The Ministry of Defence’s SPEAR Capability 3 project is having issues, according to the latest Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) data released by the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
Many have noted that, according to the data, the expected end date for the project has been revised from 30th June 2027 to 31st December 2047, however this isn’t something to worry about.
The GMPP data states: “Compared to financial year 21/22-Q4, the project’s end-date at 22/23-Q4 increased from 2027-06-30 to 2047-12-31.”
The UK Defence Journal has seen confirmation that this is merely a change in how the dates for the project are reported, this is a potential out-of-service date, not any sort of slip in the in-service date.
More notably, the project’s “Delivery Confidence Assessment” has shifted from Amber to Red, pointing towards substantial obstacles in the project’s trajectory.
The factors causing this downgrade are primarily “challenges with resourcing sufficient suitably qualified and experienced people across the programme and delivery teams, and within industry.”
In an attempt to address these issues, the MOD is undertaking a series of deep-dives and establishing a monthly Programme Board with the new Senior Responsible Owner to get things back on track.
This will be the projected life of the weapon.
Lets hope that this is indeed the case mate. Especially seeing that 2024 was its original ISD notwithstanding Blk 4 issues. The cupboard is looking a bit bare wrt our current ‘strike’ weapons fit on our F35’s. Appreciate that many different weapons will eventually be integrated onto this baby, but, we aren’t buying many of them as we are going down our own path and rightly so, but still…..
There are problems again with the F35. Lockheed have cut back on all delivery production and there is a separate problem with UK deliveries, apparently due to personnel shortages our end.
Indeed. “Lockheed Martin expects to deliver 100–120 F-35s in 2023, down from an earlier projection of 147–153 aircraft because of delays in developing the fighter jet’s Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) upgrade, according to company officials. Lockheed Martin delivered 50 F-35s in the first half of 2023, all of which were in the earlier TR-2 configuration, company chairman, president, and CEO Jim Taiclet told analysts during an 18 July earnings call. However, Lockheed Martin “remains fully dedicated” to delivering its first aircraft with the TR-3 hardware and software upgrade in 2023, Taiclet said. TR-3 is supposed to improve the F-35‘s computer… Read more »
Same as I read Nigel. I suppose delivery schedule is irritating more than critical. I just hope we do get our 48 by 2025 and then we get on with it.😏
👍
Yes we have typhoons with airframe life on them and not enough pilots so delivery issues at LM are not on the critical path of the UK project. I imagine with the £ still historically low this could also help the MoD budgets not having to pay for a 1-2 aircraft this year. And that’s the reality for the UK its the difference of 1-2 aircraft.
The most worrying is the delays caused by problems the UK end Ten years we’ve been getting \ready and we’re still not there
I been wondering if the big US defence companies just pump out the bare minimum standards to keep the cash rolling in, not fixing known faults until the DOD finds them etc. Between Pratt, Lockheed, Boeing there seems to be a constant steam of problems that have long costly fixes. The engine alone is north of $38 billion to fix for block 4 and I don’t know if the work has even started. From June 10th: The GAO yesterday reported that, as of May 2022, the unit cost of the F-35 was $177 million, up 10% since September 2020 ($161m).… Read more »
We will certainly need an increase in the defence budget to pay for these increases, which may reduce the number of aircraft we purchase to offset the cost.
The engine fix has been in hand since last year. Every engine, particularly the -600 version that powers the F35B, has had parts of the mid-life upgrade incorporated early. There are number of recorded issues with the engine, from vibration/resonance to power turbine blade cracking. However, the biggest problem is that Pratt & Whitney (P&W) have not built enough engines. When an engine is due deep servicing or has developed a fault, or has a higher than tolerance particulate count in its oil checks. The engine is removed and sent off for maintenance. Here there are two main problems, due… Read more »
so it this a basic engine design issue that has been exacerbated by the increased requirments of upgrades etc.
If so how will the increased power growth requirement impact in this.
Also is the B variant also getting the increased power engine or is that just the A & C variants that are getting the latest engine?
From what I’ve read and understand there has been a general resonance issue with fuel delivery to the engine throughout the F135 range. Which was caused I believe due to a mismatch between the high pressure fuel pump and a flow restrictor. That should be an easy fix. This is apparently what caused the engine issues on the USMC F35B that caused the pilot to bang out when in the hover. The problem with the flaking coating and fracturing on the blades, is possibly a design fault. However, this may be exacerbated due to the engine needing to generate more… Read more »
Cheers for the detailed response appreciated.👍
So are you saying there are now two paths for engine upgrades :1st a power upgrade to the current engine (so available to all) ; 2nd a new adaptive engine which may now be made available to the B having previously only been touted for the A & C? Trying to keep up with this plane is a full time job.
Yes. From what I can understand there is currently a bit of abrasion between Lockheed and P&W. Lockheed are saying that even with the F135’s core upgrade, it won’t produce either enough power or cooling air to meet the demands that Block 4, 5 etc will be demanding. Which is why they are favoring the adaptive engine solution. The JPO apparently sees the F135 upgrade as an interim solution. They are also a bit mifffed with P&W’s slow progress of engine builds and refurbishments of worn engines. There has been a succession of voices in the Senate/Congress on the benefits… Read more »
The problem is the DoD / USAF picked the wrong engine design. Probably for nationalistic reasons Pratt being good ol all American boys whereas the GE/RR offering had those horrid English involved. There have been problems with Pratt engine from day one and these will continue. Someone should bite the bullet and get GE/RR contracted it will be cheaper and more reliable in the long run…..But, there’s the bloody British involved agin so it probably won’t happen. Money will be continually poured down the Pratt drain
Isn’t this due to the fact that the US Govt is refusing to take delivery of any more F-35s until the TR-3 combo is part of the delivery aircraft. I understand there is substantial extra cost in updating to it later.
I believe so, I posted this information a while back.
“The joint office of the F-35 programme plans to upgrade the aircraft in April 2024, a one-year delay. Lockheed Martin, on the other hand, promises to have the TR-3 ready in December 2023. Michael Schmidt does not rule out that the upgrade of fifth-generation fighters could start between those two dates.”
Yes its mainly software the jets will be built but not delivered. LM will store TR3 jets ready for delivery. So the situation will correct itself once software is ready. A production stop would be more worrying.
Part of TR 3 sees the majority of the avionics computers getting replaced with ones that have newer components. Crucially the CPUs are being replaced along with an increase in storage.
But its a delivery delay not a production delay, Lockhead will actually build more F35s than it will deliver but store them whilst the software is sign off is my understanding. So once the software is signoff there will more deliveries than from storage. If software was suddenly ready tomorrow then deliveries can resume. I would think if the US really needed the jets the all stops would be pulled to get the software. Frankly I’d me more worried if the lines stopped as that’s a real delay.
“TR-3 is supposed to improve the F-35‘s computer memory capacity and processing power.”
Thats a relief we don’t want it forgetting how to land or who’s side its on…
😂👍
It’s yet another increase in costs and further delays to the software.
F-35 delivery delays to cost Lockheed hundreds of millions in 2023. WASHINGTON — Problems with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s newest upgrades will cause the aircraft’s.
manufacturer to miss its 2023 delivery goal by up to roughly 50 jets, Lockheed Martin officials said Tuesday.5 days ago
LINK
A lot of the increase in computing power requirement is due to the type of weapons being fitted. Even something as humble as the ASRAAM requires a lot of data from the aircraft. This is to do with the firing solution fidelity. The higher the data fidelity of the target the better the chances of firing the missile with a higher kill percentage. If we then look at SPEAR-3 then the amount of information it needs on the target jumps up exponentially. Sadly as guided weapons get “cleverer” they place a significant demand of processing and time on the aircraft’s… Read more »
Hi Geoff, yes we do have some issues our end. Believe its a bit more then personnel problems too. Don’t think that Marham (F35 base) is quite ready to accept any more F35’s yet. Its something to do with not completing the building work at the base where they are going to be housed, along with people shortages too. Seems we are somewhat ‘behind the curve’ in various places as they say. Its not a good look is it?
So why not just base the ‘extras’ on the carriers that were designed for them? Give the Queen Elizabeth a full complement.
😀 They cannot just live on the Carrier. They deploy to the Carrier for operations and exercises. A MOBs facilities, from Ops to Admin to Engineering, cannot be replicated on the same scale aboard.
Regular deployments seems to be the answer? I would assume that the building of accommodation facilities at Marham would have been based on the fact that a good percentage of the fleet was actively deployed on one of our TWO carriers at any one time? So far we’ve only had one major carrier deployment and even then we only had 8 RAF birds on board. The F35B was purchased primarily for carrier ops, but I suspect there are senior RAF officers who like to think of them as an RAF land based asset……..
Hi Paul, the F35’s are firstly a joint RN/RAF asset, and secondly are only based on tha carriers when they deploy. So as now, they are all either at Marham, or deployed with the RAF in smallish numbers. Most of the time they will be sat at Marham, so all the infrastructure needs to be in place as we ramp up the numbers – slowly.
We’re not talking about them being on board as a permanent thing – just until the shore facilities are ready. Meanwhile they doing a useful job in training and/or deployment.
Your post is tantamount to a poke in the eye to some on here Rob but I, for one, agree with you. Why not make one of the trained units at least seaborne.
As @DM says, plus they are a joint asset with the RAF, so not at all a palatable course for some I imagine.
What I find curious. I’ve studied our military installations using the likes of GE for decades, is what the hold up Is? Marham had 4 GR4 Sqns once. It has fuel, ammunition sites, it has HAS Complexes. The JFL HQ and maintenance buildings are complete and operational. So what’s the holdup. Aprons? Taxiway? I know of the delay people wise, training and such, just wondering regards the infrastructure.
My understanding on the delay is that construction of phase 2 of Anvil was delayed for budgetary reasons, perhaps partially due to the fact that the MOD knew BLK 4 aircraft were going to be delayed?
Had a mate just finish work up at Marham the other week, they were installing fibre optic cabling in buildings up there, so who knows what the reasons are!
Correct. Project Anvil, for Stand Up of 807.
Believe thats now been pushed back to Dec 23 due to the current issues?
Yes, what I’d read too. 5 months way, no big deal really.
It won’t affect the delivery of another 4 aircraft this year. 3 have already been delivery to Marham this year. 👍
Yes, they’ll be delivered, straight into store if 807 is not ready?
No, they will be flying mate. Actually, when new aircraft are first delivered from the manufacturer the first thing that happens is they are stripped down, and rebuilt to be certified by the RAF. All the aircraft are effectively operated in a pool of aircraft, and are moved around the sqns as required. That’s one reason why we don’t see many unit markings these day’s, not like they used to anyway. Usually the OCU will operate pretty much the same aircraft as the are usually at a different avionic/capability standard to those on the frontline units. T1 Typhoons for example… Read more »
Thanks mate. Stripped down??? Never knew that.
Yep, like deep maintenance strip down. Put it back together again. Its now formally handed over as a F35 project office/Lockheed Martin product to a UK certified owned RAF/RN F35 combat aircraft. 👍
I presume you are referring to formation and commissioning of 809 NAS? The constraints on this are progress developing the infrastructure for the squadron at RAF Marham (probable completion date of late 2025), the availability of a useful number of aircraft, and the impact on 617 sqd of stripping it of pilots, maintainers and a/c to provide a core for 809. Best off having one full strength operational squadron, rather than two small non-operational squadrons just for the sake of a bit of PR. 617 will surely be expected to provide its full front-line strength of 12 a/c (and may… Read more »
Indeed I was.
You would think that since we started this in 2014 and the first aircraft arrived in 2018 we would at least have the base and associated personnel ready. We seem to have lost the ability in this country to get anything done simply or on time and I’m not just talking about the MOD.🙂
You would like to think so wouldn’t you! Along with the issues on the recent threads ref Spear 3/Brimstone 3, we seem to have a issue with enough suitably experienced/qualified people. Now there is a surprise…..
The way we blunder along in this country, my friend, it’s a wonder we get anything done.
Well it’s not like they’ve had about a decade to get Marham ready!
Hard to imagine how much work a base needs when it was consistently housing/running 3 Tornado squadrons until recently.
One can but wonder, as our collective heads drop onto the table – in sheer disbelief!
Yes, just posted similar, didn’t see you’d covered this. Is it an “elf and safety” angle perhaps?
The facilities being built at Marham are US spec facilities. Which basically means, they are awesome.
But they are expensive and it takes time. Bur for once we won’t have 2nd rate facilities compared to our US cousins 👍
This is a good point. Someone here once commented on the facilities he saw when working at Mildenhall.
Operating a new aircraft type, especially a 5th gen fighter requires a new and very different level of base support/engineering/training/stimulator compared to the 80s Tornado. It’s the same at RAF Coningsby. Typhoon facilities are a world away from the Tornado F3 days. F35 is going to be in service for 40+ years. The investment today is making Marham capable of supporting the aircraft for the next 40+ years.
True. However it’ll be approximately 7 years between 617 initially standing up and 809 becoming fully operational (2018 & 2025). Getting any weapons integrated beyond ASRAAM and Paveway IV is taking very long time and it won’t be until the 2030’s until the fleet grows to 70 odd airframes.
The pilot training pipeline seems to be another major constraint to growth as well.
Of course it’s not all the Mod and RAF’s fault. But nevertheless it’s a truly glacial pace of procurement!
All true. AMRAAM is also in service on F35B. But it also took 16 years to deliver the Typhoon fleet. (2003-2019) It had been in RAF service for 15 year’s before StormShadow and Brimstone started to be integrated. It will be in service very close to 30 year’s when ECRS MK2 is declared at initial operating capability. Ascent have announced the RAF pilot training capacity will very soon (this year) increase by 50%. So progress is being made.
It’s not like we haven’t had 20 years to plan for it. What state would we be in if the F-35 programme had actually been anything close to meeting its original timescale.
Project ANVIL 2, the infrastructure for 2nd operational squadron (i.e. 809 NAS) at Marham, has recently moved from Red to Amber, so that is encouraging. But….given the delivery delays of F-35 I don’t think they will be operational, realistically, until 2026. The already existing change in the F-35 delivery profile, without the recent production issues will make sure of that.
Hmmm…wonder whether Big Ben, as one of several parting shots (given his pending departure), shouldn’t announce UKR is either slated to receive F-35 training and a/c, or threaten to do the same. Willing to bet the farm that the Ukrainians would roll right over the JPO, LM and any other party impeding/slow-rolling progress in integrating Tranche 3, Block 4, and a slew of weapons. They would never tolerate “all ahead, slow.” Existential threats are powerful motivators. 🤔
Sorry, Tech Refresh 3. F-35 program management has been/and remains, less than stellar.
There’s not a cat’s chance in hell Biden would allow Ukraine to get F-35s, and even announcing them being trained for it would go down really badly in Washington. So given the NATO SG thing, maybe Wallace do it just for shits and giggles.
Exactly, have begun to believe that the acquisition model for a/c has become so overly hyper-bureaucratic that it unnecessarily and unduly impedes rate of progress, and could/should be reset by participants w/ a different perspective/ mindset. Only data to support this hypothesis is the track record of success of urgently needed requirements. No one would permit a real world test of this hypothesis, unless circumstances dictated this course. 🤔
I suspect it’s meant to read as a six month delay. It’s bad, but typos are a thing.
That’s is very true.
What a successful disastrous project F-35 is.
😆 17 nations and air arms and 935+ aircraft and counting would disagree with you.
Well I agree – Why we never developed our own beats me.
Is that a typo? A 20 year delay seems excessive even for the MOD
it is indeed
It’s not a typo, I have been assured it’s intentional but currently they are unable to go into further detail.
Sorry George but 31 December 2047 (24.5 years away) is just not a credible completion date if that equates to a revised in-service date. Better off cancelling the project and restarting a new one in 15 years time using the latest technology.
I think it’s talking about until when they intend to upgrade/maintain Spear Cap 3, not its FOC date, as Robert said at the start of the comment thread. FC/ASW and FCAS end dates are both 2070, and the Lightings themselves 2069. It’s consistent.
Is that a typo?? 2027 to 2047?!
News flash, NAO make typo, press jump on story
Now that is one of the best replies I’ve seen
It’s not a typo.
It’s not a typo.
That difference must be a Typo surely ?
Or life if weapon….but that seems short
Have there been any changes since this was announced?
24 JUNE 2020
UK may not upgrade all F-35Bs to Block 4 standard
“The UK government has said it has not yet decided how many of the 48 F-35Bs it will have received by 2026 will be upgraded to the latest Block 4 standard, noting any decision on numbers will be based on ‘military capability requirements’. (Lockheed Martin)”
GAO
Published: May 30, 2023. Publicly Released: May 30, 2023.
“Further, DOD is 5 years into a development effort to modernize the F-35’s capabilities. This effort, known as Block 4, is experiencing developmental delays for important technology updates. Block 4 costs also grew to $16.5 billion, an increase of more than $1 billion since GAO last reported”.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w92EB1jfNwE/Ti7waqYHkYI/AAAAAAAAE28/-W9tFHv4u1E/s1600/donkey-and-carrot.jpg
😆
Line of sight only 👏👌👍
The clue to my original question is highlighted in the sentence 🙄
Have there been “any changes” since this was announced?
NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK
“The current planning assumption of the UK MoD is that the ECRS Mk2 will be integrated on all 40 of the RAF’s Tranche 3 Typhoons, although the MoD has announced it is retaining the option to also fit the radar onto the RAF’s 67 Tranche 2 Typhoons.
The RAF’s initial operational capability with the ECRS Mk2 is currently forecast for 2030.”
LINK
Is ‘NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK’ an attempt at humour Nigel. Cos it just looks silly.
Has the MOD decided if more than 40 RAF Typhoons will get ECRS MK2??
“”The expected completion date for the project has been revised from 30th June 2027 to 31st December 2047,”” Really? That makes the Ajax program look outstanding. The problem with negative forecasting like this, is it will colour the incoming government who will look at such pessimistic outlooks (Part of the British DNA now) resulting in many projects simply getting binned as those with a political axe to grind will use it to divert money away to much more worthy causes such as the Indian space program, The Chinese old age fund, Ethiopian pop stars, reparations , teaching blokes it’s a… Read more »
I want the armed forces to be larger and more powerful so I agree that negative forcasting should really be cracked down on, but I personally wouldn’t mind the left giving reparations [with their money] for some of the nastier things their political movement has done. This would require an apology on their behalf not just for 19th century Indian famines [which conservatives tried to stop], but also their destruction of the UK’s education system [would you oppose reparations in the form of funding for new Grammar Schools?] and the horrors of Rotherham. The long march through the institutions started… Read more »
I think you will find that ‘We need larger docks’ element of your post is already happening. Babcock who run Plymouth dockyard have started a £1.3 billion infrastructure modernization of 9,10,11,12,14 & 15 docks back in 2021. It’s due to be completed by late 25, early 26 and will be able to provide deep maintenance facilities for Astute, Dreadnought, T26, MRSS and beyond.
Definitely a good start. The 2026 deadline frankly is shockingly fast. I’d be ok with a 2036 deadline (all our other projects seem to take that long), so for it to be faster than that would be fantastic.
Well yes and no really. The docks that are slated for the surface ships aren’t the problem as they have not been built yet. The issue is the SM docks, as we can only access them to work on when there is no SM requirement. Unfortunately this has caught up with us wrt Astute going into deep maintenance. Her DRP has been delayed as the dock isn’t yet ready to take her!! So she is unavailable for deployments when she would have been. Depending on how long she has to wait, will have a ever increasing impact on SSN availability… Read more »
So long as the problems happen now rather than later. China’s SSNS are currently not particularly brilliant, but I have heard on the grapevine that they are improving.
If we can sort this out (SSN maintenance queue and all) before their fleet achieves another jump in quality (requiring all our SSNs to be at maximum availability) then we should be ok.
Attention does need diverting from Ajax somehow!
Keep banging that drum. Bigotry has no Off button.
ChinaCrisis wrote: “”Keep banging that drum. Bigotry has no Off button.”” Chuckle “You did cut me” with that “Highest high” display of a “Strength of character” from you. You make me sound like a “King in a catholic style” who’s got it in for “Black man ray” with the “bigger the punch I’m feeling”. But hey the “World spins, I’m part of it”, but you do come across as having the “Gift of Freedom” Any pregnant fish can play the “Wall of God” card in which to claim the moral high ground. If only you did so with a dash of… Read more »
Ha. 👌😱
Just for balance, anyone who reads the Major Projects report, as I have, will see there are also projects that have moved from red to amber, or are even green, gosh!
UKAFC Twitter made a great thread several days back on this subject. Many of these programmes are immensely complex, at cutting edge, and will encounter difficulties, whether it is MoD procurement overseeing them or not.
The project office does the same shit every time, it’s just sticks everything in red until it’s nearly done then changes colour, it’s about as useful as the office of budget responsibility which predicts recession and over spend ever year.
Articles on every project in the report are planned.
That is excellent George. Thank you. Good article material I suppose.
Well we will get it and it will be out of date. Why do we not ditch this and buy the US storm Breaker or something similar. It is quite clear the MoD is useless at developing and bringing weapons systems in on time. It is so disappointing….
SPEAR 3 is best in class.
Who would know? By the time it goes into service the AI would have taken over.
Yes that might be the case now but by the time we get it – ir will be thothing special and better stuff might be out there.
Oh god, buying American stuff is not the answer to every issue.
For some issues yes but not for spear program.
Look at the waiting list for some US weapons now. Javelins, stinger, 155mm shells etc. Having home grown suppliers and weapons is essential for key weapons that will be used in high numbers if the poop hit the fan.
Rob wrote:
“”It is quite clear the MoD is useless at developing and bringing weapons systems in on time.””
Brimstone, Brimstone 2, Martlet, Sea Venom, Storm Shadow, NLAW,
Sea Venoms the odd one out in that list.
Meteor should be added instead.
Meteor is a good programme but the integration onto F35 is delayed.
That’s not really the MOD’s fault though.
How is it not the MODs fault. We were a tier 1 partner, we should have required integration as part of the initial batch1 design. It seems we were too eager to be a tier 1 partner that we didn’t push the US into agreeing for our own needs on top of theirs.
NLAW was built and developed by Sweden. Brimstone 3 is late. Sea Venom is late. Do not get me started on Ajax. Ot how long it takes to get 24 Sea Ceptor to be put on a T45…..
But its already up and running on T23… T 45 fit is not just a case of cutting a hole in the deck and sticking a couple of cannisters in. Warship weapon integration is about as complex a project that you can do, more so when its and A&A and not a from original build weapon system. In no particular order and ignoring the easy bit which is the steel work. Cabling, through bulkhead gas and watertight connectors, switchboard alterations. primary and secondary power supplies, equipment cabinet positioning, command system integration, firing console, firefighting, vent alterations, magazine safety approvals, drawings,… Read more »
In the time scheduled for the upgrade some countries like China could have built a whole new ship. Also T45 was designed to take upgrades. The space to be used is one such area. The are not inserting the missiles into an area not designed for weapons. Also Sea Ceptor is a soft launch system with little impact on the ship. The Sea Ceptor command and control system was derived from Sea Viper the T45s current system. So the integration is not as difficult as the timeframe NoD/RN warrants. By the time they do the work the T45 will be… Read more »
The space is there but that’s it. Its a space. No penetrations. no cable runs. No compliant vent, cabling, firefighting. Command system integration will take time. New code, new inputs, firing arcs, will all need to be proven. Nothing is plug and play involving weapon systems. With T45 deployment and maintenance plans set out for years in advance which also ties into CSG cover, drydock/dockyard availability and the manufacturer actually making the thing it will take years. Ok MBDA/BAe make 6Ceptor outfits now, cost is not an issue and forget about anything else you are manufacturing such as the army… Read more »
Well explained mate. 👍
2032 Rushed?!
It does make you wonder how robust Chinese ships are to not only battle damage but also to fire. If the Chinese can knock out a Type 55 in a 1/4 of the time it takes to build a T26. The question would be how has their manufacture processes achieved this? Yes, labour in China is cheap. But you can only get so many people in a given space doing work that doesn’t interfere with someone else’s that is part of the build sequence. Before anyone says the T26 build program is on a go slow. I appreciate that, but… Read more »
GB comments on the Chinese landing ship that caught fire and was spewing out clouds of black smoke highlighted that it could be the insulation on the wiring, which wouldn’t happen on royal navy ship
Does make you wonder if China uses an equivalent Defstan. I suspect not as that would push up the price and the required quality.
Or if the part that they use that are to a “def stranded” have been replaced with an alterative. Classic “Can we use Chinese alterative”
The T26 go slow is a farce we are dropping fleet numbers because replacements are not there on time. Also by Spreading out the build the costs go up meaning potentially we can afford fewer ships….
The should increase production speed.
We have overhauled Chinese built commercial ships here in the yard. Some of the classics we found are as follows. Transverse “Watertight” bulkheads stich welded to the hull. Watertight bulkheads welded correctly to the hull but not welded to the deck or deck head. Electric motors on pumps lasting 6 months before burning out. “Original SKF (!!!)” Bearings disintegrating after 200 hrs running. Impellors dissolving inside pumps due to erosion and cathodic corrosion Stainless Steel valves made from regular steel and corroding out in months when in saltwater. Basically reputable ship owners avoid China made products, including steel plate as… Read more »
Cheers marra. Does make you think of the corners they must have cut trying to match the USN in numbers in so short a time.
I think possible evidence of this, is their new CATOBAR carrier the Type 003 Fujian. There are images of massive cracks and warping of the flight deck. Though a lot of Chinese media are reporting that these are damage to the painted coating applied to the steel deck. Plus the earlier Type 002 Liaoning allegedly had similar problems.
Being such a secretive and highly policed country, we may never know the truth.
Sea Ceptor
We’ve had “Lightning 2”, maybe time for a return of a “Harrier 2”, or even “Tempest VSTOL”?
Or, can those developing the Aeralis Dart make a VSTOL version?
Sorry, tongue in cheek, but seriously, these types of delays are just “bollocks” as a certain BW might say. 😆
Wonder how the latest “Rafales” stack up against the F35s? Surprised the French haven’t tried to develop anything VSTOL yet.
Maybe also look at what the tech the Israelis are putting in/on their F35Is if the UK are buying Rampage ASMs for their Typhoons or, buy American.
And has been successfully implementing it for more than a year… Spice-250/250ER. 100-150 km. 130/130+ kg. Warhead-75 kg. “AI”… Rafael/Lockheed in USA, Rafael/DIEHL in Germany…
why would they? i don’t think they have a need for VSTOL seeing as though their aircraft carrier is CATOBAR
😊Not much call for levitating cheese 🧀 just yet…… Or is there? 😳.
It does not F35 is a generation ahead of Rafales – the F35 would see its opponent first without being seen and shoot first. It is as simple as that…
No it is not that simple.
Thats not the experience of Red Flag where 5th Den planes dominate the air and win almost every time. Those who have flown against F35 describe the Experian e a unfair as they cannot see their attacker…
But if you think the French jet is equal or better in some way you just do not know about the F35 in sufficient detail.
They don’t really need it. They have a cat,/trap carrier and plenty of land air bases that vstol wouldnt really bring them much capability.
Air to air ground weapon.
that’s a typo, it can’t be a 20 years delay
Is someone in Whitehall intentionally taking the piss?
That’s a new one. It’s called hedging your bets. State you can deliver something within a 20 year time-frame then if it’s delivered before that, great it’s in date.
😭🤣😁🤣😂🤣😂 Only in the UK could this be a plausible plan. Bit like HS2s delivery date. Slipped to 2040. For a central London terminal.
Sure it’s not another typo?
What?
what 20y ? Even for a F35 episode, it’s a bit too much…
The date is going to be the end date placeholder for the through life management plan. It can and will move as it’s supposed to as the project matures (and eventually dies) through its various stages. From inception of the project to disposal it allows IPTs to plan (and cost) long term for development, In service date, upgrades, obsolescence issues and final disposal. The TLMP will cover Concept Assessment Demonstration and Manufacture In-service Disposal. Knowledge in Defence (KiD) is the primary bearer of policy and guidance governing acquisition and the delivery of Defence projects for all members of the UK… Read more »
Thank you. That clears that up.
The Russian trolls on UKdj make a headache out to be a Tuma.
Air to air ground weapon huh
I think this is great news!
A twenty year slippage, great news? If this means whole-life procurement and it signals a shift toward whole-life capability management in the MOD, especially whole-life costing (including maintenance and support), it’ll be a real step forward in project selection and reporting. We might actually see more clearly how short-term penny pinching leads to longer term project cost increases.
We’d still need the transparency aspect that’s clearly lacking right now, with dates being thrown into the public domain with no explanation.