F135 engine upgrade receives £62m funding boost

It is the murderous fascist regime the illegally invaded Ukraine…

Not the democratically elected president who fabricated a reason to invade Iraq simply because its leader had once plotted to have his father, a previous president, assassinated.
Nor is it the democratically elected Prime Minister who along with his spin-doctor, fabricated evidence to support the Iraq invasion in the naive believe that a western liberal democracy could be parachuted into a middle-eastern country and resolve all religion inspired terrorism.

It should be noted the later two no-longer hold office – that’s democracy for you. Unlike the president for life you invaded Ukraine.

Don’t forget drop tanks are coming

Why was Storm Shaddow dropped? I thought UK F35 would carry it. Considering the capabilities of it I would have thought it would be a vital tool for CSG land attack….

Also will UK F35s be given NSM?

Dropped almost 10 years ago, along with Brimstone and Asraam internal carry.
Brimstone obviously dropped as Spear was on the way…
Asraam internal as it made no sense…
Storm Shadow as it looked like it would be years away (correct) and the SS OSD would only be a few years later, so not worth bothering with. FCASW should get integrated though….
JSM (not NSM) is getting integrated, probably available from 2026. But there are no plans or current requirement for a buy.

Personally I think we should buy around 50 of them as an interim purchase before FCASW arrives. Some JDAM 1,000lbers would also make sense as Paveway IV is only 500lb’s and about 3 times as expensive…no need for an SDB1 buy as MRUSW might be on the way.

Thanks for the update. Any idea when Meteor is going to be intigrated.

Ben Wallace claimed in November to the Defence Select Committee that “… [Meteor integration] was due in 2027 originally … I think I managed to get it brought forward by the programme committee to 2025.”

I thought this was the latest estimate. However reading the transcript there’s a footnote that rolls it all back and then some!

Note from the MOD: SofS took action to restore the IOC for Meteor to the original schedule of 2025, following a potential delay to the end of the decade. However, subsequent options have since delayed IOC until 2028 to align with Block 4 modifications.

Sorry, MRUSW? 🤔 (Have been gone awhile.). Suspect it is a new, lightweight and/or compact munition?

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/uk-researches-new-affordable-precision-munition-with-ukraine-in-mind/

If you look at the detail (8 weapons internally on F-35), and previous announcements about Spear ‘spiral developments’ it can only be 1 thing…a Spear derivative, a ‘SpearSimple’.

There are 3 Spear derivatives currently on the way…

• Spear – >120nm range mini cruise missile
• Spear-EW – c300nm range EW decoy/jammer (MALD-J equivalent). Spear without a warhead with Britecloud jammer tech in its place
• SpearGlide – 70nm range glide weapon. Essentially Spear without the engine, but with a 2x larger warhead. A direct competitor to SDB2 Stormbreaker

These are all well and good…but they’re by no means cheap. MRUSW is to provide the ‘cheap’ end of the spectrum. For it to be easily integrated it will be the exact same shape as all the Spear variants with a large warhead, probably the warhead from SpearGlide with a penetrating shroud. And cheaper guidance. Which means it will be GPS/INS with the modularity to accept an additional SAL seeker head.

Basically it is going to be a UK Small Diameter Bomb 1 (GBU-39) competitor.

Very sensible stuff. Maintains the UK’s desire to be ITAR free in air weapons, adds a cheap munition with stand off range, easily integrates to F-35 and Typhoon. Also makes Spear a very compelling suite of weapons for export sales…if you integrate 1 you can get all 4 from high end to low, with an EW capability to boot…

I don’t think this will be the end of the story for Spear either…there are a couple of other variants that could be built using the shape as well (e.g. EO/IR equipped recon drone, propellor driven Loitering Munition and ground launched Spear).

Very interesting potential development. It is apparent the guided munitions market will become more competitive; may the best weapons win (more export sales 😁).

Appreciate the explanation 😊

hi Rudeboy a lot of potential with spear family and as you say once one integrated you have the rest. had not thought of a recon drone or propeller loitering.

A land-launched anti-radiation loitering munition variant of Spear would make sense imo.

Absolutely agree, leveraging some other country’s integration of JSM on F-35B would be an apparent no-brainer. A token financial contribution to the effort would probably not go amiss in reducing any potential ill will re perceived freeloading. 🤔

To be honest given the UK is pretty much paying for Meteor integration on its own (with a tiny contribution from Italy) and other nations like Japan and South Korea will benefit I suspect they’ll be quite happy for Norway, Japan and Australia (and the US due to Raytheon’s involvement) to fund JSM integration on their own. There aren’t any UK components in it (AFAIK) so no industrial benefit for the UK.

The surprising thing is no-one has jumped at the opportunity to integrate a small internally carried (but much larger than Spear) cruise missile now that Turkey’s SOM-J has dropped out of contention…

Why carry a long range missile internally?

The F-35 whilst being Low Observable is not invisible. There is still a requirement to kill high value targets at long range (an S-400 battery for example). Those targets could be deep within enemy territory so having a weapon that keeps you as stealthy as possible up to launch so you can make a speedy exit…

I would have thought a little bit of route planning would overcome the problem of staying unobserved from hundreds of miles away. Stealth or no stealth. But I bow to your wisdom.

Thanks, appreciate the response. 😊

Interesting point re pace of external missle integration. Attempting to discern rationale; funding constraints and SPO preoccupation w/ near term issues both seem to be feasible explanations. Being in the swamp w/ many hungry alligators snapping is not the most pleasant experience.

This is a UK based website, w/ a similar target demographic. As a general rule, the regular posters do not respond well to ad hominem attacks. As a special favor, could we refrain from reinforcing the stereotype of the Ugly Americans? Thanks, much appreciated. 😊

Generally the us population is no more or less ugly than any other….if your going to generalises I would say more overweight than the UK population but with better teeth…so sort of balances….😂😂😂😂

😁

Yaaaawn, here he goes again, dripping, and also dripping chip fat down his weak shoulder.

Where did that “dripping chip fat down his body” comment come from, this is not that sort of web page 😂😂🤣🤣

Take a fw minutes our, read his previous nasty and continuous garbage then come back! I respond in kind as one, it annoys him, and two, it annoys him.

Ah Jonathon, my error, you were taking the piss, sorry mate, it’s 05:20 and only had one coffee….😂👍! Prefer coconut oil but that’s another story for another website….😂😂

Now coconut oil I can go with 😂😂

That’s Potentially true between the 40’s and the 80’s but it’s not been true for a long time. Even with its greatly reduced defence capability Europe still retains a significant territorial defence capability, sure its power projection is weak but it’s easily able to defend itself against Russia its only conceivable threat.

It’s the adage that is constantly used in US politics primarily pushed by special interests that America has to spend money to keep Europe safe.

The US continues to spend way above a level required given the true threat environment especially to its self which is close to zero and it continues to spend at a level it’s people clearly cannot afford.

Failing infrastructure and its homelessness/mental health crisis are just two examples that no other industrialised nation would accept and diverting 1.5% of GDP away from defence towards those issues would go along way to solve many problems over time.

Countries like Taiwan that are genuinely under threat spend close to zero on defence which gives a really good indication of how interested their people are in fighting. I don’t see any reason why the US thinks it’s some how obliged to run to their aid.

I don’t see any reason why the US thinks it’s some how obliged to run to their aid

Jesus wept

Wow that’s a great argument, well done

Hmmm…really try very hard not to rise to the bait…but since this is such a broad indictment of US, compelled to make at least an attempt:

Believe Europe, as a whole, if united and well led, has the capacity to resist and probably defeat, Russian conventional aggression. On the nuclear plane, it is an entirely different matter. The only two relevant countries in Europe, the UK and France, are both suseptable to being overwhelmed by single point failures (Single SSBNs on patrol, successfully targeted; yes, France has a residual aircraft delivered capability, but airbase(s) would be targeted.) Many may claim it is not a relevant argument but should ask the opinions of the inhabitants of the frontline Eastern European states, especially when Putin issues coercive nuclear threats. It is an expensive proposition to maintain a nuclear triad, which assures resilient second strike capability. The US is investing over one trillion dollars in updating the umbrella under which all will expect to shelter. Remember, this is in addition to funds required to maintain conventional forces. Know of any other country(ies) willing and able to invest on that scale? If so, please have them step forward. This assessment does not even take into account the threat the PRC will pose during future decades; in comparison the Russians are in the bantam weight class. The Chinese are on a path to quadruple their nuclear warhead count by 2035; let alone the expansion of PLA, PLAAF and PLAN conventional forces. Don’t believe slimeball ChiComs have a plan for the rest of us? Consult every other country bordering SCS and as far away as Australia.

On other topics, the US is investing an additional trillion dollars in infrastructure over next ten years. Will it resolve issue completely? No, but it represents a substantial down payment.

There is ample reason to believe the US will adopt socialized medicine within the foreseeable future, for good and/or ill. Will this prove to be a panacea? Will all social ills magically resolve? Time will tell, stay tuned.

In summary, the US is admittedly far from perfect, but it is the only dominant power currently available to protect the West. We will attempt, as you Brits say, ‘to muddle through.’

Excellent post. Jim occasionally makes some good points in his post but those points are often times overshadowed by his virulent anti Americanism.

Thanks, understand. 👍

Not trying to bait you just getting pissed off by “Team America” (Not you but other commentators) telling me how shit the UK is at defence all the time.

For a nation as rich as the USA your HDI figures are severely lacking and I think anyone can attest to how much pressure there is on US infrastructure as well as mental health provision.

Every country gets to make its own decisions and I’m fine with the UK spending 2.2% of its economic product on military defence because that’s more than enough to guarantee our own security and make a meaningful contribution to global security.

If the US wants to spend 3 or 4% then that’s fine but people need to stop pretending that if not for America over spending then everyone in Europe would be speaking German or Russian or Chinese.

It’s also fairly clear given the USA’s whopping debt to GDP level which is now surpassing Italy that the country can’t afford to sustain the military spending is has been since 2001.

Even if the USA cut back its defence spending to 2% of GDP inline with NATO minimums NATO and the West would still have a massive military and industrial lead over anyone one else.

Rather than embark on a point by point rebuttal/refutation, perhaps it would be simpler and less distracting for other site participants, who wish to discuss F135 engine upgrades, if we simply agree to disagree re the future threat assessment by an apparent order of magnitude?

Counter history is always a bit thumb in the air but I think it’s fair to say that without the US and UK ( to a lesser extent from the 50s onward, but still a key part) mainland Europe would without doubt be part either a German led fascist empire or Russian led communist empire, with the UK having the lovely experience of being neighbours with a totalitarian super power and probably at constant threat of war.

What most people do forget is that both the US and UK could have simply left Germany and Russia to fight it out.

If the UK had not made a decision to fight two wars in Europe its very likely that its would empire still exist and the US could have stayed out of a European war even after Pearl harbour. Personally I like where we are now, but both the UK and US have paid a big price for that, and could have potential left mainland Europe to its fate.

Have absolutely no hard data on which to base the following assessment, but believe the following may indeed be the case: The US foreign policy establishment probably believed it had achieved relative balance in the European theater when the UK was safely ensconced w/in both NATO and the EU as a necessary counterweight to French, German and Russian plans, plots, intrigues and cabals. Unfortunately, our duly deputized emissary relatively recently decided to cash in their collective economic chips and leave the poker game w/out adult supervision. Predictably, the other players have begun to brawl, and several are reaching for hidden weapons…🤔😳☹️

Most people don’t really appreciate how England ( as this is very much an English cultural imperative) has shaped European imperial and great powers. It’s literally been the knife in the back of every European power since the formation of an “english” state at the beginning of the Tudor dynasty.

“In summary, the US is admittedly far from perfect, but it is the only dominant power currently available to protect the West. We will attempt, as you Brits say, ‘to muddle through.’”

And thank christ for that…

“The only two relevant countries in Europe, the UK and France, are both suseptable to being overwhelmed by single point failures (Single SSBNs on patrol, successfully targeted; yes, France has a residual aircraft delivered capability, but airbase(s) would be targeted.)”

These days I look at the collective ‘West’s’ SSBN’s as almost one entity. Even for the USN the days of ’41 for Freedom’ SSBN’s are long gone. With the USN getting 12 Columbia Class, to replace the 14 (originally 18) Ohio Class subs, you can probably guarantee there will be 3-4 at patrol stations at any one time, with 3 the more likely. When you add in the UK’s 4 Vanguards (soon Dreadnought’s) and 4 French Triomphant (and later SNLE 3G Class) both with 1 sub at sea on patrol at all times you can see that the UK and France are shouldering c40% of the burden for SSBN’s. Granted it doesn’t map over perfectly as the US subs carry a few more missiles, and there might be a 4th US SSBN on patrol…and the US ICBM and nuclear bomber capability. But SSBN’s are the real nuclear deterrent as you have no chance of getting a first strike against them…

I know the UK would likely launch with the US, not sure about the French though…

We read the tea leaves in exactly the same manner. However, depending upon manner in which geo-politics develops w/in next ten years, believe there may be a realistic possibility USAF resumes airborne nuclear alert posture w/ B-21s (ala Curtis LeMay’s SAC). That may give Mad Vlad’s successor and ChiComs cause to pause…

The size of the Columbia class fleet may be revisited in the future, depending upon Russian and especially. ChiCom behavior. START Treaty limits may be adjusted to account for the projected quadrupleing of ChiCom warhead inventory.

Pleased the blokes at the Admiralty started counting and quietly decided to increase your inventory.

BTW,Taiwan has just instituted universal male military conscription. They, at least, have begun to comprehend the magnitude of the coming threat.

“I don’t see any reason why the US thinks it’s some how obliged to run to their aid.”

For the same reason why I pay tax so that my fellow citizens get the healthcare they need or the help when unemployed. It’s called responsibility for our fellow man.

Also self interest. US historically needed stable democracies around it.
To be honest, more so now, with Chinese merchantile bullying.

It’s in the self-interest of any democracy to be surrounded by other democracies, as democracies don’t declare war on each other.

(With the exception that Stalin required Britain to declare war on Finland during WW2, though we never actually fought Finish forces.)

Yes, that amplified my point?

Not sure where you pay your taxes so hard to comment but Taiwan just crossed 2% of GDP on defence spending despite how much they “love freedom”

It’s a pretty good indication of how willing a country is to fight and defend itself. I don’t see why people in the USA should feel obliged to spend nearly 4% of GDP and put up with some pretty serious economic and social consequences of that higher spending to defend an island that’s spent most of the last two decades with some of the lowest military spending in the industrialised world.

You might not see why, but it’s pretty obvious to anyone who can foresee the consequences of allowing totalitarian regimes to conquer democracies: whether it’s Russia invading Ukraine, China invading Taiwan, Nazi Germany invading…
American has tried isolationism in the past, and this stance arguably contributed to the two bloodiest wars ever seen in human history.

I’m pretty sure the 3.3% of GDP the USA spends on defence is not solely focussed on defending Taiwan, so that argument is facile. The USA spends that much because it chooses to, as it helps maintain its influence as the sole superpower and it helps its industrial/technological base.

The USA’s atrocious social imbalance, resulting in levels of poverty we don’t see in the U.K., is a political choice. Unfortunately there is an extreme in American politics that sees any kind of social assistance for those who are struggling in life as being “communist”. While there is much to admire about the USA, it’s social provisions for healthcare and homelessness is a stain on its national character.

In fact if you’re being factually correct none of the western nations went to war with Nazi German because it invaded a democracy. In fact the UK and France specifically did not go to war with the third Reich after it invaded a democratic republic ( Czechoslovakia) and only when to war when it invaded a fellow totalitarian state (Poland). What is interesting is that Poland after 1918 had pretty much forced out the German population of land taken from Germany ( today we would have classes what Poland did in the corridor as ethic cleansing of the German population).

So in fact the Britain and France went to war on the back of an invasion of one pretty unpleasant state by an even more unpleasant state.

Well the U.K. didn’t go to war over Czechoslovakia simply through expediency, we weren’t ready. While Chamberlain may appear naive over Munich, the U.K. was rearming and defence spending radically increased in preparation for a war. That rearming wasn’t complete when Bohemia and Morovia were invaded, the act that convinced Chamberlain of the inevitability of war. Even after the declaration, this rearmament and preparation continued: the Phoney War period. So while the U.K. didn’t declare war over Czechoslovakia, HMG concluded it was inevitable which is why they offered the guarantee to Poland should there be an invasion.

As for the Second Republic of Poland. It was a parliamentary democracy, with a president as head of state, and elected by the General Assembly rather than popular vote. There had been a military coup in 1926, the leader of which deferred to the president and finally died in 1935, with parliamentary elections held in 1935 and 1938. While not meeting modern standards of being free and fair, they were not hugely different to many accepted votes of the period.
(As for nasty, yes there were anti-semites in the administration, as you’d find in most governments of the period.)

Open, legitimate question: When will Western politicians understand the concept that while history seldom repeats, it often rhymes? Before or after the missles start impacting civilian population centers?

Because people in general, not just politicians, only learn from generational history. Though history may be documented, analysed, etc, anything outside of a generation’s own experience is discounted as being of lessor importance/relevance/etc.

Also consider industry.
There are cycles where corporations adopt diversification, to expand into new industries so that they have income from other sectors in case the original business losses profitability.
Then they go through cycles where they refocus on the core business and core competencies, refocusing on the original business’ strengths and divesting of themselves of recent purchases.
The only constant, is the CEO who initiates the change of cycle, who is regarded as a visionary and remunerated as such.

Sorry, generally agree w/ your argument of recency/immediacy bias in human learning, but failed to comprehend industry example. Is it your contention that only CEOs have the wisdom/experience to make significant decisions for business in a parallel manner as politicians do for society? 🤔😳

The industry example is just an accelerated form of the same phenomenon it lasts less than a generation. With it being faster it’s possible some CEOs have the experience of having gone through it, but certainly not at their current company. So it’s usually the case the current CEO doesn’t see the need for change, is replaced, and the new CEO initiates the change. Sometimes just to justify their appointment. 🤷🏻‍♂️

OK, we are clearly OT and headed down the rabbit hole:

Read an account (possibly Churchill”s memoirs) that stated during one intermediate crisis c.1936-37 (pre-Czechoslovakia), the Admiralty issued a directive to mobilize the Home Fleet (and possibly others). The argument stated that if HMG had held firm, and not countermanded the directive, the German General Staff may have compelled Hitler to back down, thus delaying or forestalling WW II. The preponderance of forces evidently favored the British and French at that point in time.

As you have stated, counterfactuals are difficult to assess, but have you ever seen this argument heretofore? Remotely plausible? 🤔😳

Yes there is pretty good evidence that if the UK was going to war with Germany it should have done so in the mid late 30s. Essentially the waiting and making a mutual defence agreement with Poland was chaining itself to an ultra nationalist state ( Poland was not nice and to be honest was pretty horrible to all its minorities, German, Jew and Ukrainian), it then allowed a second ultra nationalist state to dictate to timeframe for war.

We did possibly end in a middling outcome, the Cold War and half of Europe ending under an evil empire and all that nasty (although we still don’t know how it will end as we are still in the middle of the fall out from it and it may still lead to the utter destruction of all and be the worst of outcomes).

Now this is my favourite bit making up shit…..

1) UK and France force the destruction of the third Reich in the 30s, allowing Eastern Europe the freedom to dictate its own path, that probably would have lead to gradually increased spread of western liberal democracy and a slower steady reduction in the British empire. Russia would have been left to stew in its own horror and most of the post imperial flash points would have not formed ( a slower retrenchment of the British empire would have made a more stable world).

2) UK and France Not guaranteeing Poland, but instead creating Western Europe defence alliance, making it clear it had no interest in Eastern Europe. This would have led to Russia and Germany tearing each other apart, Germany would have never really have had the ability to take and hold Russia and russia would never have been able to take apart the Third Reich on its own…not exactly moral, but this would have left the two terrors beating each other to exhaustion. No way to really know what sort of world this would have ended in….horrible in all likelihood.

I love counter history…it’s fun

Taiwan is a little complex in that its freedom has pretty much depended on an illusion that it’s not a separate state. Therefore its alway played a balance, as militarily it will never ever be able to defend itself against mainland China all it can do is play the illusion game and hope mainland China does not decide to finish off its 80 year old civil war. The rest of the world has always played to same game, no major power recognises Taiwan as a separate nation from china.

For if Taiwan simply states it was a separate nation, raised its armed forces greatly and got the UN/major powers to recognise it there would be war in the pacific before you could utter the words foreign policy fuck up.

The really big problem the west has around Taiwan was our stupid economic policy that allowed 60% of the worlds chip manufacturing to be build on an island that is legally part of China…that stupid move is probably going to force the west into a pacific war, if Taiwan pushes chinas buttons or if china decides it’s worth paying the cost to take that manufacturing…….

The question is which is the legitimate Chinese government, the one in Beijing or the one in Taipei. Until 1971, it was the one in Taipei that held the UN seat and was recognised as the legitimate government of China. It was only Tricky Dicky’s rapprochement to the CCP that saw this change. The West can happily say that it agrees with the CCP that there is ‘One China’ without naming which government it believes is legitimate rather than de facto.

While Taiwan is significantly smaller than the PRC, it could exact a sufficiently large price, that any invasion by the PRC could take decades to recover from. While it is more of a size mismatch than that between Ukraine and Russia, any invasion of Taiwan will be far more costly and difficult due to the required seaborne invasion.

Chip fabrication is dominated by Taiwan simply because they have become the best at it. TSMC was manufacturing wafers at 5nm when Intel was struggling to manufacture at 10nm. In 2023 they’ll jump ahead yet again with 3nm manufacturing.

The question of “ready” is a really interesting one and was in really potentially the biggest failure of foreign policy of all. In reality Germany at that period was not in any way ready to go to war with the western powers and if the UK and France had pushed Hitler would have almost undoubtedly capitulated and moved back from taking over Czechoslovak. it’s probably that which was one of those of crisis points that could have massively changed history.

As it was in fact the Czec arms industry that allowed Germany to have the mass within its armoured divisions to invade France.

As for Poland it was a very unpleasant nationalist government that was in no way close to acceptable standards for the time, it was petty nasty and It was quite happy to collude with the third Reich and had its own little land grap after the fall of Czechoslovak.

In reality the only reason it ended up on the wrong end of the third Reich was that in the end it refused to join the Comintern pact, as it did not want to cancel its non aggression pact with Russia. It was essentially little different in outlook from the national socialists of the Third Reich.

simply put after we had left Czechoslovakia ( the only decent democracy left in central/Eastern Europe) there was an argument for leaving the lot of them to it. As there was in reality nothing but pretty vile nationalist/socialist governments from Germany eastwards.

Unfortunately in the end we ended up handing most of Europe to one of those evils and left a scare that lasted most of the 20c and still reverberates in the 21st.

Churchill said it best:

“ From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.”

But counter history is just a great big what if session, fun though it is. Unfortunately we have the history we have and the world has been in a bit of a shitty place since the whopper that was WW1.

Unfortunately you can only answer the question of which is the legitimate government of China after their is a final Victor in their civil war. simply put the last 72 years have been nothing more than a pause in that conflict.

It’s best not to get involved in other peoples civil wars if you can avoid it. Taiwan many be very good at manufacturing chips, but it’s still a geopolitical gamble for the west to become dependent on a the manufacturing from what is still a disputed region in a civil war.

China is not going to give up and neither is ROC ,after all ROC has never given up their claim to mainland China and if they could in any way defend mainland China they probably would invade right back.

Unfortunately that argument about ‘civil war’ could be used/misapplied for:
• North & South Korea
• East & West Germany
• Ukraine & Russia

The reality is there’s never been ‘one China’, that was a story invented 70 odd years ago. Throughout the claimed 5,000 history of the country it was never politically United as a country. And that’s without considering PRC annexations such as Tibet, etc, etc.

Taiwan is world-leading in chip-fab. Unless you want state-directed industry, as under communism, then private industry will choose to use the best available.

Hi Sean it’s very different from the other examples:

North and South Korea are two distinct nations that were created in 1945. They then proced to go to war with each other as both effectively decided to claim the same real estate. But the Korean nation as was had been destroyed by the beginning of the 20c and had been effectively a failings state since the early 19c and north and South Korea were artificially created by the U.S. and USSR as the nation was formally defeated by the allies and considered a formal belligerent. So it was partitioned between the USSR and USA who then could not agree on the creation of a single nation so creates two nations…that went to war ( and then had an Armistice. So it was a war between nations, the geopolitical fault line which caused it has never been resolved.
East and West Germany. This was very much the same situation as with north and South Korea, the defeated nation was divided in two by the victors and two nations were created. In the end one of the belligerent governments fell to a popular revolt and the nations were re unified.

China is one nation with two warring governments. Both governments claim they are the government of China, neither will back away from this and both have been at war since 1927, neither side has ever shown any willingness to sign an even an armistice let alone a peace agreement. It is a civil war in all senses of the word.

As for for industry buying only from the best and anything else is communism, sorry but every nation be they capitalist or communist very much make choices on what they become depend on…using neoliberal “the market decided” Dogma is what has got Western Europe in deep shit with energy dependence from Russia. Nations make choices about which industries they will protect and which they will not these choices have consequences and we have allowed ourselves in Western Europe to become slaves to neoliberalism, even if it gives our potential enemies an advantage over us. The choice of dependence on manufacturing of chips in the ROC means that when China invades Taiwan the west will have to engage in a war with a peer nuclear power or be utterly dependent on China in the later half of the 21st. It was geopolitically a very stupid move driven by neo liberal dogma, which in its own way can be as damaging to a nation as communism dogma.

There is a simple truth here and it is “when” not “if” Main land China decides to end the civil war and remove the ROC government. Ask yourself why would they not ? as they see it as their country and the ROC as an opponent in a civil war that’s been going on for almost 100 years. When you look at the risks around engagement with Taiwan to try and pretend it’s not an ongoing civil war with all that means lulls you into a false sense of the risks. There is a very good reason the US has always kept strategic ambiguity around ROC and does not recognise it as a nation. Infact only 13 nations do recognise Taiwan as a nation and these are tiny little states so legally Taiwan is part of China….
imagine if we in the UK had a civil war and something called the UK republic set up shop in the south west, claiming to be the legitimate UK government and that it claimed the whole of the UK, what would HMG do in that case ? That’s the relationship between the ROC and mainland China.

North and South Korea, East and West Germany, Taiwan and China, all artificial partitions created as a result of war.
In all cases, these became separate nations, either recognised or DE FACTO.
Currently 13 countries legally recognise Taiwan as a nation, along with another 59 having unofficial diplomatic relations with the island (eg USA, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc.) Not enough for UN recognition, though obviously this is due to behind the scenes strong-arming by the PRC. But a nation doesn’t require recognition by the UN to be a nation.

Incorrect. Germany and a few other countries (not Europe) becoming dependent on Russian was not a market-led decision: though the option of cheap energy was appealing. Instead Germany saw it as part of a political rapprochement with Putin’s Russian, on the business concept that Russia wouldn’t cause trouble that might drive away its best customers. Germany’s new administration have admitted how misguided Merkle’s policy has been.

I think you’ll find, as an example, Apple’s choice to use TSMC fab foundries to produce its chips has nothing to do with the US government: assuming the U.S. government has an opinion on the subject. Now if you think that the US government should tell its corporations where they should source things from, then you are on the road to authoritarianism. Left/right the label doesn’t matter as they’re effectively the same, authoritarianism involves government control of the lives of its citizens, and interference in businesses, ngos, etc.
There was no ‘choice to become dependent’ on Taiwan.

Now the US government is encouraging a domestic scaling-up of domestic fabrication of silicon through the use of grants and subsidies. TSMC is also, independently, investing billions in new chip foundries in the USA. This is a good move by the US government as it is a strategic resource to both the military and the economy.
But at no point did it tell companies to buy from Taiwan, and quite frankly it’s up to companies to decide where they spend their money. Or are you proposing to remove the freedom from companies and individuals?
Fortunately your brand of totalitarianism isn’t in favour, and Apple, and other companies, will continue to buy chips from the only company/country that can actually manufacture them.

This is a blindingly obvious reason why the PRC would not invade Taiwan, the cost. China’s losses in men and material would make Russia’s losses in the invasion of Ukraine a border skirmish. Now the CCP doesn’t care about the common soldier, but it would take a decade for its military to recover. Meanwhile it’s occupation forces would face ongoing losses from an insurgency against the invasion.
While Taiwan resists formally declaring independence, the CCP can avoid the thorny issue of whether it can afford the cost of invading Taiwan. Instead it can continue its soft-power projection, both trying to undermine support from other nations and cultivating China-friendly assets within Taiwan.

(BTW it’s amusing that by calling it a “government” you yourself inadvertently recognise the government of Taiwan as being legitimate.)

Gosh lots in there. Let’s start with the basics:

I do not inadvertently legitimise or de legitimise the ROC government, it is one of two governments of China and they will tell you very clearly if you asked them they are not the government of Taiwan they are the government of China. Taiwan is not a state, not even ROC call Taiwan a state.

China was not forced into two separate states as the other nations you use as an example..it had and is still in state of civil war.. that is the office position of both the Chinese communists party and ROC…so who are you to tell them they are separate states.

As for ensuring your own state has the correct access to resources and products by managing markets that’s not totalitarianism….that’s called Protectionism and all nations do it be the democracies or totalitarianism states…and yes governments often tell businesses where and from who they can or cannot buy products or resources.

If you think the idea of protecting vital markets or production is totalitarianism you my friend have gone into a rabbit hole of neoliberalism that can be very destructive to a nations wellbeing.

Just for for information before bandying a world around like totalitarianism I would be more considerate, as it’s actual meaning is a state that bans all political parties, individuals or groups that appose the state…what I’m suggesting is that the west would have been wise to have ensured the spreed of a vital industrial capacity away from an area that is likely to enmesh it a a civil war.

I think we have probably exhausted our conversation now as calling someone a totalitarian is just I bit more offensive than I consider acceptable for a conversation.

The Taiwanese-based government does not call itself because it:
• considers itself to be the legitimate government of the whole of China
• doing so would be a declaration of independence, which the PRC has promised would result in immediate military retribution.
Of course there are parties in Taiwan that advocate dropping the claim to the whole of China and declaring independence. This may happen in time.
That you don’t understand the difference between de rigeur and de facto is not my problem.

What you advocate is not protectionism, it’s totalitarianism. Protectionism is favouring domestic production by applying tariffs and quotas to the import of goods into a country. It’s is not telling companies or individuals who they can and cannot buy from.

Now a government can apply sanctions against a foreign country, to prevent that country being able to sell into its market. This is a rare event and is pointless if done by a single government, to be effective a large number of governments have to coordinate these bans. As we’ve seen these have been very successful against Russia. Are you advocating we treat democratic Taiwan, who we have no issues with, the same as Putin’s Russia?

Given your stance about not buying from countries involved in civil wars, I assume you’d ban purchasing anything from the PRC too. Well I’d be sympathetic with that, due to the genocide against the Tibetans and Uighurs. Though that very genocide makes me think the same will be repeated if the PRC conquers Taiwan. I guess you’d be fine in allowing that to happen because it’s part of a civil war.

Historically those advocating authoritarianism generally deny doing so, so I’m not surprised by your denial.

Remember, that at one point a PRC amphibious assault on Taiwan was derisively termed the Million Man Swim w/in the military. No longer. 😳☹️

The Germans had transports available for their much shorter hop across the Channel and it never happened…
China has requirements for domestic shipping such that they can be deployed, in addition to the PLAN, for an invasion of Taiwan. However current estimates are that they do not yet have the capacity necessary to transport and logistically support such a force.
Sea conditions also mean that there’s only a couple of months each year when such a crossing is possible, and such a naval build-up would be obvious.

The PRC could eventually invade and conquer Taiwan, but the losses they would incur in men and material would be far worse than those envisaged by the proposed Allied invasion of mainland Japan.

Xi has issued a directive for military to be prepared to conduct an invasion by 2027. Next 4-5 yrs. could prove to be interesting.

2027 by which point he’ll be 74. While the average life expectancy is 77, he’s guaranteed to live longer due to no limits on healthcare spending for him as the leader.
Relevant as he is like Putin, he wants a resolution to the Taiwan issue in his lifetime as part of his legacy.

Before they can proceed, they need the forces to be able to cut off Taiwan from the rest of the world. That means a submarine force that can implement a blockade AND a naval strike force able to prevent the flying in of supplies from the Pacific. Until they have the carrier force capable to do this for a prolonged period, Taiwan won’t be attacked.

PLAAF and PLAN may be compelled by their master(s) to attempt to create an AD environment, sufficient to provide a military version of a cordon sanitare around Taiwan, regardless of internal plans and/or assessments. Especially if political masters perceive US/Western military and/or political weakness. Doesn’t necessarily mean ChiComs would be successful, but if a sufficiently serious attempt occurs, could, in turn, lead to a range of rather unpleasant outcomes. The most extreme would presumably be the civilization ending one. 🤔😳☹️

Of course, there is always the chance that peace, love and understanding could spontaneously emerge in all of world’s conflict arenas, but, short of the Lord’s Second Coming, don’t believe the smart money is taking that bet.

I think the PLAAF operating from the mainland alone would find it impossible to impose an air exclusion zone around Taiwan. To prevent supply aircraft coming from the Pacific they would need to overfly Taiwanese air-space.
The Chinese could deploy area-air defence destroyers to the Pacific, but these are more for providing air-defence to a flotilla than imposing exclusion zones. Also the Taiwanese wouldn’t allow them to sit off their coast in the Pacific unmolested. Without carriers they’ll have little or no air-cover as PLAAF fights would have to overfly Taiwan to reach them.

China is going to need a minimum or 2, ideally 4 fully functional carriers to close off the Pacific air-space to Eastern Taiwan for a year.

…sanitaire…🙄

Regardless of the historical path trodden, or motivations of the relevant players, believe it would be a cruel act of ‘Realpolitik’ cowardice to abandon over one score million, peace and freedom loving, Taiwanese citizens to the ‘tender mercies’ of the jackals governing the PRC. Crushing freedom-seeking dissent in Hong Kong was the test case for slimeball, scum-sucking ChiComs. Emboldened by pathetic Western response to treaty violation, now contemplating/planning seizure of Taiwan. If successful in the invasion of Taiwan, it will prove simply to be the first domino to fall. Will the West be concerned when SK falls? Japan? Australia and NZ? Ai some point, it may be too late to matter.

The West perceives a near-term concern re microprocessor fabrication, but that issue will be alleviated by the ‘on-shoring’ of relevant R&D and fabrication w/in US, promoted by CHIPS Act. Surely, our vision of history and democracy extends beyond the momentary discomforture wrought by a potential supply chain issue?

Rant over.

At…🙄

To be honest for me it’s alway a question of choice. I agree I would support our governments supporting the Taiwan population if there was naked aggression. But I do have a problem when bad policy means we have no choice but to defend Taiwan because of manufacturing dependency. You have to remember democracy is a bit of a new experience for the ROC and there is nothing to say they will not go back to a military dictatorship that sits there bating the rest of China knowing the west will need to defend it….sort of like what Turkey is doing. So for me yep defend Taiwan if it’s a democracy with western values..not because it makes all our chips. I would also be a bit happy on the moral argument if the ROC did not still insist it’s the true government of mainland China…I don’t like the Chinese government but it’s their government and the present situation is a bit…..smelly and complex. You have to remember ROC democracy is only really around 26 years old. With the pan-blue parties still very much saying that the ROC is the rightful government of all China ( while admitting that it cannot be until the fall of the communist party).

But yes I agree where the ROC is now if invaded the west should support.

Defence spending aside. Without the US Europe would be white Arian nation. US had its first non white president ten years ago. I believe European countries are still waiting for its first non white leader. US tops the world in destination for migrants. Whilst most of Europe accept German
lag behind places like Saudi Arabia and Russia for migration. Whilst the US has its problems its clear its still a nation that has aspiration as a core value an migrants still see it as a place they can aspire.

“US had its first non white president ten years ago.”

Given the relative histories of the US and UK in terms of ‘non-white’ populations…the UK’s record is far, far more impressive…It took the US several hundred years to reach that point…it took the UK 70 years…

Plus get back to us when the US has had a President from the largest ‘Minority’ in the country….i.e. women…we’ve had 3 now….the US a great big fat zero…

No women though, considering how small the ethnic white population is I don’t think having one none white (technically half white) leader is a great accomplishment.

Why would Europe be a white Arian nation without the USA? What history have you studied? I’m sure there are alot of dead Soviets who would disagree with that premise. Most historians put the turning point for WW2 before the US joined the war even the few that put the turning point in late 42 don’t credit the US or even US lend lease with much of a significance.

But then yeah TEAM AMERICA f**k YEAH

Why study history when you can just make shit shit up 😀

I wasnt talking about military efforts. US supply chain and the 50 billoon in aid provided by the US 10b of which went to Russia. If you multiply that buy 21 you get the value today. Like you say why study history when you can ignore part of it.

I think you need to put in context the reason for migration into the US before using Moral equivalent with Europe.

The black African population of the US was pretty much a universally forced migration. The European population is a mainly economic and religious migration that found the space and wealth to migrate by ethnically cleansing a large number of cultures and nations.

like many nations you really have to get under the skin of why they are where they are and in almost all cases it’s universally unpleasant to the modern western liberal mind.

using Saudi is also not a great example. There is a very great different between a nation such as the modern UK and US that welcomes immigration as a way to grow its talent pool, giving immigrants an opportunity to become part of that society and somewhere like Saudi which has build in racial Execptionalisam into its very laws and government and uses and exploits migrant workers, without ever offering any real access to becoming an equal member of society.

As are having a good bang on around counter history, I don’t think per say that you could say that if the US did not get involved in the Second World War Europe would have ended up an Arain nation after all that would somehow mean that both the British empire and USSR would have been knocked out the War without US support in the European theatre and their is no portents evidence base for that. The more likely outcome would have been a war of attrition between the UK and USSR. In this case I would suspect at some point the British empire would have focus exclusively on securing its imperial possessions and cashed its chips in leaving Germany and the USSR to keep knocking chunks out of each other..which they would have done for decades. So I suspect what you would have seen was instead of a bi polar geopolitical situation you would have a multi polar world, USSR ( but no Warsaw pact), some form of third Reich, with a few Eastern European nations acting as a buffer between the national socialist world and communist world the British Empire, which would have been preserved and the U.S. But any form of counter history is always nonsense as reality is only ever today…. Everything else both future and even the past is not real.

Whist true the outcome is not known the reality is with what is the equivalent of 1 trillion USD in aid in today’s money is far from a trivial input. Lets not forget Russias industrial base was depleted by 2/3s and the UK was essentially bankrupt by 1942. My father died a few years ago at 99 having fought in WW2 I used to get first hand accounts believe me the first part of the war was not good at all. We had very few advantages and Hitler made some errors which gave us time to use US aid to build and counter. Wars are won or end in stalemate by due to attrition.

If you watch documentaries about WW2 production you’ll understand that out producing Germany was an essential element and not possible with out the US. That philosphy lead to allied
Forces being able to reduce Germanys industrial base by being able to launch bombing raids.

Btw the end of the Empire was certain by 1942 either way.

Go back to the original reason for the conversation was my response to Jim as he is massively negative on the US, hatred is perhaps a strong word but certainly there’s was a lack.of logic. So my response was to show that there was some irony in that the US was willing to throw its lot in to fight one of the most racist regimes that has existed, and irrespective of the outcome thats fact. I then went on to post some ither positives about the US not as a defender of the US but as balance to a overty negative view. I also posted that I acknowledged the US has problems showing balance.

But my view that the US remains a destination
for those with aspiration is born out by first hand experience of friends overseas in countries when liberty is severly curtailed who would rather go to the US than the UK or Europe. They feel Europe offers security but the US offers opportunity and security. In fact UK features around 5th on their list, that’s not something I feel particularly proud about.

Yes that’s all fair. I do agree the US in 20c 21c I was and is very much an opportunity for immigrants. It is after all an economic power house that even if not perfect still promotes equality of opportunity. There is also no question post world war 2 the USSR would have invaded Western Europe without US military support. It was after all the aim of the USSR to make the world communist. The bit I doubt is if they would have pushed through France as a nuclear state and then onto the UK as I think in the end it was the wests nuclear arsenals that prevented an invasion ( the USSR was run by a very pragmatic bunch).

As for empire, yes it was alway going to end in the 20c I think the question for history is how quickly the retrenchment occurred. It was a long way from a catastrophe failure but as was the retrenchment that was forced on the UK was too quick to stabilise a lot of regional flash points and we have lived with that for a long time now (I think that was a failure in US geopolitics as they should have allowed the UK more time and not pushed the agenda).

Touching on migration in Saudi and other Middle East countries. I had 2 drivers and I spent hours with them chatting whilst driving. The topic of treatment Icame up of course. Both their opinions was totally contrary to western views and media. They had grasped opportunity as in their home country their wages were just 1 usd per day. They were getting many multiples of that and had loggings and food fully paid so masses of disposable income compared to their peers back home. Both had saved enough money to start business back home whilst supporting their families. Essentially changed their lives. When reflecting on this you need to ask is it better to give a large number of people an opportunity through short term working visas or as in the UKs case a very small number some of which are already doing well in their own country. Morally does that seem right, not really. I’m not saying the situation in the Middle East could not improve but first hand experience has shows there’s positives that are so often ignored.

Also the reality is the west have jobs that need doing that don’t really provide a stable career future. Agro industries is a classic, yes we need farmers whose career it is to grow our food and act as Stewards, but we also need a ton of unskilled seasonal workers a very low wage levels. So I do agree we need a good mix. Personal I’ve always been a believer that if someone is willing to travel the world to earn money and they are paying taxes then bring ‘em on. What I do believe in is making sure those itinerant workers are treated well and not abused by work gangs etc.

Setting up proper facilities and processes to handle temporary workers would go a long way in tackling poor conditions and gangs. And yes it must be targeted we need some industries to invest and increase productivity so living standards can rise, low pay makes the investments that would raise productivity less attractive.

Taiwan spends about 2.1% of GDP on defence, like we do. It claims to want to increase that to 3% but finds it hard to spend more. It doesn’t have the industrial base to manufacture much more at home and too few countries are willing to ignore China’s wrath by selling to it. A long term view is required to build the industrial base to support increased defence spending. In practice, more defence spending now just means more money leaving the country and flowing to the US. It also forces the spend away from the items Taiwan needs to buy and towards the items the US wants to sell.

Furthermore, it has a sclerotic administration making change hard for them. All it takes is one prat at the top disagreeing and you can’t increase defence spending no matter how much it’s in the national interest. Again, just like us really.

Believe you are absolutely correct re Taiwanese industrial base issues. 👍👍 Believe US will increase both quantities and types of weapons it is willing to provide to Taiwan, given current and projected future geo-political environment. 🤔

Re Taiwanese political leadership, do not have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion.

Correct!

US approves sale of Volcano anti-tank systems to Taiwan 02 JANUARY 2023

“The US Department of State has approved the possible Foreign Military Sales (FMS) of Volcano anti-tank munition-laying systems to Taiwan for an estimated cost of USD180 million.”

LINK

Ahem, China is the clear and present danger to our way of life; and to that of every other Liberal democracy.

Spoken like a good WASP. The truth is that if we all stopped our ‘leaders’ from building newer weapons constantly, the US with its great history of Space travel and research would probably have discovered livable planets by now and helped the research into global warming.

No, he’s Ron 5. Remember him 😂 his +100 comments confirmed it!

U know ur stuff on the F35. U have probably self nominated as the resident F35 expert. Great reading

Seconded.

Thanks, excellent post, comprehensive and detailed. 👍 Finally beginning to understand certain nuances in British acquisition program. Funding for execution (relatively) assured?

Believe £50M for 1K JDAMs, even at current exchange rates, is a very generous estimate; £25-30M should be attainable, based on surveyed cost data.

As ever with munition purchases its the technical data packs, support from manufacturer, maintenance kit and tooling that add a fair bit to the cost of the actual munitions. There is an element of them being a 1 time cost though so subsequent batches would be cheaper.

Ahh…so you actually want to be able to maintain and use the weapons? There will be an upcharge for that…,🤔😳😱😉

There is presently no ER version of the 1,000lb JDAM. Australia developed the original ER version only for the 500lb bomb. S.Korea then came onboard to develop a 2,000lb version using the same tech. No-one has yet put their hand up to develop a 1,000lb version. It would be a relatively low risk development.

Thats true. But MBDA make the Diamondback wing kit which could easily be adapted and there is also the Longshot wing kit out there still…failing that using a scaled up existing wing kit would be an easy job. You’d hope that it could be done for c£5k, its just a pop out simple wing, all the controls and manoeuvering surfaces are still at the rear on the JDAM kit….

The Powered JDAM is also a very interesting proposition. Would like to see someone really try and reduce the costs of micro-turbojets though…the USAF was trying to reduce cost massively with the TDI-J85, think around $40k per engine was the target. Currently the Williams ones are around $190,000 per engine which is insane. Can’t believe a turbo manufacturer hasn’t got involved to dramatically reduce costs…they’re supposed to be disposable…

I should add…the only flaw with the Powered JDAM concept, is that whilst far cheaper than other cruise missiles with 160nm+ range its still not cheap (that range incidentally might be a lot more…20x has been mentioned,JDAM has a 15 mile range so it might be 300 miles). The JDAM bit is…but the motor will increase the cost at least 6 fold. The only reason why you use a powered munition like that is if you really want to stay out of range of defences. But those same defences could shoot the Powered JDAM down…at what point is it more sensible to stop using the Mk.84 bomb as the base and instead encase in a LO shape like JSOW? Even a LO ‘envelope’ encasing the Mk.84 might make sense.

Alternatively we could have kept the Harrier and lifex the old carriers. Or fitted emals to the QE and bought F18 or Rafaels. I. What world are they better options. Emals is only just operational. F18 are almost out of production no one who has access to the F35 is buying. They have all the data. Rafael costs about the same as the F35, again where the F35 is an optionits winning. Industry wise RR would not be nanufacturing lift fans and BAe would have zero stake in a global fighter program. We could have built more Typhoons but that’s losing in every competition where the F35 is fielded leving us with zero exports.

Your saying that Airforces around the world who get all the data not just press articles are getting it wrong. Lo

UK would have never done a 5th gen project alone and when the project started there was zero appetite in Europe heck even 4th gen fighter orders were being cut. So moan about the program being not well run but the current F35 is better than the competition, all off which is 4th gen, UK has industrial benefits and there was no alternative for the UK to participate in.

Alternatively, we could have gone ahead with Typhoon or Tempest too and EMALS but we choose not to in favor of the F-35 B so we have what we have and it isn’t looking pretty at the moment.

Drones will no doubt make up the numbers in the future I’m guessing? I believe I found a link some time ago to a BAE post that stated that an N Typhoon could take off and land without the need for cats and traps with a full payload from the QE carriers.

Mojave

LINK

Navalised Typhoon

LINK

LINK

December 02, 2022 at 11:30 AM

“Breaking Defense understands that the second tranche F-35B order of 27 additional aircraft is expected to be completed in 2033.

Should those deliveries first start in 2026, after tranche 1 deliveries end in 2025, an average delivery rate of less than four aircraft a year would follow.”

LINK

Take off sorry not land.

“According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President of Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized Typhoon’ show the aircraft can take off and land with full mission payload, including two ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles, four BVR missiles, two short-range missiles, a centerline fuel tank and two conformal fuel tanks – something no other navalized aircraft can perform.

A navalized Typhoon will be new built aircraft, fitted with a strengthened airframe and landing gear. The British decision to switch from STOVL F-35B to F-35C conventional take-off Lightning could pave the road for reconsideration of use Navalized Typhoons by the Royal Navy, on QE-2 aircraft carriers.”

Navalized Typhoons, gimme a break. Even the UK wasn’t that dumb.

Would have cost umpty billions in R&D for an under performing, gen 4 aircraft that would be obsolete in a couple of decades.

Really, really, bad idea.

No, they purchased the F-35B instead!

How many billions? can you provide me with a link, please?

Hopefully, the Spanish will read your post in time.

Airbus anticipates future Eurofighter buy from Spain
29 DECEMBER 2022

LINK

“Today’s F-35As Not Worth Including In High-End War Games According To Air Force General”

LINK

Oct. 18, 2022

“Lockheed Martin suggested the long-term sales prospects for its F-35 jet are uncertain amid worries the Department of Defense may begin to pivot away from the program.

In the short term, new production of the F-35 will go down in 2023.”

LINK

Nigel Spains buy is political, as was Germans. They have no skin in the F35 game anf face production line closure if they order anything other than the Typhoon.

When LM say under threat they mean in 10 years when new programmes start to deliver. You know the USAF slashing its order for F15EX in favour of the F35?

Navalised Typhoon would have required a lot of reengineering. You can’t just add new landing gear a hook and take off from a carrier. Adding weight anywhere on the airframe changes centre of gravity so you need to rework other parts of tge airframe to compensate. Then you need to navalise the airframe, engine and associated ground handling equipment. Rewrite maintenance procedures and training manuals. Rework the flight simulation software, the list goes on.

Why would UK spend billions on a unique aircraft that nobody else would buy?

UK would then have to fund the unique upgrade pathway for it.

Terrible idea.

The whole QEC project would have stalled due to costs.

Tempest is a 6th gen fighter and would have not been possible 20 years ago technically and no nations would have partnered. I was aware of the navalised Typhoon concept but its would have been as expensive as the F35B if not more, it would still be waiting for an Aesa radar, no sensor fusion and non stealth. We still be waiting for the fixes from the US emals programme to be incorporated into our carriers, the Ford class has only just deployed for the first time and we’d be in the queue for the fixes. If we’d gone emals then the logical choice would gave still been an F35C offering more range a weapons than the B. You might be able to get the Typhoon off conventionally using the full deck but then you start limiting the use of the deck space and thus reduce sortie rates. Again if we’re going to use the whole deck go for the 5th gen F35C.

The F35 program has not delivered as promised and lessons learnt mean it hopefully won’t be repeated but the current aircraft are capable.

Fortunately we don’t need perfection atm with Putins own advisors telling him NATO would wipe out the Russian military it 3 days!!. Even with the current block F35.

Funny how the aircraft that “hasn’t delivered” is winning all the fighter competitions.

yes because what has been delivered is still better than the rest. Read my earlier response to Nigel.

Some good news nonetheless!

“The UK MoD FCAS director, Richard Berthon, told Airforce Technology that a single supersonic demonstrator aircraft will be manufactured for the 2027 first flight, although declined to comment which systems will be initially tested on the platform.

“The flight itself is one milestone of many milestones,” Berthon said.

Work in progress

The design has also flown 100 hours digitally, testing key elements ahead of the start of platform manufacture, while the flight demonstrator platform was described by officials as being “low observable”.

On 18 July engine manufacturers Rolls-Royce also presented details of Project Orpheus, a programme to develop and run a new design jet turbine in under 18 months, which would be used to inform propulsion requirements for Tempest.”

LINK

That was from July, all has been reset with the announcement of the Japanese joining the program.

Calling the UK effort FCAS is a big clue this is old, out of date, news.

So they stopped the work then Ron 5?

Show me a link to when this happened.

Idiot. They’ve since signed an agreement with the Japanese and the schedule is being reworked with their involvement.

A bit like you Ron 5, with nothing useful to add.
It’s the start of the new year Ronny boy, try +101 😂
Cheers!

And the AESA Radar too!

“This is the single biggest capability boost since the introduction of the Typhoon,” said Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston, Chief of the Air Staff.

He said that one of the lessons already learned from the war in Ukraine is that electronic attack and defense is a fundamental requirement.

Wigston confirmed that the first radar trial set will fly next year, with conversion of the RAF’s entire fleet of Tranche 3 Typhoons by the end of the decade.

The Tranche 2 aircraft might follow, but will in any case receive the software update.”

LINK

We could have had AESA now as there is version available, it not as capable as ECRS mk2. Its not great the T2s are not confirmed for the upgrade. We know money is tight but if the mk1 version is cheaper then why not upgrade the T2s to mk1 AESA. If the decision is made to not upgrade the T2s we’d be using 2 radars anyway.

I do hope the contract for the upgrade is not easy to cancel so the its not a victim of cuts.

On fast jets I’m concerned UK will not be producing any complete aircraft in the next 2 years once Qatars order is complete. Leaving us a gap until Tempest goes into full production next decade. UK needs to look at how it sponsors foreign sales, this is something France does better than us.

Agreed, I’m guessing that the Mk2 version will have been fully tested against the F-35 in order to detect low-observable threats at range.

This detailed video is worth checking out too for a better understanding of the recent F-35B crash.

F-35s Grounded Again Following Ft. Worth Crash

“The F-35 Joint Program Office has grounded a portion of the fleet following a mishap that occurred at Forth Worth on December 15. This is the second grounding action for the F-35 inventory this year.”

A more in-depth look at the crash can be seen via this LINK
Smoke can be seen coming from the engine.

As for EMALS, we initially developed it and sold the Company to the USA as I recall who in turn are now selling them on to the French it appears.

Another missed opportunity.

LINK

Bollocks. EMALS is US developed and built

Hello Ron 5, the +100 gave you away plus the curt and rude replies you continue to make!

Nothing changes apart from the name eh! 😂

As I said, “as I recall” it was a long time ago after all.

“Cast your mind back a couple of years to the feverish discussion and fretting about which variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the MoD would select to satisfy the Joint Combat Aircraft requirement, and the more recent changing of variant, there was some hope that the UK would be able to develop an electromagnetic launch system.

The company developing the solution was called Force Engineering, then Converteam and now GE Power Conversion.”

LINK

GE Power

LINK

The UK developed its own Electromagnetic Launch system called EMKIT. This was a small test system used to launch UAV’s/Drones. Thousands of launches have been made from it.

The UK was planning to make a larger version using the EMKIT technology called EMCAT (which is why the US system is called EMALS….we had already nicked the most obvious name…). EMKIT/EMCAT was QinetiQ and Converteam (who ended up GE owned, Converteam are exceptionally specialist they make the electrical engines for UK Submaries and Type 26…). GE were looking to close the UK operation, but the UK Government made it clear that UK IP had to remain in the UK and if necessary they would force a UK Government takeover of the company (Converteam not GE) at which point GE backed down sharpish…

EMCAT was in many ways a better design than EMALS, far more elegant in its engineering. But it was in its early stages when we decided to stick to STOVL. We would have been using the US AAG however..

The UK MoD’s recent RFI for an electromagnetic launch system seems to be very much aimed at EMKIT+ territory rather than EMALS/EMCAT. EMKIT could launch up to Predator UAV sized (and Watchkeeper easily). EMCAT was required for Reaper, through E-2D with F-35C at the high end. However, the recent marinised MQ-9B STOL variant proposal with high lift, folding, wings might be suitable for a modestly upgraded EMKIT.

👍Happy New Year!

Exactly and nothing like the bullshit story that @Nigel made up.

EMALS is 100% American.

Any update on the electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems? I haven’t heard anything about that of late.

“A Request For Information (RFI) issued to the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has revealed that the Royal Navy is seeking information on a potential electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems that could be used to launch and recover ‘air vehicles’ from ‘a suitable ship’ by as soon as 2023.”

LINK

Thanks for all the links. EMALS has been around some time. Rollercoasters use it to launch the cars. But the concept goes back to the start of the last century.

https://coasterpedia.net/wiki/Linear_synchronous_motor

As for possible UK contenders

https://www.qinetiq.com/en/what-we-do/services-and-products/advanced-naval-control-systems

Thought I’d also share a couple of interesting reads on the F35.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2020/07/20/f-35-problem-child-or-on-track-for-success/

https://www.businessinsider.com/militaries-in-europe-are-buying-the-f35-fighter-jet-2022-2

Anything newer Expat, it says at the beginning “This article is more than 2 years old.”

Is this all there is on the link? the first part I was aware of.

A bit more on the subject here.

“It was last December Finland announced it had chosen to buy 64 of the F-35 to replace the current fleet of F/A-18 Hornets. The first F-35s will arrive at Rovaniemi in 2026 and all 64, including those to be based further south in Finland, will be in operation by 2030.”

• Finland announced in December that it would buy the F-35, becoming the latest European country to buy the jet.
• Multiple operational factors make the F-35 popular with the US’s European partners and allies.
• For many in Europe, choosing the F-35 is as much a geopolitical decision as it is an operational and financial one.

Welcome to Nigels world. He simply has a child like hatred of the F35, and thinks he knows something about the aircraft that the Governments and Air Force’s around the world who are buying it don’t know. And sharing links is his little way of convincing himself he is right. He usually does a disappear act for a few months, hopefully his next break can’t come soon enough.

A Tempest Prototype won’t be flying for 2027/30. A Tempest technology demonstrator will hopefully be flying in that timeframe. Big difference between a demonstrator and a first Prototype. EAP was a technology demonstrator. First flight was August 86. The first Eurofighter Prototype DA1 (Development Aircraft) flew 8 years later.

👍👍

👍🏻

BAE could have delivered it long before that.

It was a political decision to slow development, go multinational and kick the can down the road….

Who says Typhoon is out of date?

The Russians have nothing that up-to-date?

People really don’t appreciate just how good Typhoon is….

It’s literally the second best A2A platform on earth after F-22 with quite a gap to position 3…

It was designed as an air superiority fighter with ground attack a secondary role.

So it shouldn’t be a massive surprise.

Now all the UK’s radar and EW know how and the Litening pod etc….

That’s very true and Tempest has a high bar to surpass.

He said the first Typhoon is now obsolete. Do you think differently?

Unmodified T1 Typhoon is obsolete.

The RAF think that too.

So ideally they want new build T3+ or to upgrade T1 to F3+ standards.

The only issue with upgrade is that just about everything is different! That includes holes in structurally critical members being in the wrong places.

Tranche 1 are still an exceptionally capable platform, albeit with limited A2G capability (Paveway II, IV and LaGS only with Litening III pod, so still quite a capability). There aren’t that many fighters that are better as A2A platforms.

Ultimately its stilll got incredible performance, decent radar and a very good missile loadout. The only quibble with it remaining in service for another 15-20 years is that it needs a radar upgrade to stay in the top rank. It is possible to attach an AESA antenna on CAPTOR-M, its been tested and is available. It wouldn’t be as good as full on Radar 2 but would be easily competitive with any F-15, 16 or 18 with AESA. The fact it couldn’t use Meteor isn’t disastrous as it will have Amraam D-3 as of this year. So would be as well armed as pretty much any other fighter, except Meteor T2 and 3, only with the performance to get the best out of the missile…

Basically if the RAF could get £10m to upgrade each one and then run them in service I’m sure they’d be more than happy to keep them on for another 15 years…but they can’t get money to do either…

Its down to cash….nothing more.

Given the gobbledegook spouted by senior military figures in imitation of blowhard politicians, I think their comments are often better ignored. Nor do I think any serving senior officer would dare give overly critical messages that might attract political anger and jeopardize their careers.
The issue is not whether the F35 is no use, it clearly is. The issue for the UK, having made the risky decision to build 2supercarriers with the ability to operate just one type of combat jet, is how much more of scarce resources to devote to the programme. Damage to other capabilities has already been done, with numbers slashed to help fund this one capability.. But with rising costs( esp in £} and continued technical problems affecting both operational availability and support costs, might it be better to press pause on the programme? This might mean accepting a single carrier rather than two and making good the reduction in F35 numbers by ordering additional Typhon’s.
It is worth remembering that the 202210 year equipment plan was deemed affordable only by assuming efficiency savings that the NAO observed had never been achieved before;and a worst case exchange rate of $1,26 to £1. It is already obvious that the strain on the defence budget will get worse.

And AESA Radar.

“This is the single biggest capability boost since the introduction of the Typhoon,” said Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston, Chief of the Air Staff.

He said that one of the lessons already learned from the war in Ukraine is that electronic attack and defense is a fundamental requirement.

Wigston confirmed that the first radar trial set will fly next year, with conversion of the RAF’s entire fleet of Tranche 3 Typhoons by the end of the decade.

The Tranche 2 aircraft might follow, but will in any case receive the software update.”

LINK

Repeating the same comment doesn’t make it any more accurate. This is old & out of date.

What is supposed to be “old & out of date”: the comment on Typhoon upgrade or on the Tempest demonstrator? There was a £2.3bn contract signed for the former only six months ago so I hope it isn’t out of date already.

The one I replied to about the Tempest demonstrator schedule as it was in July. Now been overtaken by events. The same comment the idiot Nigel made earlier in the thread.

Here’s a more current one for you Ron 5

“Following the crash landing of an F-35B near Lockheed Martin’s LMT assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas two weeks ago, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has grounded a number of F-35s including foreign aircraft until at least January.

The latest grounding comes less than six months after the Air Force temporarily grounded its F-35A fleet this past summer.

The grounding comes as a number of behind-the-scenes issues face the F-35 from a decision on whether to fund an alternative advanced engine for upcoming improved Block 4 versions of the jet”

LINK

Back again Ron 5! It’s not quite 2023 yet here in the UK so not out of date 😂

You can do better than that surely RON 5

Happy New Year 😂

“Rolls-Royce Defence business has designed, built, and run an innovative small engine concept in under 18 months – a truly transformational project that will change how products and technologies are developed for the UK’s Future Combat Air Strategy (FCAS).

Known as Orpheus, the first demonstrator engine concept, on display at Farnborough International Air Show (FIAS), has been developed using a completely agile approach – built nearly twice as fast as a conventional engine programme, with the second demonstrator within the family, already on test in Bristol, UK.

Pioneered by a team of highly skilled engineers, manufacturers, and programme managers, the Orpheus project has allowed for trial and collaboration across the business, combining proven methods of engineering with innovative digital technologies.”

LINK

Time unfortunately.

Excellent points. Actually forgot about Falklands conflict. Must have been a very interesting, and sporting, pre-deployment period w/in HM RNMBs, but was in fact, now 40 yrs. ago. Believe it would be a very informative exercise, once every decade or two. Especially as an outside pontificator, w/ no maintenance or ops. responsibilities…😉

Sporting?? Tell that to the Welsh Guards.

Never considered that emergency regeneration considerations could affect sequencing and schedule of activities in drydock…it pays to have some bloke down at the Admiralty contemplate these matters ..🤔

A 1000 lb bomb is always going to be a bigger bang than a 500 lb bomb.

Not when the the Paveway 4 gives you 80% of the bang because it is more accurate and has very advanced fusing options. And you can carry more of them under the wing. The RAF have stopped using 1000lb Paveway 2’s for very good reason. Have a little faith in the experts. The RAF has over 30 years of experience of dropping precision guided munitions in operational theatre’s.

So the UK has spent many billions on QE/PoW & the F-35B, yet the heaviest weapon we can drop on an enemy, for all that spending, is a 500 lb Paveway IV. Frankly we would have been better off not building the carriers or the F-35B, but buying 500+ Tomahawk cruise missiles instead.

Kinda missing the point John. Enhanced Paveway 4 is a very capable weapon, extremely accurate, and can hit moving targets in all weathers and at night, It can be re-targeted in flight, and the warhead can be dialed down for a smaller bang when collateral damage needs to be minimised. More weapons will come to F35B. Meateor, SPEAR 3, SPEAR EW and the future StormShadow replacement. I would certainly agree a larger TLAM stockpile would be useful, but it can only do one job. A carrier and it’s airwing can undertake a vast array of operational roles. From peace keeping, humanitarian relief, policing no fly zones, to high end warfare and soft power.

Except they can’t. At least not yet. Look, I am a carrier fan boy, but you either “go big or go home”. The UK has spent £4 billion approx on the carriers + another £4 billion+ on F-35B, yet can only manage to put a 500 lb Paveway IV on an enemy who is not too far inland. QE/PoW could be great assets, but they need the properly armed escorts + support ships. F-35B needs drop tanks, a heavy stand off weapon (SLAM-ER, Storm Shadow, JASSM-ER), an anti ship missile (JSM/NSM/LRASM). Also a few CMV-22B for ship to shore connection. We really should be funding a next generation Merlin based on the proposed increment 2 US101. Lastly, I really would like a study on fitting AAG on QE/PoW. STOBAR would make them truly flexible.

It can’t carry a Ten Ton Tess either, 😀

Seriously though, what mission do you think a 1,000 JDAM can do that a Paveway IV cant.

I would argue there is a marginal Mission requirement for Paveway III heavy bunker buster but then no version of F35 can carry that internally.

FC/ASW will replace StormShadow and will be integrated onto T26 and maybe other escorts. T45 is also being upgraded with CAMM to take its missile loadout to 74. Spear 3 will have an anti ship capability, 8 can be carried internally on F35B. Sea Venom, Sea Viper are all world class weapon systems. I’d look up the capabilities of Paveway 4, then you will understand why we don’t use 1000lb anymore. MV22 is a none starter, drones are the future for logistics and AEW and Strike. Now most of this is a few years away but other then the Americans, nobody else can do carrier strike like we can and will do in the future. You see the state of the public finances on the news everyday, so we have to be realistic about budget’s.

For £11+ billion, there is very little bang for the buck. Either fund a capability properly, or have a capability holiday, cross your fingers & save the money.

Well you can look at it that way, or look at the fact we had nothing for 10 years, and QE class and F35B are a million miles from the Invincible class and Harrier GR7/9. And both QE class and F35 are at the start of their development cycle with much more to come. Bringing into service a 5th gen fighter and brand new aircraft carriers of the size and capability of QE requires a monumental effort from the services and industry. I wish more could be in service sooner, but the budget only goes so far. We also have some very expensive Typhoon upgrades to fund, Tempest demonstrator to fund, a host of new weapons coming on line. UCAV’S. And I’m sure more changes will be announced when the reviewed Strategic Defence Review is published in the new year.

The USA likes JDAM as it has a large stockpile of 1000lbs bombs ready for tails to be fitted. Pave way 4 fits the uk nicely. It’s a clever weapon that can give the same damage as 1000lbs bomb if needed. Hell it can penetrate like a 2000lbs pave way 3. For those targets that require something else storm shadow with its broach warhead does the job. At the other end is brimstone. So when u take those 3 together they can do most if not all tasks.

In my opinion, the best $30K/copy investment by DoD, ever. Hell, that is the all inclusive price (including iron bomb, fuze and proximity sensor). Truly, where is anyone going to get a deal like that in 2023?!!? Believe 430,000 kits produced by Feb 2020.

Hard to believe that DOD can even write a number as small as $30k

Probably thought they were buying toilet seat covers of something 😀

If the uk needs a 1000lbs bomb it’s the obvious choice.

Very well put.

Horses for courses.

This is true….

But Paveway IV is £75k per munition

JDAM 1,000lb is c£25k…

One lesson from Ukraine is that stockpile depth really matters. It seems we need to relearn this lesson every decade….We could buy 1,000 JDAM for under £50m. It’s already integrated on F-35 and Typhoon (by the Germans). That would be a big increase to the UK’s weapon holdings for a comparatively small outlay. Just as a supplement to PWIV.

At present we have reasonable numbers, certainly in comparison to our European neighbours, of exquisite precision guided munitions. All of which are very accurate but also with a price to match…we’ve got champagne tastes with beer pockets though…

At the moment we have the following Air to Ground munitions from fast air…

Brimstone
Enhanced Paveway II
Paveway IV
Storm Shadow

And errr…thats it.

Enhanced Paveway III has been retired with Tornado. I don’t believe we have ever mounted CRV-7 on Typhoon either, even for a test. No BL-755 or JP-233, ALARM, Sea Eagle or dumb bombs either…

The good news is that we will get the following in the near future…

Spear
FCASW in 2035…

There is also the possibility of Spear-EW and SpearGlide, plus a ‘SpearSimple’ from the MRUSW requirement (basically SpearGlide without the really expensive seeker, an SDB1 equivalent).

But we’re missing some weapons and capabilities that we could really do with…

A cheap munition…(JDAM could fill that hole…)
A cheap, small munition (like SDB1, MRUSW could do it)
A gliding larger munition (for range, add a wing kit to PWIV?)
A modular, cheap adaptable weapon shape (something like JSOW, the MBDA Remote Carriers may fit the bill)
An AShM (lets just buy 50 JSM…)
An ARM (Spear and Spear EW have a part to play, but the potential for Meteor secondary use as an ARM is there)

Good post mate. I don’t think the small number of different types of smart weapons is to much of a problem as PWIV and Brimstone 2 will cover pretty much every type of target we need to engage when it comes to close air support or longer range interdiction. And i guess the argument is if its accurate,
then you don’t need to drop as many to take out the threat. StormShadow provides the longer range heavy hitting weapon when needed. SPEAR 3 and SPEAR EW will provide even more option’s along with SEAD/DEAD capability along with the F35s APG-81 radar and the Typhoons long waited Radar 2 AESA have electronic attack modes to effectively replace ALARM. The new addition of the Naval Strike weapon will be another good addition to our escorts, and would be good to see it on F35B too. But i can’t see that happening as it might put into question the need for FCASW. I don’t disagree with anything you have said, but the operational experience over hot sandy places would say the RAF is happy with it’s current weapon types. 👍

OK, been pondering this and am going to bite–why only 50 JSM on the wish list? Strictly a cost consideration? Calculation based on Mad Vlad’s remaining surface inventory? 😁

In the last 50 years we’ve fielded 7 types of heavy anti-ship missiles across the military. Martel, ship launched Exocet, ground launched Exocet (couple of trailer based launchers at Gibraltar), ship launched Harpoon, sub-launched Harpoon, air launched Harpoon and Sea Eagle.

To date we’ve fired 0 in combat.

And the truth is we’ve not even come close to having a chance to…

We have managed to fire a lot of Sea Skua from Lynx however, but we’ve got replacement of that covered with Sea Venom.

The likelihood of the UK being in a shooting war with anyone with ships to kill is very low…and the chances of that happening with anyone with more than a couple of ships is non-existent on our own (i.e. Russia or China). With SSN firing Spearfish, Harpoon and soon NSM on surface ships, Sea Venom, Martlet, Paveway, Hellfire, Spear, Brimstone, 5″ gun, 4.5″ gun etc. we’ve got plenty of options to deal with enemy vessels of differing complexity already. 50 x JSM on F-35B would provide all the additional capability we need for any complex threats that can’t be handled by Astute Class subs or NSM on ships. If there was a war with China the US, Japan, Taiwan, SK, Australia et al have loads of AShM available so UK weapons would be nothing more than a rounding error. By the time we could actually get over to the Pacific it would be over anyway…

I don’t think the Russian Navy can be considered a threat at present or in the near future, certainly not on the surface of the sea…and again there will be lots of NATO AShM competing for the chance to kill a Russian ship…

Basically 50 x JSM would give us a credible modern Anti-Ship option for F-35, but also give a larger long range attack capability than Spear. It’s also a small enough buy that it wouldn’t interfere politically or commercially with the FCASW programme that will deliver an LRASM like capability in 2035 (actually 2 missiles 1 subsonic, long range stealthy the other medium ranged, high supersonic) and replace Storm Shadow on Typhoon, provide long range strike from T26 and be integrated on F-35B.

We’d also have the chance to move the JSM between F-35 and the P-8 fleet (that is if they ever get around to integrating it…its been very quiet recently) giving another string to P-8’s bow rather than using the outdated Harpoon.

JSM is also being looked at for sub launch from encapsulated rounds via torpedo tubes for the German/Norwegian Type 212CD submarine. As RN Subs don’t have VL systems it could be useful onboard Astute Class SSN’s. The USN SSN fleet is now almost entirely VL equipped (with the exception of the 3 Seawolf Class) so it is unlikely they’ll bother developing an encapsulated AShM in the future like Sub-Harpoon. Which means at present its the only option, with the exception of the aging Exocet and anti-ship Tomahawk which isn’t as survivable.

Interesting, did not remember plan for JSM integration on P-8 or a submarine torpedo launch capability. Would increase military utility as well as commercial viability. 🤔

BTW, would not be surprised if SSN(R) ultimately equipped w/ (limited) VLS. No hard evidence, though tantalizing hints dropped in recurring AUKUS pronouncements.

P-8 integration is a little odd. Lots of noise around it in 2015ish, particularly from the Australian’s. The Norwegian’s who make JSM also operate F-35 and P-8 so you’d expect them to want to ‘fly the flag’ and open up another market for it. But its all gone a little quiet since then. Australian’s have also ordered LRASM in the meantime, which is now being planned for integration on P-8 in 2027 (and F-35), but there is no indication that they’re not still interersted in JSM.

Ultimately I expect it to happen at some point as there are multiple countries who will operate P-8 and F-35 (US, Norway, Australia, UK, Germany, South Korea) with Canada on the way (discounting Italy as they have their own missile Teseo EVO). Too good a market to miss.

The torpedo launch capability got proposed soon after JSM got released as they noticed that the changes to make it fit in F-35 would also allow it to fit in a 21 inch torpedo tube. No-one bit for a while but the recently announced 212CD programme has it as a goal. Makes sense to tag along.

We don’t know much about SSN(R) it was a surprise when Astute didn’t have VL (but then again neither did Seawolf). Suspect the RN will look at it again this time around, but JSM from tubes is an option.

At this point, JSM integration on P-8 may occur more rapidly than on F-35. JPO is proving remarkably resistant to ‘suggestions’ for incorporation of additional requirements w/in rubric of Block 4 mods, until victory can be demonstrated, or, at least claimed. 🤔😳
Believe P-8 is relatively stable on a development path and does not entail nearly the same degree of cost, schedule and technical risk. Perhaps a viable, shared-cost, integration and test plan could be presented to the relevant allied user’s group.

This assessment, of course, loses validity if a relevant conflict occurs in the interim.

If RN absolutely, positively need to make an XXXL sized crater, please call (1-800-BOMBS-R-US). Reasonably certain Pentagon/USAF would be willing to oblige w/ a MOAB ASAP. 😉

Imagine what a modern Paveway guidance kit could do for a Tallboy or Grandslam? I wonder if you could lob one out of the back of a Herc or A400M?

Interesting thought experiment. Yup, of course someone may have to find a couple at the bottom of a munitions storage bunker. Both were supposedly taken out of service post-war, but willing to believe someone squirreled away a small number for ‘testing’ and ‘R&D.’ 😉
Willing to wager Wallis’ designs are preserved in some file (the warehouse in Raiders of the Lost Ark immediately comes to mind).
.Didn’t”t realize Tallboys we’re responsible for dispatching Tirpitz. Did Grandslams actually penetrate the sub pens?

Didn’t…🙄

Not vaguely true.

There are bombs and there are bombs.

Your sentence only makes sense in WW2 munitions context.

Nevertheless, our oldest allies.

That’s the one 😄

Necessity. It would have been nice to have gone to some nice places, at least just once!

😉👍

Damn, just saw Sean”s comment. Sorry all.

I hear you there 👍