New images show the UK’s new Wedgetail AEW Mk1 airborne early warning and control aircraft starting to look the part.

Wedgetail is an airborne early warning and control system. They are designed to track multiple targets at sea or in the air over a considerable area for long periods of time. The aircraft is replacing the E-3D Sentry ‘AWACS’ many people are familiar with.

The Royal Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance titter account posted:

“Progress on our 3 future Wedgetail AEW Mk1 airborne early warning and control aircraft continues apace in Birmingham. A hangar reorganisation saw all 3 outside this week, the first now sporting a Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array sensor.”

Here’s the tweet.

Recent progress

The Royal Air Force said recently that their first Wedgetail AEW1 (E-7A) airborne early warning and control aircraft is taking shape in Birmingham.

According to the RAF here, the first of the three aircraft undergoing conversion has now received its Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) sensor.

“The Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array sensor, developed and manufactured by Northrop Grumman, is housed in a distinctive fin on the spine of the aircraft. Fitted to a fuselage section reinforced as part of the heavy modification process, the sensor will provide 360-degree coverage.

The sensor can accurately detect and identify targets at increasingly longer ranges, providing mission crews with the tools needed to track airborne and maritime targets while maintaining continuous surveillance of the operational area. In service the Wedgetail’s will be operated by 8 Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth.”

Air Commodore Hicks, Assistant Chief of Staff Capability Delivery for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance aircraft, was quoted as saying:

“This installation of the MESA sensor is a tangible demonstration of the progress being made toward the phenomenal capability of Wedgetail entering RAF frontline service. This highly complex technology is undeniably exposed to the challenges facing global supply chains and I am grateful to all involved in the programme for their continued work and dedication.”

Initial Operating Capability slip

The UK’s new E-7 Wedgetail aircraft fleet was expected to reach Initial Operating Capability with the Royal Air Force in 2023, it will now not reach Initial Operating Capability until 2024.

Wedgetail is an airborne early warning and control system. They are designed to track multiple targets at sea or in the air over a considerable area for long periods of time. The aircraft is replacing the E-3D Sentry ‘AWACS’ many people are familiar with.#

You can read more about this here.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

170 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago

Good to see progress. More than 3 would have been nice but in the current climate we should be grateful I suppose. Which reminds me, wasn’t there going to be a definitive decision on Ajax before year end?

Louis
Louis
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I’m still hopeful for some extra on the back end of the large USAF purchase. Hopefully some money will free up at the end of the decade.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Louis

Absolutely, Wedgetail will be in production for a while. The more, the merrier.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Yeah not much point in ordering now with the pound in the toilet, in a few years things might look a lot better

Ian M.
Ian M.
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Nothing in the Commons diary for this week. Evidence and supporting information / recommendations from MOD is on Ben Wallaces desk.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Interesting. Would be ironic if it turned out it was fixed but we can’t afford it 😟

Ian M.
Ian M.
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I found this online, see the attachment

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Snap! Saw it too. It’s good news. I would have thought that all the vibration testing would have sorted the reliability issues on the way!
Now for the IFV issue. A DCE Rarden stabilisation and a modest upgrade to Warrior could be a lot cheaper than a buy of turreted Boxers…….

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Hi Paul, I agree the DCE mods would be cheaper, almost anything is cheaper than a Boxer! My only issue with updating the WR turret is the antiquated 30mm RARDEN and its 3 round clips.
Cheers

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

So who is the best person or company to fix that?

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

DCE engineering a 30mm Bushmaster into their solution? Not LM!

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

😂
but on a serious note, I think I recall BAE ( who acquired the intellectual property on Warrior from GKN) say, in regard to the original WCSP proposal to fit a new (CTA) turret, don’t do it – it won’t work.
I have no idea of its possible, but what would be good to know, as you say, is whether an autoloading 30mm can be fitted into the existing turret; replace the cannon; not the whole turret. Seems to me the best company to assess the feasibility of that would be BAE.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Agree with that thought Paul

Mark Franks
Mark Franks
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

It’s been delayed until the New Year.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Franks

👍

Graham
Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Franks

The MoD announcement or the money? How do you know this?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Presume recommendation is to proceed, possibly w/ stipulated limitations on operational usage parameters? 🤔

Challenger
Challenger
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Despite the current financial pressures AEW is a pretty fundamental capability we really can’t do without!

More Boxers including a IFV variant or CV90 or u-turn and extened Warrior…..frankly any of those options would be better than sticking with Ajax!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Challenger

Warrior is already being extended, but for Scimitar, not Ajax directly.
Warrior does not have the Ajax ISTAR fit.
More Boxers will be procured, funding for over 1,000 is allocated. An IFV will not fill an Ajax void as they are different requirements.

Ian M.
Ian M.
1 year ago

I’m still surprised that posters on here and other boards still can’t differentiate between an IFV and a Recce platform, their inherent differences in requirement and capability!
cheers😡

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Well if one reads widely online on the subject, you will find this differentiation is equally profoundly confused even amongst those described as ‘military analysts’ and some with military backgrounds so it’s not surprising really.

Ian M.
Ian M.
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Agreed

Darren hall
Darren hall
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Try telling someone that it’s not a Tank!!! the abuse that follows is comical…

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Darren hall

Unlike stupidity, ignorance is curable.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

I know the difference between an Ajax Recce and an IFV, but I must admit Boxer CRV with a turret and six dismounts looks a bit IFV-like to my untutored eyes.

I’ve not served in the army, so perhaps you could give some help with what a reconnaissance vehicle is expected to do that you feel is incompatible with an IFV? The proposed ISTAR fit out for Ajax is supposed to be excellent, but why couldn’t it be integrated into a Boxer?

BobA
BobA
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

IFV can go right into the contact battle, it has the protection and mobility to be in an armoured battle and the firepower to directly support the dismounts. An APC is a protected taxi, it’s normally good for small arms and shrapnel but you wouldn’t want to dismount in the contact area from it.

Boxer actually sits somewhere between. It’s certainly not got enough firepower to be a true IFV, and with the turret its mobility is hugely reduced, especially if the ground is ‘soft’. But, it’s protection is way better than a traditional APC.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  BobA

Thanks, Bob. I get the difference between APC (aka our fit out of Boxer), and IFVs (eg Warrior). Ajax has no dismounts at all which makes it a AFV?

What I don’t get is what makes a recon vehicle special, such as Scimitar / CVRT. Is it just the sensor/comms fit out? Does it need stealth? because there doesn’t seem a lot stealthy about Boxer CVR, or Ajax for that matter. Does it need to be able to screen? Undertake recon in force?

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Ajax does have space for a couple of dismounts. Yes, one of Ajax’s roles is to screen a heavy brigades flanks. It is big and heavy as it is because the Army decided it wanted a vehicle that could survive multiple hits from 30mm armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds. Which they felt would be the most common threat to the vehicle from other IFV/APC, such as BTR90s or BMP3s. Unfortunately, when it comes to armour and defeating “Fin” rounds you need either really thick armour, spaced armour or expensive composite armour. A Warrior can take a few… Read more »

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

The Household Cavalry and other units, will take delivery of 59 or so, of the turretless ARES variant. They are specifically for the foot soldiers of the armoured recce units. (Plus anything else deemed necessary. CO’s golf clubs, BBQ etc.)
Recce units be they armoured or wheeled Yeomanry, deploy foot soldiers for the sneaky beaky side of the job. They are vital for many reasons.
The most dangerous weapons they carry will be the communications equipment and that’s where both fully integrated ARES and AJAX excel.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

I wonder if it is time to rethink the weapons fit on ARES? A 7.62mm GPMG, 50 Cal or 40mm GMG judging by Ukraine’s experience won’t cut it, especially when coming up against opposing recce units. Perhaps ARES should have something heavier, but still as a non-intrusive remote weapons station. Similar to Ukraine’s BTR4. Thereby allowing it to keep a similar number of dismounts. The question is what to fit. Logistic commonality is key. Therefore the Nexter unmanned turret with the CTAS40mm autocannon looks pretty good. Especially as it can have either a coaxial machine gun plus optional ATGMs along… Read more »

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Sounds good to me. I can’t imagine the boot troop in ARES patrolling without AJAX in support. Which already has the 40mm canon with those amazing smart rounds. If that unmanned turret you mention has zero impact on the vehicles interior space. Then why not something to compliment AJAX, ATGMs being my choice. However, if ARES becomes more than a recce section transport and at some stage replaces Warrior. It will need a decent weapon of some kind. Capable of engaging the best any potential enemy can field. The recce section deploy and operate some distance from their “ride.” Sometimes… Read more »

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Ares is the dedicated “troop carrier” variant for what is lovingly known as the “boot troop” in armoured recce units. Such as the Household Cavalry. Call it an additionally armoured APC, IFV due to its remote weapons station on top or whatever. It carries seven dismounts (infantry) who advance and collect intelligence (Using the Mk1 eyeball and other things.) that a vehicle simply cannot do. The ARES has exactly the same high level of protection as Ajax. Quite possibly due to the lack of a turret and ammunition, it could have more. Notably for the future. Warrior carries between seven… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

I am sure that ARES carries 3+4 dismounts, and is termed the APC version of the Ajax family. Not heard of the term ‘boot troop’ – what is that? The dismounts are not necessarily Infantry – they only would be if the vehicle is in an Infantry battalion. My understanding is that ARES transports a small specialist team of up to 4 (eg engineer recce, CBRN recce, anti-tank/anti-air missile team etc) for dismounted work then conveys them back again afterwards. From military-today website:” The Ares is a specialist combat team carrier. It means that this vehicle operates not as an infantry… Read more »

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

“Boot Troop” used to be the unofficial affectionate term for the foot recce section, within the armored reconnaissance units. Be they tracked or wheeled based. They are termed specialists but in reality they are well trained infantry. Particularly good at fieldcraft and highly proficient with communications equipment. (In theory.) Quite capable of performing a dedicated antitank missile role or directing artillery fire and close air support, when needed. I know of infantry soldiers who transfered to armoured units, specifically to perform that role.Depending on the unit, they used to deploy in Spartan or FV432 but FV105 Sultan was not unheard-of… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

Thanks George. I had not heard of this “Boot Troop” before. Seems very strange for a 4-man foot recce team to rock up to a very far forward debussing loc in a massive 432 or to commandeer an essential C2 vehicle (Sultan). Also, didn’t think armoured recce regts had any 432s.

Not sure what your point about Warrior is? Are you saying that arrival of Warrior in quantity released some Sultans and that those were used by this Boot Troop?

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hi Graham, on the subject of Boot Troop and use of the term. Here’s an entry in the often hilarious Army Rumour Service. Scroll down to Dragoon Scouse. A lad from my era.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/tank-crewman-reconnaissance.77416/

As for Sultan and 432 being used. I’ll dig through my old photos and post any interesting examples.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

Very interesting George. Many thanks. I wonder if this Boot Troop is still ‘a thing’.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The role will still be there, dismounting and being sneaky beaky. But the unofficial term of endearment by the armoured boys for the ground pounders. I’d like to think so. It’s better than Scally Back (Signals), Slop Jockey (Catering Corp) or Rickshaws, Cabs and Taxis. (RCT) etc etc. I miss the banter, so thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Here’s wishing you and yours a merry Christmas Graham.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

Thanks George, I remember Rag And Oil Company for RAOC. I was in Dreamy REME.
Have a great Christmas yourself!

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Royal Engineers Made Easy, Motto “They bend them and we mend them.”

A Tiffy VM from the LAD was a drinking/snooker buddy of mine in the Sgt mess. Rumour had it he was being sponsored by Swarfega. There was always the odour wherever he went. The ribbing was endless, reciprocal and all in good humour.
Rob All My Comrades was another one that comes to mind. Always worth a laugh with the medics.

Graham
Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, thanks for the question. A Recce vehicle seeks to gain information stealthily (ie to not get seen) about enemy strengths, activities, dispositions, equipment etc and so is equipped with the best and most varied set of sensors and optics, crew trained to deploy stealthily and observe and make deductions and to communicate their reports swifly and securely to their superiors and for such information to be processed by an all sources cell and used to inform high level commanders and their staffs who can adjust the contact battle if in progress and/or future battle plans. The vehicles are… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

An excellent and detailed explanation.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago

Agreed. Nicely explained.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

Thanks, Graham. Very useful. Now I’ve no excuse to get it wrong.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

The distinction has traditionally always been role dependant rather than the capabilities of vehicle itself. Where both ARES (3 crew +7) and AJAX (turret, 3 +?) score, is they are designed from the ground up to excel in the recce role. With both communication equipment and other specialist kit to aid the troops. Dedicated recce vehicles. At least initially because it makes sense to introduce the new sensors and data sharing capabilities, where they can be best used. I imagine the future will see ARES redesignated or even stretched. As a fully integrated IFV in the true mechanised infantry role,… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

George, you are certainly adding to my 34 years military experience! But you may be incorrect in places. I believe ARES (replacement for SPARTAN) has a crew of 3 and 4 dismounts – total 7. It is described as the APC version in the AJAX family (as it carries personnel but is not an IFV (no cannon)) – but it is not uniquely Infantry and is not a Warrior replacement now or in the future, whether or not funds are magically found to stretch it to carry a full section (but it would still lack a cannon). ARES carries a… Read more »

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

ARES crew:
1 x Driver
1 x Vehicle Commander
1 x Tactical Commander (Dismount Commander)
3 x Dismounts (normally a specialist team)

AJAX crew:
1 x Driver
1 x Gunner
1 x Commander

Depending on role fit, there is provision for a 4th crew member in the hull, currently not fitted.

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Yes, I’m getting there Ian. Give the old guy time to catch up. It seems many of the usual online resources have made the same mistake, as you pointed out. Ares is very much a direct FV103 Spartan replacement with improved everything.

I just wish I could have a sneak peak at the fully integrated battlespace this vehicle is obviously part of. Combining data from other recce vehicles, drones, F35, satellites and everything else. In real time. Gone are the days of squinting at map boards in the back of a FV105 Sultan.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

Hi George,
Yes, the capabilities of the full fat AJAX with all it’s toys is light years ahead if anything else we have. The ability for the crew to observe, identify, classify and geolocate a target and then distribute that data, including video to other users is paramount. AJAX can listen to, identify and locate incoming fire as well as rotary aircraft, it can also detect radiation and chemical signatures. The list goes on……….😁

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Are they equipped with deployable sensors that can be left along the scouted route of advance, to monitor enemy movement.
Such things were employed along the border in Ulster at one stage. During the days of “Heli tele” and “Night Sun.” About the same time “Clarabel” was first deployed on the Pigs, to give the direction of incoming small arm rounds. Late seventies I think. Certainly thereafter.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

The easiest way to differentiate between the two roles is to give the IFV its old monicker if “Battle taxi”. An Infantry Fighting Vehicle must be able to deliver a section of effective troops to the point, or very close to where they must engage with the enemy. Offering fire support to those troops is an important task so a weapon system(s) able to suppress opposing forces is paramount. A Recce platform is utilised to gather information using optical, acoustic, chemical detection and the mark 1 eyeball. AJAX has a sophisticated EO fit along with the above mentioned chemical and… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Cheers, Ian. But chemical? What is that looking for? (Assuming it’s not at all sensitive info.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Jon
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Chemical detectors look for and categorise chemical agents used by the enemy such as Harrassing, Incapacitating or Lethal Agents (such as blister, blood, choking or nerve agents).

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

There were plenty of books and publications about it in the Cold Thaw. At its most basic, optical photometry or spectroscopy, gives a good idea for chemical agents. More sophisticated would be sampled mass spectroscopy (these are like the little units that sit on a GC-MS) or for a really detailed look GC-MS itself can be used as it can separate blends in close to real time. The formulae of the agents is well known. The first question is ‘what is the simplest way of reliably detecting this in a lab that can easily be ruggedised and made portable?’ The… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 year ago

Spectrophotometry seems reasonable, but gas chromatography inside a fast moving scout vehicle? I really wasn’t expecting that. I suppose I never inquired into how those artificial sniffer dogs worked, but I’d guess miniturised GCMS would be it and the tech is available. Technology moves forward when you’re not watching.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

It all depends what you are doing. Are you having a look to see if there is a problem? Or are you trying to quantity and parameterise that problem? I was talking more about the specialist NBC units than about every vehicle. For the N bit you really need MS otherwise you are guessing. MS is also hard to fool. You also need to be jolly sure of what you are dealing with to prevent harm to the team. Slightly nutty example. About 15 years ago LFB attended a location: a CO alarm was going off. They sent their ‘specialist’… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

You do know that the British Army has had a CBRN (was NBC) wagon, Fuchs, since 1990, obtained from Germany in time for Gulf War 1? It came into Bundesweher service in 1988. The Soviet/Russian vehicle-borne capability dates from at least that time. Fuchs incorporates a mass spectroscopy unit. from tank-masters.de, which describes the Bundeswehr equipment: “The TPz 1A6 Fuchs mit SEM 80/90 und EBS ABC-Spürausstattung Reconnaissance Vehicle mainly differs from the Standard variant by the nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) rear with a two-wheel surface sampler system, a C-agent probe, a round container for spare sampler wheels, and a… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

For some reason I had thought that it had been withdrawn/mothballed. I’m sure I heard Hamish de Breton Gordon say that but I may well have been mistaken.

The text you posed states that the vehicle is equipped with a Mass Spectrometer (MS) and a Gas Cromatograph (GC) it doesn’t say what the detector is on the GC or if it connects to the MS.

I’m dubious about the 200 fingerprint library on the GC as commercial libraries are orders of magnitude larger than that.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

A “Falcon” Squadron RTR operate the Fuchs at Warminster. In the field they are attached to 28RE who are now have the CBRN role after it was removed from the RAF Reg and went back to the army.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago

You know far more than I do, when it comes to the ever changing dance of whom does what: that is for sure!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

Our Fuchs 1 are very old now – think they were secondhand when we got them in 1990 in time for GW1. They were put into long term storage in 2011 – as it did not seem likely we would face a foe with the capability and intent to release CW – and no doubt to save money. There was some debate (see Daniele’s answer) as to who should take on the role – no-one wanted it. 1RTR (last of the RTR units; when I joined there were four) were mortified to give up Chally’s to take on an ageing… Read more »

RobW
RobW
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

What do you make of Boxer as the next IFV, and should we be getting a mix of tracked and wheeled versions? The numbers seem to stack up, 1000+ funded with aspirations of 1300. As long as Ajax comes into service for recce and fire support then (to this layman anyway) it seems to be the basis for a balanced army.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  RobW

I was quite content with the Warrior upgrade (WCSP) even though the programme was runnning a little slow and over-budget. For Boxer to be a convincing IFV (WR replacement) all section vehicles must have a stabilised cannon (30-40mm), and it must be confirmed that its mobility is at least as good as WR has been and WCSP would have been, including in ice, snow and deep, glutinous mud. KMW market what they call a tracked Boxer although it apparently has little to no commonality with the wheeled ARTEC product (confusingly) – however perhaps that should be considered also as a… Read more »

RobW
RobW
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Ah ok, I don’t think many people realise that tracked Boxer is so different. So that leaves us with Ch3, Ajax family, and wheeled Boxer. I can see how Ajax can be for recce and fire support, but how on earth is wheeled Boxer going to work as an IFV? It just sounds like a confused mess. One can only hope that the new integrated review solves this. I won’t hold my breath!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  RobW

The decision to replace tracked and soon-to-be upgraded Warrior by wheeled Boxer was taken well over a year ago. I don’t see that it would be revised due to the next IR.

I think only the French have wheeled infantry carriers operating in concert with tanks – I don’t think they have much experience of armoured warfare in the last 30 years to draw on, so don’t know if it actually works effectively.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  RobW

TBF the army has made these choices and caused this by changing their mind every few years rather than just sticking with a plan.

Dern
Dern
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

These days it’s mostly the sensor fit. Some IFV’s have been repurposed into recce vehicles over the years (M3 Bradley, ASCOD has both Ajax and a Spanish Recce Vehicle version). But it a Recce vehicle doesn’t have to be based on an IFV (see the Fennek Recce Vehicle the Germans have for example). Go back 30 years and the lack of sensors meant that IFV’s could almost be recce vehicles (the M3 is almost identical to the M2 Bradley for example), but back then the emphasis was on “small”. So today most Recce vehicles are rather big, often with masts,… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Dern
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Seems so. Understandable to some extent if ones not aware of the differing roles the varied Corps, Regiments and Battalions provide and how they link together.
Any more updates you can give Ian from your sources, beyond the previous?

Graham
Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Yes that staggers me too. Its like confusing a frigate with a destroyer.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

😀 Best laugh I’ve had all day, Graham.

DFJ123
DFJ123
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

The CV90 platform has both IFV and Recce variants, so you apparently you know something that BAE doesn’t.

Ajax is based on ASCOD, which guess what…..has an IFV variant! And Ajax has a bigger gun and more armour than ASCOD does.

Change the Ajax/Ares ratio of the order to increase the number of Ares hulls. Add an unmanned turret and clear out some of the storage to make room for dismounts. You have a tracked IFV that can keep up with C3 off-road.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Hi DFJ, yup, I know lots that BAe don’t!🤗
AJAX is based on ASCOD which is an IFV, there aren’t any other variants I’m aware of ( happy to be corrected here). If some if the internal stowage on ARES were removed it could be possible to squeeze in more dismounts but not seven I don’t think. It would be able to keep up with CR3 right enough.
Cheers

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Think ARES can take up to 4 dismounts – they would be a specialist team not bog-standard infantry riflemen.

Dern
Dern
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Hey Ian.
LOADS of ASCOD variants out there:

  1. Pizzaro (Spanish Variant) with:
  • IFV variant
  • C2 variant
  • Recce variant
  • Vehicle recovery variant
  • 2 seperate engineering variants
  1. Ulan, the Austrian version with a more powerful engine.
  2. A few experimental prototypes including a 155 howitzer and a 105 Direct fire variant.
  3. ASCOD 2, a improved version of ASCOD with a bigger engine and larger hull on which is based:
  • Ajax, Ares, Argus, Athena, Apollo and Atlas in the British Army
  • Sabarah Light Tank in the Philippian army.
  • Griffin Light Tank in the US Army.
Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

👍

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Recce comes with binos fitted.

IFV fitted for but not with.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Astute Mr GB

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M.

In defence of the confused, the protected mobility reconnaissance support vehicle role, will be undertaken by both AJAX and ARES. ARES being a true armoured personnel carrier APC for the “boot troop.” While AJAX is an ARES hull fitted with a turret plus other nice shiny things. Intended to replace CVR(T) Scimitar in the tracked reconnaissance role. Logistical and support requirements in mind. It is not inconceivable that the future Warrior replacement infantry fighting vehicle IFV and others, will come from the ARES range of vehicles:- Ajax (turreted, reconnaissance and strike) Ares (reconnaissance and Armoured Personnel Carrier) Argus (engineer reconnaissance)… Read more »

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

Wrong.
PMRS aka ARES is NOT an APC . It only carries 4 dismounts. It annoys me that posters still don’t grasp the different roles and capabilities of these platforms. Try as I might, some people just seem to be obtuse.

Dern
Dern
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

No it’s an APC, it’s a litteral 1-1 replacement for the Spartan (also an APC). It’s just not an APC for an infantry section but for a specialist team (Jav det, Combat engineers etc) that don’t require a 432 sized vehicle.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

Hi Dern, in a purely literal sense you are correct, it is armoured and carries personnel, however my comment was based on vehicles designed to carry an infantry section which ARES certainly cannot.
Cheers

Dern
Dern
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

It’s designed to carry specialist sections, rather than a standard infantry squad. It literally fulfills the exact same job as an APC, just for units that do not require only 4 dismounts not 10.
It carries them into a hot zone, where they dismount and do their job, while the vehicle withdraws. Then after the fight it returns to pick them up and move on; in doctrine, design, form, function and use, it’s an APC.
Point being, calling it an APC is not obtuse, it’s accurate.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

Dern, having already agreed with you I’m moving on.
Cheers

George Parker
George Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Ian my friend. I’m at a loss to explain this in a better way. Ajax is a variant of the same base vehicle APC called ARES. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/uk/modern/ajax-reconnaissance-tank-apc “Ares Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) The British Government ordered 59 Ares Armoured Personnel Carriers (PMRS) on the 4th September 2014. It has a crew of two: commander/gunner and driver. There is accommodation for up to 7 troops. There is space for specialised and personal equipment of the soldiers. There are internal racks and stowage boxes. More equipment can be stored externally. …” It is the APC for specialist troops including the “boot troop” of… Read more »

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

Hi George, my contention is that ARES isn’t a conventional section carrying APC, not that it doesn’t carry troops. Unfortunately the publication you have quoted is fundamentally incorrect. ARES has a crew of 2; Driver plus Vehicle Commander. Sitting across from the Vehicle Commander is the Tactical Commander (who also can control the SDW). He then commands the 3 (only 3) dismounts who will perform specialist tasks.
Cheers

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  George Parker

And then there were the cancelled variants! Like the Direct Fire with 120mm that is now in effect the US Army Griffon I think?

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago

Hi Daniele, you are correct. The Griffon as demonstrated was based on the AJAX hull with an Abrams type turret. The production MPF platform now under contract has a 105mm gun and a much modified hull (only 6 roadwheels per side).
Cheers

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Thanks for the clarification and corrections Ian, those vehicle details are beyond me!

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago

Always a pleasure, never a chore🤗

Challenger
Challenger
1 year ago

Warrior is 40 years old so I agree that’s not the best option. Take your point and in an ideal world the British Army would have funds for multiple wheeled brigades and multiple tracked brigades but we are clearly a long way from that kind of reality! Am I wrong in thinking there is a IFV variant of Boxer either available or proposed? Wheeled vehicles have come a long way in recent years and perhaps it’s time to start accepting 90% solutions rather than trying to cover every single eventuality and spreading ourselves way too thin in the process. Or… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  Challenger

Golly that is far too real world. Surely what we need to do is to set up a project to modify something that would do the job perfectly well and make it into an all singing and all dancing version at 300% of the price and 150% of the weight of the original version? This means at least 8 years of R&D and committee meetings with head shaped holes in walls from frustrated project managers and engineers. The genius of this approach is that by the time it is about to come into service we can say it is ‘out… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Challenger

From 2015 we would have had, with two tracked Armoured and two wheeled Strike.

Like other reviews the hype did not match the funding, plus add the delays to Ajax and WCSP and come 2019 the plan was shelved.

I believe there is such a Boxer though I’m not up to speed on all possible variations.

I still support Ajax and keep faith myself, not in how the program has been run but the potential it has and what SMEs say it can give.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago

Daniele, This is not a trick question, although it may be a stupid one! With only two tank brigades (2 X 56?) where are all these Ajax variants going to be used. With a small army I can’t help but think that more very well equipped light forces, including more helo’s and transport aircraft would be a better option. HIMARS? Where are we going to use heavy armour which is what Ajax is about? Are we ever going to want to do another Iraq? With one exception in the RAF my family are all navy so I do lean that… Read more »

Graham
Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Geoff, we have used heavy and/or medium armour such as Warrior a huge number of times in the last 30 years – Gulf War 1 Kuwait, Gulf War 2 Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Afghanistan and virtually all in serious warfighting situations.Much is currently deployed in Eastern Europe in a very serious way. Much as I love our Navy they have not done a great deal of warfighting in a similar timespan yet they are being well resourced for acquiring ew platforms. I say this not to score any inter service points but to bring some reality to those who think… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

I get your frustration with how Navy seems to be making all the news on procurement. If only in our little world. But I believe the reason is the Navy seems to have a plan and it has had for a long time. The Army doesn’t and hasn’t for at least a decade. They seem to be getting the lions share of the next equipment budget but stability and a long term strategy is what the Army needs more than anything else.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Very fair comment. I can barely keep track of the army’s constant changes on Structures, presumably because continuously a new CGS or another senior General doing doctrine and combat development wants to make his mark on appointment by creating a new vision of the future.
I think Daniele once said that there was nothing much wrong with the Structure that postulated 5 identical Multi Role brigades (+ 16 AA Bde), a few years back. Then you can Task Org to suit a given mission.

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

To be totally fair army have been given budget to do vehicle things that haven’t turned out too well on a couple of occasions now.

Hence why army are increasingly COTS/MOTS orientated. Which is not necessarily the right lesson. Things like NLAWS were not as off the shelf as some try and make out and army has many good systems.

Stc
Stc
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

Yes the army has taken the brunt of cuts and penny pinching by the government over the years and we could have done without the Ajax problems.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

Hi Graham…I take your point and certainly your right in mentioning the conflicts we have been involved in. I wasn’t really thinking of just AEW, although I believe five would be a lot better then three, but more about where we are going generally. If we are going to see another freeze in funding or a tiny increase can we afford to do everything. I can’t help but think that we are trying to maintain power in almost every service and not fully achieving anywhere.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Hi Geoff, my point about listing those conflicts was to say that the army actually does warfighting (and frequently) and needs its heavy and medium armour. AEW – Three is ridiculous – after a few years, as they age, one will always be in some form of maintenance, so we really only have 2 to use – and the sky is a big place! We are maintaining less than the bare minimum of combat power in the army – we will no longer be able to do enduring brigade operations (as per Afghanistan) – and cannot currently deploy just one… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Hi Geoffrey. Off my head, there may be others I miss, you have these units with Ajax variants. 4 RAC Recc Regiments. 2 RAC Armoured Regiments. 2 ( or 3 ) RE CS Regiments ( depending on the kit used by the Regiment supporting 7 LMBCT. ) Likewise the 2 (or 3 ) REME CS Battalions for the 2 ABCTs and maybe 7 LMBCT. 2 RA CS Regiments in DRSB, 1 allocated to each ABCT. Also, when the order for Ajax was placed the Armoured Infantry Battalions on Warrior, which were 6 post 2010 then reduced to 4, presumably would… Read more »

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
1 year ago

Thanks a lot mate mate. Good stuff. I’ll read up on this properly.

Dern
Dern
1 year ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

The orbat of 3 UK division is as follows: 12 Armoured Infantry X 1x Ajax Formation Recce Regiment 1x Challenger 2 Regiment 1x Challenger 2 Reserve Regiment 2x Regular Mechanised Infantry Battalions on Boxer 2x Reserve Infantry Battalions 20 Armoured Infantry X 1x Ajax Regiment 1x Challenger Regiment 3x Regular Mechanised Infantry Battalions 3x Reserve Infantry Battalions 1 Deep Strike X 2x Ajax Regiment 1x Jackal Regiment 1x Jackal Reserve Regiment 2x AS90 Regiment 2x MRLS Regiment 2x Reserve Artillery Regiment Plus a load of CS and CSS units. You then have 1 UK Div with 7X on Foxhound, 4X… Read more »

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

Thanks Dern, You and Daniele have done me proud. Much appreciated.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

Hi Dern, thanks for posting this detailed orbat, really interesting. Am I correct in thinking that one of the three tank regiments will because (the Yeomanry reserve) under the planned reduction to 148 Challengers?

I imagine both 12 and 20 brigades also have organic AS 90 atrillery regiments assigned?

Dern
Dern
1 year ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Hey Klonkie,
I suspect there’s a word missing from your post? One of the three challenger regiments will because…?

No Organic Artillery in 12 and 20, all 3XX Artillery is in 1DSRX

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

Apologies Dern -my bad. One of three challenger regiments will disband? Thanks for the reply re the arty in 12 & 20 brigades.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

Some definitions of IFV contend that a wheeled armoured infantry carrier can be termed an IFV if it mounts a cannon. I

Equally there is a tracked Boxer now offered by KMW (not ARTEC) and first shown at this years Eurosatory (with a 120mm tank cannon, but other role equipment is available), however it has little in common with wheeled Boxer (puzzling):
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/boxer-tracked.htm

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Thanks mate.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Dern

Hi again Dern.

Thanks for this update on our previous conversations. I’m still looking for their internal ORBAT.

Though I was amused to see the photo with the caption “UK Rangers Chinooks in the Californian Mojave Desert” which as far as I’m aware are US Army SOR examples, as they look like they are painted Black and have the refuelling probes, which I think 7 Sqns SF Flight Chinooks still do not have.

Dern
Dern
1 year ago

Any Chinook Rangers embark on becomes a Ranger’s Chinook, law of the seas.
“Look at me, I’m the Pilot now!”

I just hope your not looking for their ORBAT on my account!

Graham
Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  Challenger

You should be talking about recce variants of Boxer or CV90 as it sounds as if you want to replace a recce vehicle with an IFV. Totally different roles and role kit.
Anywzy, according to Ian M, Ajax is fixed, so why replace it?

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham
Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Wouldn’t count on it 😶

Paul Tootill
Paul Tootill
1 year ago

“The Royal Air Force”. . . . . “titter account posted” Titter? Ooh Matron!

IanB
IanB
1 year ago

As others have said, pity its not more, 3 is too few, one problem with one of ours and a NATO ally and we will have great difficulty.

When you say “Birmingham”, as in the UK Birmingham? The lack of sun in the sky should tell me the answer!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  IanB

I don’t know, those shots of William and Kate in Boston with umbrellas in poring rain made me wonder if they were in Lincolnshire.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Despite what the BBC wants you to think other countries also have bad weather 😀

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  IanB

Out of interest how many of a similar capability are available to European Powers? Anyone know?

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Turkey has 4 Wedgetails, France has 3 Sentrys, and NATO operates 2 operational squadrons of Sentrys with multinational crews.

There must be other aircraft with these capabilities I’d have thought, or are they relying on the NATO squadrons?

Last edited 1 year ago by Sean
Angus
Angus
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

Italy has 2 AEW types from Israel which are good at that job too

Aaron L
Aaron L
1 year ago
Reply to  Angus

Sweden also operates similar types.

Simon
Simon
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The NATO fleet is still using E-3, as is I think France.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Thats not the point really. You dont compare yourself or the uk military to a net race to the bottom. You plan and equip armed forces for resilience and for a threat based vs current capabilities based defence force structure. Therefore if 3 wedgetails is the minimum number to offer a basic capability. Then 6 is the real number needed to offer a viable capability.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Only Turkey, nothing E3 can do compares to E7.

Stc
Stc
1 year ago
Reply to  IanB

If I recall correctly Birmingham in the US had heavy snow the other year?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago

3 aircraft is not a fleet of AWACS. HMG need to get serious and stop ordering penny pocket numbers of exquisite kit that only just cover a capability in a limited way.
A minimum capability is easily broken with equipment failures or attritional loses. Resilience is all about building those eventualities into your plans. Therefore 6 aircraft surely are the minimum number needed.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Cost is clearly a factor given the current exchange rate, but five would have been welcome! “The British Ministry of Defence announced the $1.98-billion order for five Wedgetail aircraft in March 2019.  At the time of the order, Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier said: “[The] announcement about the procurement of five E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft is excellent news for both the RAF and wider defence. This world-class capability, already proven with our Royal Australian Air Force partners, will significantly enhance our ability to deliver decisive airborne command and control and… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I doubt most of the cost is new versus 2nd hand airframe. It might save a little but who knows what maintenance the used airframes would need to get them into service. The main cost I presume is all the kit going into the aircraft. As most of that is sourced from abroad the exchange rate will have an impact.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Fair point!

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Read on here can’t remember from whom so apologies. The order was cut when Boeing with no warning or justification suddenly hiked the price,

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

That was my understanding of it as well. I don’t know the details of how far the contract was along. I would think if u purchase 5 aircraft systems at a price the should be delivered at that price if that’s what the contract said.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Interesting read!

“It has sort of come to light that the budget for three aircraft is going to be not that dissimilar to the budget for five because of the gross underestimate of costs made by the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, a UK defense analyst.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/uk-industry-officials-raise-eyebrows-over-royal-air-force-f-35-e-7-and-a400m-programs/

Last edited 1 year ago by Nigel Collins
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

As I read through the article I was waiting for the good news part but it never came. Basically everything is harder than we thought and nobody understands what’s happening.
How 5 E7 can cost the same as 3 I don’t know.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

It beggars belief but nothing these days surprises me anymore!

Last edited 1 year ago by Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Good evening David, I concur with Monkey Spanker, “I would think if u purchase 5 aircraft systems at a price they should be delivered at that price if that’s what the contract said” and in the process lost two sales it would appear.

Saabs Global Eye would be useful to Nato which will make up for any shortfall in the numbers required to have to monitor its extended borders.

Not my area of expertise!

https://www.saab.com/products/globaleye

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Looks good. Can’t help feeling if the MoD knew what stunt Boeing were going to pull they’d have looked elsewhere. Perhaps to our Swedish friends.

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Makes me wonder if this kind of this makes us wary about going with Ghostbat.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I believe so, yes.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Will these three a/c be assigned to the NATO AEW sqn or kept solely for UK use?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Don’t know the answer to that but presume uk use first. An interesting question l have is what are nato going to do with the fleet of E-3 it has. If they are to be replaced how is that funded. I think there is 18 E3 so it’s a multi billion cost to replace them with E7 or whatever else.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I’m not aware that the RAF ever contributed either E3s or just crews to it before, so I guess not.

Ambivalent Lurker
Ambivalent Lurker
1 year ago

The RAF E3D’s were tasked with, and contributed to, the NATO AWACS pool as well as on UK specific tasking too. As far as I know we still have RAF personell (flight crew, mission specialists etc) on the NATO E3’s as well as seedcorned onto the RAAF Wedgetails.

Expat
Expat
1 year ago

This along with the P8 this is showing how when you build product rather than execute bespoke project you can sell the finish article to others. We’re starting to finally understand this but so many lose opportunities over the decades. Massive potential in defence but we’re cutting instead of investing and creating new products.

Angus
Angus
1 year ago
Reply to  Expat

Well at least the RAF can look forward to Tempest if only because Japan wants it and will spend the necessary to ensure it delivers for them. Our brains but their cash. Yes we should have 6 of these at least and better spending on this type than transports. Still the WOKE RAF has to look Pink and fluffy these days. So much going wrong, training, equipment etc all failing.

Expat
Expat
1 year ago
Reply to  Angus

Give the financial situation there’s no guarantee for Tempest. History is littered with governments pulling out of international deals. Signing doesn’t guarantee its completion. Billions can be saved by not going ahead that’s got to be appealing for future governments. Its hardly top of the electorates list of must haves.

Stc
Stc
1 year ago
Reply to  Expat

If Labour when the election, and it looks as though they will, Tempest is toast. Then they will spend billions more on an probably inferior US plane. Remember TRS2 and then the purchase of Phantoms with expensive modifications !

Tams
Tams
1 year ago
Reply to  Stc

There’s zero evidence for that.

Expat
Expat
1 year ago
Reply to  Tams

Yes it’s speculation but it justified to speculation. The focus is NHS and wind farms not 6th generation fighters. So as a counter there’s no evidence to suggest it won’t happen. And to add balance the Tories could also cancel it as unaffordable but more likely they’ll wait until next election. Then both parties will blame each other.

dan
dan
1 year ago

So one used for training, 1 for operational use and the other getting repaired or upgraded. lol

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago

OT, apparently Ukrainians are learning to hunt Bears (of the bomber variety). 😁

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Evidently, those industrious Ukrainians have been busy modding T-141 and 143 drones of 1970’s/1980’s vintage. 🤣😂😁

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Just a damned shame NATO was not able/did not chose to pass actionable intel to UKR re Mad Vlad’s tour of Kerch Strait Bridge reconstruction on Monday. Video of the Mercedes involuntarily becoming an amphibious vehicle (ala 007 flicks) would have been priceless! 🤔 😁

Aaron L
Aaron L
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I’ve got a feeling it was a bit of a gentlemen’s agreement? The Russians didn’t shell Kherson when Zelensky was there shortly after liberation, maybe the Ukrainians thought they’d return the favour.

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

I wonder if HMG trying to delay delivery of F35 due to qualified pilot shortfall?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

In summary. LM on block 4 F35B and Crowsnest ‘nothing to do with us guv’

Jim
Jim
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Got the same PR guys as General Dynamics.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim

😂😂

Esteban
Esteban
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

That does not sound good….

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  Esteban

Mrs Esteban sounds OK to most of us. What’s up?

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

UK delaying F-35 has been known for some time, its because we want to go straight to the next operational standard (Block 4) without buying earlier Block 3 ones and having to upgrade them later so we have been putting off taking deliveries until the delayed Block 4 software update is completed. A400M decision to use them more intensively rather than purchase more is regrettable (there had been some talk acquiring the options for the 13 for which Spain had deferred delivery from 2025 to 2030) and with the refresh of the defence strategy that may be revisited if the… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 year ago

Off topic. I see Valor has won US Army’s FLRAA. There had been speculation that if USA took them, we might get some too “for compatibility”, which could in turn have led to British tiltrotors on the carriers. The current budget cuts rule that out, I suppose.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

I think the us army won’t be buying any until 2030 onwards. For foreign purchases it will really depend on the price, is it worth it etc.
I don’t know if it going to be navalised or if that is something that will cost extra.
Question is where does it fit in to the uk services? It can’t replace chinook, medium helicopter is being sought now etc. Only role I see is marines merlins

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I was thinking special forces, fast exfiltration/medevac, close air support, marines, carrier-based tanking, autonomous AEW. Yes, the marinisation wouldn’t come cheap, and either that would have to have payback in terms of UK production (and possibly exports to Italy, Japan etc), or it would have to be burden-shared with the USMC. I think the USMC might be interested in a V-280 AEW (without the &C).

TBH, I don’t really know what CONOPS the Army will land on in early to mid 2030s, which is roughly when we could get a marinised version operational in the UK.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jon
Alabama Boy
Alabama Boy
1 year ago

Judging by the these latest photographs there is still a long way to on the conversions, the acid test will be the integration test and trials activities before the first aircraft can enter service. . Any sort of capability declaration looks tight for 2024.I’d love to see the build up plan.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago

Looks like the USA have picked the bells 280 valour tilt rotor to replace the black hawk.

DennisMcLaughlan
DennisMcLaughlan
1 year ago

Do we here in Scotland not have the expertise to bid for this type of work? It always seems to go to England. Surely we should be able to compete for such contracts.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

You could say the same about building warships in England, the Scottish SNP would have a fit.
Otherwise, yes, ideally all parts of the UK could build equipment for the military.

Clueless Observer
Clueless Observer
1 year ago

So another example of us not really being global Britain, the 3 jets will be enough to cover the northern approaches and we will have to rely on NATO to cover the rest of the country/approaches. Not much of a chance of these being used to support operations in the rest of the world unless we beg for cover from NATO. Also yet another resource into Lossiemouth, so that’s half the Typhoon fleet and the entire E-7 and E-8 fleets based on one RAF base, and people laughed at all the Russian aircraft out in the open at Engels AFB… Read more »