the first place… Namely, he does not have enough money to qualify.

            Also, just for context. “Free speech” is not something upheld by private institutions. They can have their own policies as long as they are within the law. For instance you can be thrown out of a pub by the landlord for pretty much any legal reason including that they just do not like your behaviour… Just as I can refuse to allow someone into my house. Free speech is at Government and public level not private institutions. Just like Nike are entitled to remove sponsorship from sports people that say things that are not aligned with Nikes policies…

          • So the fact they do it just because they can regradless of their rationale for doing so is accpetable to you is it- I assume as long as you agree with them of course.
            He’s called them out for it – and it seems it has a basis in truth no matter what they stated originally.
            I can see we fundamentally disagree in our interpretations & accepetance of the rise of cancel culture in all its forms and nuances – so we will leave it there.

  2. I like the idea of a British Skunkworks, but if this is only an internal company effort without large government ‘black’ research grants its never going to have the same impact.

    • No way would I support government grants. One it would be money taken from defence resulting in something being cut to pay for it. Two in typical UK fashion it would be money that would disappear to shareholders with the traditional zero end product resulting.

      • Seems strange they wouldn’t have much of this anyway internally, wonder if it’s more of a branding exercise use and relaunch to try to make it sound more glamorous to new recruits and even for promotional media purposes.

      • Who would you prefer to give the money to? A British ‘skunkworks’ for research or the American skunkworks in the future when we buy American products because we don’t have them? Either way, we would have to pay for the research! Actually, research isn’t the real problem. We’re good at that. It getting the results of that reseach into production and sales.

      • As far as I’m aware BAe is paying around 3%ish dividend with quick google, quite frankly I can get more from a high interest bank account. Its hardly masses of cash being squirreled away to share holders!! Lets not forget 1/2 of BAe revenue come from North America

    • You could say we already have one. BAES Special Projects Site at the SE side of Warton airfield has been developing stuff behind closed doors for decades in co operation with DARPA and DERA/DSTL.

  3. BAE Systems has appropriately examined the tea leaves, and has formed an organization which will be optimized to participate in AUKUS Pillar 2 initiatives. BAES did not become a defence heavyweight by frequently making flawed business decisions. Kudos. 🤔😊👍

    • Yes I tend to agree semi separating it will I am sure make such mutually beneficial research cooperation easier to establish and with greater impact protecting intellectual property in semi autonomous and flexible collaborations. With AUKUS, Japan, and various other existing and desired potential research collaborations it sure makes commercial and political sense.

      • Anticipate that there will be multiple, hybrid, private industry/academia research & development organizations formed in the UK, as well as in Australia and in the US. Would not be shocked if RR created one.

  4. Can an aircraft research facility reach the conclusion that long range missiles are much better than aircraft because aircrafts are now too complex and take too much time to reach service and with minimal quantities?

    • I have wondered about that too. If an aircraft exists mainly to launch long range precision weapons that rely on their own guidance systems, how important are the expensive kinetic qualities of the aircraft?
      Why launch an aircraft from a carrier to fly 400 miles to launch a 400 mile range missile when the ship could just launch an 800 mile missile.

      • Because the aircraft has the flexibility to determine its launch point, altitude and therefore the missile’s entry point. A ship that is operating 800 miles off the coast will have a relatively small grid square to operate from, plus it is fixed at sea level. This means that the ship does not impart any potential energy into the missile, whereas an aircraft will.

        This is doubly important if the missile cruises at supersonic or faster speeds. To get through the transonic zone (subsonic to supersonic), the missile will expend a great deal of energy generated from its fuel. Whereas, if its launched from an aircraft, the aircraft can do the hard work of getting to supersonic speeds and thereby allow the missile to waste no fuel in accelerating through the transonic zone. Plus if the aircraft launches the missile from 45,000ft, where the air is thinner, then both will benefit in acceleration and overall speed along with range.

        Furthermore, the carrier launched aircraft can approach the target from a different bearing to that of the carrier. Meaning that if the enemy try to back track where the missile came from. There is less chance they will find the carrier. Yes you can give the ship launch missile waypoints that then alter the track of the missile to the target. But in doing so you reduce the missile’s range.

        • The issue is more that modern supremacy aircraft have glacially slow development cycles.

          Part of the issue is the cost of perfection.

          I read this as an attempt to do fast and dirty development. In non safety critical areas this is very important.

          Also with the lack of need for a human in the cockpit for early test flights a different approach can be taken to safety.

          That combined with 3D/4D printing of a lot of bits could really speed things up.

          Worth considering how quickly BAE got its EAP2000 demonstrator flying but how long that then took to mature once design by committee got stuck in.

          • Hi SB, from what I’ve heard BAe will build a FCAS prototype in the same vein as EAP. But there may also be a separate joint UK, Japan and Italy GCAP prototype that is fed lessons learned from the FCAS.

            I think this would make sense, as the easy and quicker bit is building the airframe. This would mean the aero package is sorted before the avionics needs to be. Though the avionics will be going through shed loads of iterations and rig trials in a parallel development.

            It will be interesting to see how rapid prototyping copes with producing embedded radar absorbent materials (eRAM)? Which would be a composite base material with metallic elements layered within it.

            I would expect all three Nations have agreed on a base build requirement that replicates the roles carried out by Typhoon and F15J. Japan’s F15Js have a similar air interdiction role as the RAF Typhoons. But don’t have the same precision ground attack and reconnaissance as the RAF and Italian Typhoons.

            Though Japan is taking China’s emerging military capability as a distinct threat. Hence the recent requirements for long range anti-ship and strike missiles. Therefore, GCAP strike capability will become increasingly important.

            I feel the GCAP has the promise to be a step change not only in capabilities, but in how it is manufactured. Exciting times lay ahead me thinks!

          • The hint is that a lot of the avionics coding has been done via modelling.

            So it could be a very, very advanced prototype on takeoff.

            Although it would be sans radar etc then.

          • Believe manufacturing tech is specifically listed as an AUKUS 2 initiative. There will be an extremely interesting ‘Come to Jesus’ meeting which will occur when European/Japanese FCAS/GCAP prototype a/c and trial data is compared vs.US NGAD. Would really appreciate an invitation to said conference. Conceivably a hybrid could result, Chinese restaurant style: one system from Column A, two from Column B, etc. 🤔

    • Unless those systems can provide air superiority aircraft won’t be going away. Nato fights in a air supremacy way.
      As we see when fighting Russian style land mines and artillery are the most dangerous weapons.

      • If air superiority can be denied with missiles it do not matter.
        We can see in Ukraine war the relative low importance of air operations.and the huge importance of long range missiles and drones.

        But my biggest problem with modern aircrafts are the decades that it takes to have them operational, the giant cost – including training – and consequent feeble numbers.
        In peer to peer fight F-35, Tempest, Eurofighter can’t last in frontline even with 10x production rates.

        Instead in30 years i can have several missile versions each with timely updates for the age. I just need various targeting systems. And much easier to produce.

        • It’s interesting times we live in. Aircraft are getting really expensive.
          Nato would need to adjust its fighting style if aircraft aren’t playing a massive part.
          The sweet spot is probably a mix of both.

    • Wow that was a new one on me what a project. Anti gravity, who knows if that is ever possible, however the next best thing may well be playing with electro magnetic force seems much more practical to overcome gravity if not so pure as actually manipulating gravity itself. Been reading some theoretical stuff on this and in small ways it’s something we already do of course. However we need to expand our present capabilities in this effect by something like 30 or 40 times apparently to achieve real gravity defying useful capabilities. But the electro magnetic force is massively more powerful that the force of gravity so the possibilities are clearly theoretically feasible. What has stimulated the idea is the recent evidence of sightings of spherical objects operating in our atmosphere for which we have no explanation but at least one example seems very convincing as it was caught on camera by an American drone. Whatever the explanation assuming there is a physical item involved it could only really be powered as we can contemplate anyway, by anti gravity as proposed in project Greenglow or perhaps more plausibly electro magnetic power. One problem how to produce the power to make it feasible and for us the nearest to fruition would be fusion power. It seems that such propulsion is likely possible using naturally existing magnetic forces both within this planets atmosphere (any planet with magnetic poles indeed) and in space itself likely enabling interstellar voyages. Which poses the question if indeed real where are these spheres coming from. Would have thought this sort of thing was all just UFO conspiracy madness even a few years ago but there seems to be a lot less ridicule presently with that recent unexplained evidence.

      Of course it was a Russian who claimed he had succeeded in creating an anti gravity device but no evidence he had, but maybe MK can tell us if these phenomenon are indeed some of Putin’s secret weapons at work. Though if so I suspect the war would already be over. 🤯

      • The Hunt for Zero Point by Nick Cook, first got me interested. Bill Gunston mentioned anti gravity aircraft back in the 1980s. I often wonder if todays UFOs are related to the WW2 Foo Fighters, the Nazi energy charged, metal balloons, that followed US Flying Forts.

    • A shame I wrote a long reply to this that’s either been deleted or awaiting approval. As it was about mysteries around this research ie anti gravity as in Greenglow or electro magnetic alternative technology that’s more accessible maybe the men in Black suits got their way and expunged it from existence. If I disappear too you will know why folks.

      • That’s why I often write my online comments in the Notes app and then just copy and paste. Easier to format, too. Then just clear that note every week or so.

  5. Well if BAE come up with a new good system ,will the government back it ? 💰or if it’s something that out performs anything the USA have will the yanks stick there nose in and want us to scrap it like something else once upon a time won’t mention the name ?🤔

    • Or like the Sabre I suspect they (the US) will invest in it with the ultimate right to pretty much dictate how and by whom it is to be used once commercialised, or if they simply don’t steal the good bits and re patent them. The grey men have a long history of being allowed to examine our secret projects (inspired by reverse lend lease I presume during the War) way back to the Miles M52 and including the TSR2 of course many of which seem to get cancelled thereafter.

      • ….yes SITS, all these historic industrial gaffs – there are many more – just makes me think the “British” have a level of naivety in these matters that will always hold them back, despite fantastic imagination and engineering potential. Also there are some people working 24/7 within “the establishment” to undermine such things.

        If only the UK had a National sense of collective endeavour and ambition to improve the quality of life of the people in the UK and grow National assets and capabilities for the Nation – and have a bit more self-interest in dangerous world. [sighs!]

    • I can imagine after this conflict we will end up with a load of 155mm shells and only a handful of guns that can fire them.

  6. Great news! I feel it in my water, Britain is back. Remember the great days of Hunter, Lightning, Vulcan, Buccaneer, Harrier. As regards woke its time to disinfect those organisations who have been infiltrated. As the saying goes…if you don’t believe in God you’ll believe in anything.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here