British F-35B jets will be equipped with Meteor missiles by the ‘middle of this decade’ say the Government.

Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for North Durham, asked via a written question:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the timeframe is for the rollout of Meteor on the UK’s F-35b.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“Initial development work for Meteor integration has progressed well. Final contract award is currently under negotiation which, on current plans, would deliver the integration of Meteor on the F-35B Lightning in the middle of this decade.”

Last year we reported that a team of BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and MBDA engineers are enhancing the capability of the UK’s fleet of F-35 Lightning aircraft by commencing work on the integration of next generation weapons.

BAE Systems has received an initial funding award from Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 programme, to start integration efforts for MBDA’s Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile and SPEAR precision surface attack missile. Under this initial package of work BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin will also complete further integration work with MBDA on ASRAAM and with Raytheon on Paveway IV, initially integrated in support of delivering Initial Operating Capability for the UK.

Cliff Waldwyn, Head of Combat Air, Group Business Development of MBDA, said:

“This is a significant milestone for the UK Combat Air’s capability. This initial package of work officially commences the integration of Meteor and SPEAR and will enhance the operational capability of the UK’s Lightning Force in the future; it is also a positive step for the wider F-35 enterprise as it adds additional capability choice for international customers. MBDA’s integration team have worked well with our BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin colleagues and we plan to build on this excellent foundation into the future on this follow-on modernisation work.”

Meteor is a ‘Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile’ system developed by MBDA.

The Meteor programme sees the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden working together to provide access to technology and expertise across those nations.

You can read more about the missile here.

George Allison
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
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

86 COMMENTS

  1. Open systems, modern software architecture, agile processes and management, common application interfaces and …. it still take 5+ years to integrate a missile.

    Are they deliberately trying to delay meteor as long as possible? This timeline will slash any export success we might have had with this incredible weapon.

    I’m sure by the time we have this integrated the US will have an alternative to sell to F35 users.

    • Yeah does my head in bought all this mil std database crap for easy integration I can understand a year for aero & software – but what are they doing for 5 years?

      • It’s not as simple as plugging on a new weapon. That new weapon has to be integrated with the radar, the HMS ,the mid course guidance, the defensive aids, the weapons management systems. Integrating new weapons requires a large amount of testing. So when the pilot pulls the trigger, the weapon performs and works as it should, every single time.

        • Yeah but 5 years you can produce and slowly two Type 26 frigates in that time period! The RAF swallow this crap as well!
          No wonder we didn’t bother with Storm Shadow probably take 10+ yrs so this means if the future cruise missile is available by 2030 the earliest we will see it on F35 is 2035+ if its delayed goodness knows when it will get on the aircraft. Hopefully tempest will solve this absolute farce.

          • I think the RAF knows what it’s doing don’t you. Tempest is far from guaranteed, especially in the current financial climate. The Americans could barely afford the F22, so how will we afford a new 6th gen fighter, that will only be built in small numbers. I think a group of unmanned systems is the more realistic outcome. We’ll see. We didn’t bother with Storm Shadow, because it’s 20 years old, and Typhoon has that capability. And it could only be carried externally, so reduces the stealth capability. Spear 3 will have a 130km range, can be carried internally (8) and will be a much more flexible weapon.

          • Hi Robert. There seems to be a general assumption that if a manned platform does result from the Tempest program then it will be exotic and expensive. However this runs very counter to the affordability goal that was expressed as a critical requirement by both the RAF and BAES at the Farnborough 2018 launch. You might find the interviews by Vago Muradian of BAES management and ACM Hillier at the time of launch of interest. I’ve linked the first, the other should show up in list of next video options (affordability starts about 6 mins in on the latter, followed by development time and time to capability).
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogAtFy3q3xk&t=470s

            Some will suggest “well they’d say that wouldn’t they”, but there seem to be a lot of indicators as to how they will manage the costs in manufacture, equipping and operating a new platform. Lessons learnt from Typhoon, F-35 and R&D already undertaken in Taranis and Magma programs, as well as spiraling technology from existing capabilities help speed development/reduce risk and reduce cost.

          • Hi mate, thanks, I’ll take a look. I really do want Tempest to succeed, in whatever form it eventually takes. But after the experience of pretty much every fighter project from the last 40 years, it’s easy to be doubtful. Cost will be critical to it’s success, even to survive the politics and the post COVID world that will threaten large defence projects, especially when the paying public want to see more NHS funding etc. Fingers crossed it works out, and maybe the forthcoming SDSR will give some more direction. ?

    • I bet they could get it integrated on the f3b over the weekend if they really wanted too ?, but seriously 5 years is a dam joke, maybe a year or so to do but 5 years!! What the he’ll will we do in the meantime guys, use inferior missiles?

    • Main bottle neck has been flight testing on the limited number of test planes operated by Lockheed, americans got their requests in first so we have been at the back of the queue for flight test campaigns.

    • Shamefully slow. Its more of the same cr.p. If it was asbestos in Whitehall it would be done in months. Defence is apparently not important.
      We have learned nothing since we lost 5500 men through sending them into battle in unsafe battle cruisers 80-100 years ago! Lest we forget- HMS Queen Mary, Indefatigable, Invincible, Hood and Barham.

    • The US are blocking Meteor integration pending AIM260 availability – it would be a massive embarrassment to them to have foreign game changing Meteor missile integrated on their new toy. I’ve worked air to air since 1979 and know the shenanigans the Septics get up to

  2. Block 4 software now delayed till 2026, so the missile will be ready but what about the software? IOC when?

    The good news is, each F-35B will be able to carry two Meteor missiles and two air/ground weapons in the internal weapons bay for missions requiring stealth.

  3. It seems yet again the MOD negotiators have signed a terrible contract. Considering we put a lot of money in for R&D of these jets, you would think that early integration of UK weapons would have been a required condition.

    • Block 4 and the capability upgrades that it will bring, will come to F35 a dam sight quicker than project centurion came to Typhoon. F35 development will be a constant stream of upgrades, but big block upgrades take time, and are expensive. Capability like this comes with a hefty price tag. And block 4 is so much more than just weapon integration.

      • I don’t get why block 1 included zero uk weapons. We now have a number of jets that the MOD has confirmed will not be upgraded and therefore are like block1 typhoons, of limited use.

          • which are you talking about, the typhoons that the RAF tried to get rid of or the f35 that can’t carry most of our ground attack or air attack weapons?

          • The F35 Steve. New aircraft entering service takes time, and systems need to mature. No new combat aircraft enters service, and on day one has all the bells and whistles, and all the new weapons available. Our F35B’ have Enhanced Paveway 4, which is a very deadly, accurate and flexible weapon, and has been the weapon of choice over Iraq/Syria for a long time. Along with AMRAAM & ASRAAM. Meteor and the Spear family of weapons are next, and more will follow. Typhoon had to wait 15 years to get Storm Shadow and Brimstone. And project Centurion cost $540M. It all takes time, a lot of testing, and a considerable amount of money. ?

          • Its more that the MOD confirmed it won’t upgrade the ones that have already been brought due to cost, which means we will have a significant part of our fleet that can’t carry the full weapon load.

    • Really Steve? You probably think we are going to buy 138 of these as well. A tier partner for initial investment, but less jets than Norway at present. Another 4 years plus for the meteor?
      Par for the course!

      • I doubt anyone including the US really believed we would buy 138. I suspect everyone just halved the number and based everything on that being the number.

  4. Also there should ( hopefully ) be the JNAAM Meteor Hybrid Missile in the same timeframe,i wonder if it will need a fresh Integration process ?.

  5. I still think UK F-35B will need some sort of heavy stand off weapon. Perhaps Spice 1000 if it fits in the bay?
    What happened to the uprated engine proposals? They were timed to coincide with block 4 software, had the go ahead been given.
    Then there is the need for extra range. V-22 AAR is one option. Israeli stealth drop tanks is another, or perhaps conformal saddle tanks.
    A few gun pods for CAP would be wise.

    • This was interesting considering we are talking 2027 before Meteor will be available to fit inside the F35B, something I’ve mentioned before over many years on UKDJ as some of you may recall.

      Hence the reason for 6th Gen no doubt and longer-range standoff missiles.

      “While the U.S. military designed the F-35 to rely heavily on its stealth capabilities for survivability, Israel’s military has indicated that it places little faith in these systems in the face of ever-advancing anti-aircraft technologies fielded against it.

      Israel, as a result, insisted that its Air Force be allowed to modify its F-35A fighters with indigenous electronic warfare systems to enhance its survivability and complement its stealth capabilities and though this request was initially refused the U.S. eventually acquiesced to the request of its ally.

      While Israel was not confident in the F-35’s performance, the country based its own variant, the F-35I, on the original F-35A and added its own sensors, countermeasures, and other electronic warfare systems alongside a ‘plug-and-play’ feature to allow additional Israeli electronics to be installed later on.

      The Israeli Air Force is set to add external jamming pods, and new Israeli made short-range air to air missiles and guided bombs to further customise the fighter. Israel is the only state which has developed a domestic variant of the F-35 in this way.”

      https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/why-america-s-f-35-stealth-fighter-isn-t-good-enough-for-israel

      • Six years from now they might be able to track and lock on to low observable objects?

        “KUBINKA, Russia — Russian-made radar Rezonans-NE, which Iran purchased to identify and track stealth aircraft and hypersonic targets, successfully spotted and tracked US F-35 fighters near the country’s borders during an aggravation of tensions at the beginning of 2020 following the death of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the deputy CEO of the research center Rezonans Alexander Stuchilin told TASS on Monday.”

        https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/212984/iran-tracked-f_35s-with-russian_made-radar%3A-tass.html

        • Its all range dependent. You can lock up a regular aircraft at say 100miles…a stealth one at only 30miles then the stealth one has the advantage. It can fly around known threats as it knows what the detection thresholds are and avoid radar hot areas.

          Stealthy is not invisible. A number of UK Search and Tracker Radars on RN vessels have successfully tracked and locked up Stealth aircraft. The pilots really don’t like it and scream blue murder on the radio but the lock ups where at ranges less than you would expect for normal aircraft. That’s what sometimes happens if a stealth aircraft is flying in a no flyzone or a high threat area and gets its detection threshold wrong…RWR screaming and a rude wake up!

          • Absolutely Gunbuster, the F35 really excels as it possesses advanced passive EW equipment, enabling it to pick it’s route around radar systems of all types and stay outside of the 30 mile bubble

        • Apart from the obvious advantage of a longer range and hight advantage than what we have currently have with either the F35B or Typhoon, the next-generation fighter bomber (Tempest) will include technologies like this to warn of radar threats at greater range and hopefully the weapons to defeat them at a greater distance.

          “In a laboratory demonstration for the UK Ministry of Defence and other Team Tempest partners, the new sensor demonstrated a direction-finding performance of four times what is possible with a typical radar warning receiver while being just 1/10th the size of a standard system.

          Leonardo UK is one of the four founding members of Team Tempest, which was brought together by the UK MOD to develop a next-generation combat air system for the UK and partner nations: since the team was contracted to begin development work in 2018, Italy and Sweden have announced their intent to work with the UK on this project.”

          https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-tempest-jet-project-moves-forward-as-leonardo-unveils-new-radar-sensing-technology/

          • A decent-sized internal weapons bay will also be an advantage.

            “Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK, said: “We are utilising our unique role in this collaboration to ensure that a future fighter is able to fully utilise existing weapons and planned weapons, whilst supporting a full range of system-design studies assessing the space between the future fighter platform and the weapons of the future.”

            https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25435/MBDA_Reveals_Innovative_Weapons_for_Tempest_Stealth_Fighter_at_DSEI_2019#.X1yTrWhKjQA

          • I read somewhere that the Tempest is quite a large aircraft which would also help considerably with weapons carriage.

            Makes sense to have the main European guide weapons designer and manufacture on board.

            I am impressed with the way this programme is progressing at the moment. I can see that even if Tempest falls foul of government cuts some of the technology already being developed could possible be brough forward on F35 or Typhoon. I hope that given international agreements that cutting this programme is most unlikely, although given recent annoucements by the UK government one as to wonder..!

          • Yes, Tempest will be bigger than Typhoon, best guess based on the mock-up is between F22 and YF23 size. The RAF always wanted a larger aircraft than Typhoon. Typhoon’s size was a compromise, as Germany wanted a smaller aircraft that was more in keeping with their perceived threats, i.e. QRA interceptor and local ground attack. The UK wanted something that could patrol the GIUK gap with less aerial refuelling. Further, to maintain a low RCS, an internal weapons bays will be a must. Therefore, the aircraft will need to be larger to accommodate them plus the required fuel storage.

            I’m not sure how this fits in with the Swedes modus operandi? As they have historically gone for smaller lighter aircraft, as their focus is on QRA and local ground attack, due to the proximity of certain borders. Plus their regular use of the road network required an aircraft with decent short take-off and landing, hence the use of a close coupled-delta wing.

            Perhaps their will be a family of aircraft, i.e. a heavy weight and a lighter fighter, but based on similar aerodynamics and avionics that covers both countries requirements?

          • I think it needs to be most countries will have invested in F35.
            If it can aim at around the F15E/C+ market hopefully it will beat the yanks there and we can actually get some export sales as well. Plus with Russia/China the threats deep strike is really a must.

          • The J20 is heading in the right direction, something we should consider when entering the South China Sea!

            The F35 was designed to fill a capability gap in order to keep the UK and like-minded friendly Countries ahead of the pack.

            Being late to the game only allows your potential enemies to play catch up and the F35 is already 12 years late to the game and counting, hence the reason for upgrading 4th gen aircraft and the rush to develop an air superiority fighter/Bomber to defeat current and future threats.

            https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24841/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-stuns-by-brandishing-full-load-of-missiles-at-zhuhai-air-show

        • All F35s are flying with Luneberg lenses fitted, even on operations over Iraq/Syria. The lenses are high gain reflectors used to mask the actual aircraft’s RCS. So what if other countries are detecting F35s? I’d be worried if they didn’t, when the aircraft are fitted with the lenses. The lenses can be tuned to give a greater reflection in certain directions to further throw off the aircraft’s true RCS. The lenses will come off in a true war scenario.

          • Read that some time back, very interesting. Also interesting to note the use of AESA radars on Chinese missiles and data links.

            “First off, if a Raptor is carrying external fuel tanks—as it often does during “ferry missions”—it is not in a stealth configuration. Moreover, the aircraft is often fitted with a Luneburg lens device on its ventral side during peacetime operations that enhances its cross-section on radar.

            That being said, even combat-configured F-22s are not invisible to enemy radar, contrary to popular belief. Neither is any other tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft with empennage surfaces such as tailfins—the F-35, PAK-FA, J-20 or J-31. That’s just basic physics.”

            Moreover, AESA radars can generate multiple beams and can shape those beams for width, sweep rate and other characteristics. Indeed, some industry experts suggested that a combination of high-speed data-links and low-frequency phased-array radars could generate a weapons quality track.

            Russia, China and others are developing advanced UHF and VHF band early warning radars that use even longer wavelengths in an effort to cue their other sensors and give their fighters some idea of where an adversary stealth aircraft might be coming from. But the problem with VHF and UHF band radars is that with long wavelengths come large radar resolution cells.

            That means that contacts are not tracked with the required level of fidelity to guide a weapon onto a target. As one U.S. Navy officer rhetorically asked, “Does the mission require a cloaking device or is it OK if the threat sees it but can’t do anything about it?”

            Hence the reason for me asking the question, how much more advanced will Russia and China’s Radar detection systems become over the next decade?

            https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/can-china-track-and-shoot-down-f-22-65166

          • “ Indeed, some industry experts suggested that a combination of high-speed data-links and low-frequency phased-array radars could generate a weapons quality track.”

            Careful every time I say that you can create a large synthetic LF array on this forum I get shot down!!

            It is the sort of thing that once would have been very very hard now is just moderately difficult. Let’s put it this way when it was tested in the 80’s it was done using LoS laser interferometry. It didn’t really work well because that doesn’t give you all three axes only two.

            Let’s put it another way if it is possible, which it is, to combine the radar pictures of a large number of vessels at high frequency in real time you can certainly do it at low frequency which is easier as the phase alignment is less demanding.

          • Passive coherent and incoherent radar along with active radar will always have a part to play in searching for and detecting air/sea and land based targets. Its a question of physics and the attributes on how these systems operate. The bistatic radar (Chain Home) has been around since the beginning of radar and is the forefather of passive coherent radar. It used a common transmitter with a number of receivers placed in nearby locations. Passive coherent radar is an evolution of this. Instead of just using one transmitter it uses a number and also many more receivers. This means there’s a greater chance of receiving a reflection from a RF stealthy object.

            There are a number of key issues that need to be in place before this system works, the major one is timing. All the transmitters and receivers need to be working from the same time stamp. Today, that’s not such an issue as we can use the timing signals from GPS as the reference time. As with the original bistatic radar “Chain Home” you can allocate segments of the antenna to different frequencies that transmit at different angles. This will give you a very rough method of finding an objects height, but within a 20 degree fan. Unfortunately you will have a lot of ghosting as the target is illuminated by two beams simultaneously if its at the crossover height.

            As Hensoldt demonstrated, you don’t need a dedicated transmitter, you can use background RF, such as TV or radio signals and mobile phone mast transmissions. To make it work, you need to measure the normal background RF noise to generate a local “noise” map. From this if another object travels through the map it will cause a disruption to the normal noise pattern. From this you can interpolate the hole in the map as a tracked target. To get a better resolution you increase the number of receivers, which when networked together will dramatically increase the target’s bearing and distance resolution. However, it has one major flaw, i.e. height finding. Because you are relying on omni-directional broadcasts, there is no easy method of finding height. Part of the problem is that you don’t own the broadcast, so you cannot manipulate the transmissions.

            Passive radar is a good method of searching for aircraft over you own territory, it won’t work so well over the Ocean or an enemies territory. As the system uses background RF, it means a enemy aircraft etc, won’t know if they are being tracked.

            There is another method of detecting targets which combines some of the methods of passive radar with active radar, this is a network radar system. The USN will have a system that is close to this, through their cooperative engagement capability (CEC). However, from what little I know about it, it won’t be the full capability. CEC is where you link a fleets ship and aircraft radar pictures together to form a greater situational awareness picture. It does not put these data feeds through processing to develop a radar map of greater resolution. This would be the next evolutionary step. Especially as it would require significantly more bandwidth than the current Link-16 or stacked Link-16 could handle. Also each ship or aircraft would need significantly more processing power to deal with the additional data. However, by linking more data from different radar transmitters means there’s a much greater chance at detecting very stealthy targets due to triangulation through bistatic processes.

          • In 1944, the ministry were going to scrap Chain Home as it had be supplanted by newer radar. However, they found it was the only radar that could detect the V2. Ok, it could only give a warning, but it was better than nothing.

            During 1938/39 Germany actually detected Chain Home as it was interfering with some of their radio broadcasts. Luckily they didn’t figure out what it was until much later in the war.

            During the war the system went from 40 miles to just under 100 miles range. It could actually see a lot further (about 500 miles), but they didn’t have the processing or filters to eliminate the noise. Without realising it, Chain Home was the first radar that could see over the horizon.

          • The one thing that is obviously wrong in that article is the “low frequency” truck mounted array. Honesty it isn’t big enough to do what they say it does. That I am afraid is the ‘just physics’ colliding with a good story.

            The quantum entanglement thing I would bracket in with and slightly less plausible, than the full GWizz hypersonics that’s the Russian ‘have’.

            This is proper weapons to the press release stuff. Great ideas but pretty detached from where physics research has got to. If you want a sense of how realistic this is talk to the guys at CERN – I ran it past one of the Prof I know there just now and I got a full on belly laught that this could be done from a satellite. So I won’t lose a lot of sleep over it.

          • Totally agree with that.

            It was CEC that I was referring to. Thanks for making that clearer.

            The one thing I don’t totally agree with in your post is that I don’t really think processing power is that big an issue now with the ubiquity of high power graphics cards – it is not like the old days when we were using array processors for the FFT’s! Getting a rack of slim line Xeon servers on the case wouldn’t even cost that much.

          • I agree it’s not just the cost, it’s the space. If we are talking about giving an aircraft a network radar ability. It can be done, but only by using a large aircraft such as a E7 Wedgetail, for example. Something like a Typhoon would not have the spare space for an additional set of mini servers. It can just about squeeze in the processing for the Captor as it is. I believe it will be ground based radar followed by ships, that will develop the network radar capability first due to the available space.

            For today’s radar, it’s processing and filtering that are the main bottlenecks with advancing the system. This is because of the amount of raw data that is now available. A good example is how Butterworth band pass filtering has become more practical due to better materials and manufacturing. The big breakthrough was using Galium Arsenide (GaAs) as transistors, as it generates a lot less noise than silicon based ones. Again this has further advanced with the advent of Gallium Nitride (GaN) as the transistor base. As it is an order of magnitude less noisy than GaAs transistors. This means the number of filter stages can be increased, thus making the receiver more sensitive as you can better distinguish between background noise and the signal you are looking for. In some respects this is why the signal processing software has become so expensive and complicated. It’s because of the amount of data that can now be interrogated compared to 10 years ago.

            For a modern AESA radar like the Captor 2 significant thought has gone into removing these bottlenecks. It’s reported that the new radar is heavier than the previous version. I think some of this is probably down to the additional cooling the processors now need.

          • I was more talking about using F35 or Wedgetail as the sensor and then processing aboard the wedgetail.

            Or alternatively using the radars on ships and radar heads.

            I take your point on the Capacity of the data links but if the data was preprocessed and cleaned at source and then only the limited valuable data was transmitted to form the picture. Ideally you would send all the raw data the the central area and process it there as there are a few things that can be done with the full data set that you cannot do with a reduced data set. The key thing is how to make the thing manageable.

            But in my quick and dirty way of doing this then the picture would be reprocessed from the reduced data sets at the final host to utilize all the inputs.

            Reducing the size of data sets is pretty common in a lot of science to make the data sets manageable. You wouldn’t normally keep every single bit of raw data as it soon gets out of control. Radio astronomy would give a few pointers.

            I don’t think it is impossible and in any case you would test it out to proof of concept on the ground with fibre optic links before worrying too much about how to squish the data sets / rates.

          • Even if that were half way true, which it isn’t, why are the Russians and Chinese spending so much time and money trying to build stealthy aircraft?

            You know every time you knock the F-35, you’re also knocking Tempest because they are both being built and designed with the same aim: low observability.

            So to say F-35 is baaad and Tempest is good is just plain dumb.

          • Who is knocking what?

            F35B is a massive +++ for RN.

            I’m on the whole very positive about it.

            Perfect it isn’t: nothing is.

            Technology moves…..

          • The one that proves you wrong every time you choose to comment Ron5 with facts rather than fiction.

            At least do some research on a subject before posting, It will in part go some way to stop you looking a fool which you are renowned for on here by the way!

          • Incorrect, what any intelligent person developing the successor to a 5th gen aircraft will be looking at is the potential shortfalls in their design characteristics and improving on it.

            Look at the differences between the Nighthawk, B2 and the new B21 Raider as prime examples of this.

            Magma. Note the part which says, “more observable on radar”

            “MAGMA, designed and developed by researchers at The University of Manchester in collaboration with engineers from BAE Systems, successfully trialled the two ‘flap-free’ technologies earlier this month at the Llanbedr Airfield.

            The technologies have been designed to improve the control and performance of aircraft. By replacing moving surfaces with a simpler ‘blown air’ solution, the trials have paved the way for engineers to create better-performing aircraft that are lighter, more reliable and cheaper to operate.

            The technologies could also improve an aircraft’s stealth as they reduce the number of gaps and edges that currently make aircraft more observable on radar.”

            There will be other elements built into Tempests design apart from just its shape.

            Smart skins improved radar-absorbent paint and a host of other new technologies under development including advanced electronic countermeasures.

            “In a laboratory demonstration for the UK Ministry of Defence and other Team Tempest partners, the new sensor demonstrated a direction-finding performance of four times what is possible with a typical radar warning receiver while being just 1/10th the size of a standard system.”

            “Researchers at BAE System’s Advanced Technology Centre are currently investigating the advanced concept, which embeds tens of thousands of micro-sensors directly into the aircraft skin.

            The smart skin will allow the aircraft to ‘feel’ wind speed and temperature as well as physical strain on the aircraft.

            According to the company, the technology allows aircraft to monitor their health and report back any potential problems before they become significant. As a result, it would reduce the need for regular check-ups on the ground and parts could be replaced in a timely manner which would improve safety overall.

            The tiny sensors are called ‘motes’ and can be as small as grains of rice or even dust particles at less than a millimetre across.

            The sensors have their own power source and would be paired with software that allows them to communicate among themselves, similar to how human skin sends signals to the brain.”

        • I’ll guarantee the F35’s flown anywhere near Iranian (or anywhere else) radar range will have the radar signature boosters (?something? lens) fitted.

          They are always fitted, unless they are on combat missions.

  6. Elon Musk started SpaceX because he believed that the government standard of increased complexity breeds quality and safety was wrong and that simplicity would increase quality and safety while reducing costs.

    He was correct and I bet the same is true for stuff like this. Simplicity will maintain quality, reliability and reduce cost.

    I bet I could do it, I know I could write a proper standard for this stuff to talk to each other.

    • I agree with that generally, although somethings are inevitably more complicated because the problem you are dealing with throws up some every complicated issues.

      There was a trend to integrate everything to squeeze out every last little bit of capability on the Typhoon. From what I have heard there is a general desire to do it more simply going forward as a result of lessons learnt on Typhoon.

      Problem is those lessons have to be remembered at an institutional level and the MoD / military customers have a very short memory because individuals only stay in post for 2 or 3 years generally… nuts if you ask me. If the military want to play a leading hands on role in the development of their equipment capabilities (entirely understandable) they need to recognise that they need to develop the skills, knowledge and experience to make sensible decissions and stop assuming that requirement or specification changes have no impact. Thery do. That means they need to develop a professional design engineer capability as a suitable and robust interface between end users who always want the latest tech yesterday and the system developers and builders who struggle to keep up with the constantly and sometimes contradictory requirement they are faced with.

      Building big is a good place to start for future proofing a platform which seems to be the way Tempest is going, thankfully.

      Sorry bit of a rant there..! 🙂

      Cheers CR

      • No mate, you are quite correct. This is perhaps one of the biggest issues within DE&S. The military, I’ll say officers and not noncoms, have a career progression path, which means they they used to move around every 18 to 24 months, which must include a number of staff tours, befoie they can go back to front line units. This was ok-ish during the Cold War when we had the numbers, but today it just causes multiple issues due to the lack of continuity and the next person in post looking to make their mark. Today, the tour length is now 3 years, but those in post only have a general understanding of systems and not an in-depth knowledge, which is where the noncoms come in. However, their advice only goes so far, especially if it contradicts a new decision or direction. Perhaps the military need to look at better training for those posts, especially as they make some major decisions that last well in to the future.

      • “Problem is those lessons have to be remembered at an institutional level and the MoD / military customers have a very short memory because individuals only stay in post for 2 or 3 years generally”

        Is this also a problem at the supplier side, e.g. MBDA? I’m a computer software guy but I remember early on in my career, in the 1980s, new university graduates were fodder for the big software consultancy companies to put onto defence projects. I worked a few defence projects during the early/mid 1980s and I certainly changed company about every 2 years mostly in search of pay rises. I’m wondering whether that same dynamic still exists and/or if it ever existed on the hardware side of things.

        As an aside this just reminded me of a weird but true event that happened in May 1982 at the company I was working for at the time. Someone from one of our software support teams wandered into our open plan office one lunch time with a bemused look on his face and said to our manager – “I’ve just had a support call from one of our customers who want some help with their software setup and I’m not sure how to respond. It’s the Argentinian Navy!”. This was right in the middle of the Falklands War and the Argentinian Navy had actually called us in the UK to ask for software support! We ended up ignoring the support request completely although in the more sophisticated computer environment we are in today I wonder if we might have delivered some sort of malicious patch.

        • Hi Julian,

          I like the story about the Argentinian Navy phone call 🙂 – guess given the investment in Cyber Warfare we’d take the opportunity to pull a nasty on an enemy.

          I worked with MBDA about 10 years ago and there was a hard core of long term emplyees in key decision making positions. I know that there is a cardre of contractors who move from contract to contract worked with many of them in the past and very good they are too. You are to right to suggest that there is a risk the to constant churn of staff could undermine good decision making, but I think the issue not as serious for industry as it is for the MoD. At least the engineering contractors have done a relevant engineering degree – not always the case for decison makers on the military / MoD side of the relationship, certainly not these days.

  9. Meanwhile the UK F-35B’s have two excellent air to air missiles to use. The impression the article leaves is that the aircraft will be defenseless. Far from it.

    • At least some possible good news for the A & C come 2026/7

      “One of the F-35’s shortcomings is the relatively low number of air-to-air missiles it can carry internally. The F-35 can carry just four AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range radar-guided missiles, two per bay. That’s a step backwards from older combat aircraft that could carry up to eight air-to-air missiles on a combat mission. (The F-35 can carry weapons externally—the recent airstrike by U.S. Air Force F-35s in northeastern Iraq saw the planes involved carrying AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles on their wingtips, but in this particular instance F-35s didn’t have to worry about being detected by radar.)

      According to Seapower Magazine, Lockheed Martin has developed a new weapons rack, Sidekick, that can cram a third AMRAAM missile into each of the F-35’s weapons bays. An F-35 equipped with Sidekick can thus carry a total of six AMRAAMs. Sidekick can fit in the Air Force’s F-35A and Navy F-35C, but the Marines’ vertical takeoff and landing variant, the F-35B has slightly smaller bays that can’t accommodate the new system.

      Sidekick was developed internally within Lockheed Martin on the company dime. However, it is not yet scheduled to go onto production aircraft. As Aviation Week & Space Technology points out, a modernization update called Block 4 is currently being hammered out to apply to F-35 jets, and Sidekick could make it into the aircraft then.”

      • As for the latest confirmed orders of 4.5 Gen F15EX, I wonder if these will help in filling the current capability gap until the next generation of 6th gen aircraft arrives?

        I wonder why they have chosen these over the F35?

        “Boeing is quietly proposing a new version of the world-famous F-15 Eagle that combines an updated airframe with an unprecedented number of anti-air missiles. The F-15X would carry more than two dozen air-to-air missiles, more three times more than most fighter jets. According to DefenseOne, the Air Force is considering the proposal.”

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22355833/boeing-new-f-15x/

        • There were two main factors of the F15X decision, cost and politics. The USAF had done an investigation on the costs to start up the F22 line again. They were astronomical, although they never stated why? Boeing have lost a significant number of the latest fighter programs and were suffering financially due to the KC46 program and you could add the 737 issue. Boeing were in need of help! The USAF were also getting close to being desperate as the F15C/Ds were ageing fast and needed replacing. The future air dominance fighter that will replace the F22 is at least 10 years away. Therefore, Boeing started lobbying the F15X as a replacement for the C and Ds as there was a need to fill the requirement. It’s basically a Qatari F15 which incorporates fuselage strengthening along with the F15E’s wing, plus up to date avionics. As it uses the E wing it can take a substantial amount of payload, which is shown in the doubling up of the air to air weapons it can carry.

          In some respects it is a good option, but is really a sticking plaster for the USAF’s needs. The aircraft is still basically an upgraded 3/4 gen fighter. The aircraft the USAF are getting won’t have any of the Silent Eagle RCS reduction features, so it will always play second fiddle to the F22 and F35. But as a bomb truck for either, it will have a very important role to play. However, against other 3/4 gen fighters the F15 is still the top dog in mission flexibility and capability.

  10. Five years development. Don’t suppose any of the “developers” have read a history book lately? The Second World War lasted five years. In that time military development moved from biplanes to jets, Mark One Eyeball to Radar and Bombs from TNT to Nuclear. Just saying because if any rogue state decided to attack us at any time it’ll be no good asking for them to wait while the “development” is conducted.

    • Everyone knows that mainland UK has zero chance of being attacked in the medium term and that is why defense procurement can take ages, the threat is just not there thankfully.

      Even if Russia decided to get aggressive, it would not attack the UK directly, it would focus on eastern Europe. Which yes we need to support our allies, but having no direct threat means it is of zero interest to the general public and we live in an era where there are many many things that a in visuable need for cash from the NHS to poverty in our own country.

      I think we all agree that defense is important, but we are in the minority. Although saying that i think the general public probably does also, it just rates it lower than other public sector expenditure and as with everything way lower than accepting increased taxes to pay for it.

      • I agree: the Russian navy/air force does not have the mass Or the edge to attack NATO head on…….

        That being said a strong defensive posture is pretty important and it halts the maybe-could-get-away-with-that calculus of blaming rogue elements…….and that is the strange place that the world is in right now with little green men and asymmetric being the buzzwords.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here