Unite the Union, representing over 1.3 million members across various sectors, has submitted a comprehensive response to an inquiry focusing on the future of the UK’s defence aviation capabilities.

The union, which represents a significant number of workers in the UK’s defence sector, has provided detailed insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).

“The Combat Air sector in the UK is a vital national asset… playing a critical role in delivering national security,” the union stated, emphasising the sector’s century-long history of technological innovation and its contribution to the military’s ability to deter or overcome threats.

The union welcomed the Combat Air Strategy of 2018 and the launch of Team Tempest, which they believe heralded a new dawn for the sector.

“The Strategy provided a huge boost to the sector through emphasising its importance and delivering a long-term vision,” Unite’s submission reads, highlighting the need for the UK to maintain pace with other major nations.

Unite’s submission outlines the key challenges in delivering GCAP’s aim to deliver a 6th generation combat aircraft by 2035:

Sustained Government Investment: “The Government has to spend money (maintaining a constant drumbeat of funding)… it would be a national disgrace if this spending is not prioritised on national solutions,” Unite insists.

Maintaining UK Sovereignty and Security: The union stresses the importance of investment to “allow industry to plan for the long-term future and give confidence to our international partners that the UK is serious about GCAP.”

Balancing Operational Capabilities: Unite points out that “the two options for the Typhoon replacement are either Tempest or more F35s,” arguing that a combination of both would provide the ideal fit for national defence and economic security.

Retaining Sovereign Capability: The submission highlights the risk of the UK losing its sovereign capability to design and produce its own defence aircraft, stating, “To not do so would mean that the UK would become the only P5 United Nations member without this ability.”

Export Potential and International Relations: Unite believes that maintaining a strong defence aviation sector is key to sustaining UK jobs and building international relations and influence.

Long-term Industry Planning: The union calls for “continuing to invest in Typhoon up until it leaves service to ensure it meets the military need while also maintaining valuable skills in the workforce, which will then be exploited on Tempest.”

Unite’s submission to the inquiry is a clear call to action for the UK government to ensure that the defence aviation sector continues to thrive.

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

89 COMMENTS

      • The original ducted fan concept was by Michel Wibault (French) at NATO and Kestrel/Harrier was a joint British/West German/US development funded by US money.

        • So, you’re saying that the BAE Sea Harrier FA2 – designed in Britain, built in Britain, with a British radar and avionics and solely funded by the UK and only used by the RN – wasn’t British because the original concept for the parent concept airframe was jointly funded?
          I suspect you might be a little on your own in that view.

          If you were making that argument about Harrier GR7/9 I’d agree

          • Sea Harrier FA2 good dog fighter ,why they put GR7/9 on carriers is beyond me.Should of left well alone . 🤔

          • Because strike was the priority back then. And the GR7/9 airframe/Avionics wnd weapons brought more options to the strike role.

          • Indeed and in fact Sweden has more projects ‘sponsored ‘ by US grants than any other Country but it hardly makes them NOT Swedish.

            I guess if it ever gets off the ground the Sabre engine will be American or European because they put money into its development and of course even its general concept no doubt was put forward back in the 50s or even earlier, but to claim Alan Bond and the team at Reaction isn’t/aren’t the major conceptualisers, originators and creators of its finished form is simply ridiculous, though I suspect in ten years time on here someone will be making the same point.

            Did Arthur C Clarke really invent the Communications satellite because he conceived of such a thing in a book, was the Director of ‘Things to Come’ the creator of the flat screen tv because such a thing was shown in the film?

            As I said elsewhere there is a complicated mix of influences in any actual invention or even concept so how far do you go back or how wide do you cast your net.

        • True but nearly all concepts have various usually mixed origins no matter who actually makes it happen. Is the helicopter an Italian concept, or the steam turbine Greek? Loads had concepts for TV, jet engines and radar.

    • The Buccaneer was actually initially designed and built with the aid of some US defence funding, a wider arm of the post war Marshall plan.

    • I don’t think they mean 100%, indeed nothing these days is 100% (little is even in the US) most projects here are nothing like it, just take the T-26 as an example, how much is British content there, we have just seen an order for Swedish radar, much of the steel isn’t even UK sourced. it’s more about Sovereign capability to design, lead, engineer or at the very least participate on an equal level to those we cooperate with. The Sydney Opera House was designed by a Scandinavian and Engineered by a UK Company and constructed in and by Australians for the most part each retained their capabilities in its creation even if they exploited skills from elsewhere.

      • The Opera house was a concept by a Scandinavian. The actual redesign was Australian/UK. The build was all Australian. We should bring Australia more closely into the Tempest as a long range fighter and to pay for a Navalised version as stage 2.

      • Oh dear god….. i’m now thinking you post this stuff deliberately to make people laugh….. well you certainly got me mate ! 😂 Russia,China. Germany,South Korea. Japan are all cracking themselves up now….. Can you hear them ?

        • Germany cannot build a 4th gen aircraft solo, let alone a 6th gen aircraft. If they could they wouldn’t be in a crappy situation with SCAF and France.
          South Korea is so far building a souped up 4.5th generation aircraft with Indonesia. Leagues away from being a 5th gen fighter.
          Russia could say they’ve built a 6th gen fighter, but like SU-57, it wouldn’t actually be one.
          Japan has only ever built modified fighter jets under licence. Your first ever domestically designed aircraft being 6th gen is difficult. Given they have never built a fighter jet for export, and have little foothold in any export market I doubt they could do it alone as it would cost too much.

          China could do it alone.

          • Oh do behave, I just love winding you up, it’s just so funny really some of the stuff you write. oh and UK and France are both working with other Countries on their 6th Gen designs, if you didn’t know.

          • Yes exactly right….. it’s just that you missed my sarcasm. None of those Countries are actually capable apart from the USA.

          • That’s my bad.
            Tempest was effectively a UK only project until Japan joined, mainly funded by the UK etc.
            France also probably could build their own 6th gen fighter as well.
            The advantages both the UK and France have is an export market. Saudi Arabia would have liked to have bought nearly the same amount of Typhoons as the RAF.

            Of course it is in both countries interests to work with other countries as it speeds the projects up, makes the unit price go down, provides extra funding, opens up new export markets etc.

          • A few countries could “Probably build their own” but as it stands, it’s just the USA, all other projects are partnerships, hence my silliness. All the countries I mentioned would “Probably” be able to contribute in some way.

          • Pretty much summed it up there Louis apart from the obvious interest that many countries will have in obtaining this technology, or Keeping up.

        • Can you name the 6gen fighter programs any of those countries are leading? Russia and China can’t make 5th Gen engines or even true 5th Gen aircraft, Germany has zero engine building capability. South Korea is currently embarking on a 4.5 Gen aircraft.

        • Russia have not yet created a 5th generation fighter, neither have china, neither have the sensor fusion sorted to make a 5th generation fighter. Korea has just managed a 4.5 generation fighter… Germany…what involvement have they had in fifth generation fighter development..same for France and Japan….all have only had experience in 4.5 generation fighter development..infact the only nations that have experience in developing and manufacturing 5th generation fighters is the US and as the UK came along for the ride with F35, the UK ( to an extent).

      • How many ? France has yet to build a 5th gen and are in the early stages of a collaboration with Germany and Spain for the FCAS. Britain, Italy, Sweden and Japan are the Tempest partners at this time, Turkey and South Korea are also looking along those lines. USA are going along on there own. Russia and China will obviously be working away at it also.

  2. It seems to me that the RAF must keep Typhoon in service until Tempest is fielded in enough numbers to provide QRF. F35 doesn’t have the speed to catch the Mach 2 Backfires or Blackjacks…

    On another note, would there be any merit in continuing to keep the Typhoon in service in the same way the USAF have kept the F15? That thing first flew in the 70’s and is still a capable aircraft to this day thanks to continuous upgrades. Keeping Typhoon at the same time as F35s and Tempests would allow the RAF to deploy effective air-to-air and air-to-ground fighters without having to rely on more valuable fifth and sixth gen fighters.

    I suppose it would be nice, but as always comes down to £££ (or lack thereof) at the end of the day though!

    Long time lurker, first time comment poster, no military experience, just a keen interest in defence matters!

    Thanks

    JM

    • Your spot on jim , what you say makes told sense but like many on this website we all know HMG have an odd way of going about there business in Defence matters. 👍

  3. We really should be the world leader in drones, our air industry is set up for this and we have had several demonstrators at advanced stages.

    you can’t tell me turkey has more capability than us in aviation, yet Turkey and Israel are the leaders.

    taranis is a massive missed opportunity and with new 3D printing manufacturing we need to get on top of this now.

    A wise investment now would be a game changer if done right.

      • we need to take a good look at the nordics and see how they can sustain the defence industries that they do on such a small cost base.

        UK spends almost double on defence than Sweden, Norway, Denmark & Finland combined. Yet they are able to build gripen, loads of good ships, including SSKs, CV90, Archer, CB90 as well as Karl gustav, JSM, NSM … well the list goes on

        so how can they do it, but we can’t… time to take a good long hard look at ourselves and build an agile industry that gets the £10bn+ annual non CASD equipment spend.

        For the record I am happy to help free of charge, as I am sure most on this forum would.

        • Maybe you need to take a long hard look at what we design and build. The list is long. Everyone thought we had nothing in the cupboard to give to Ukraine. Yet we are the 2nd largest donor of military equipment.

          • That’s incredibly wrong. Germany has donated perhaps 4x UK… PL NL and others are quite close too, actually

          • As of October 2023. The UK is the 2nd largest donor of military equipment and aid to the Ukraine. The House of commons library backs up my claim with official reports that are in the public domain. 6.5bn of UK assistant has been provided since February 2022. 5.6bn Euros from the combined EU countries has been provided. 43.9bn dollars from the US.

        • Indeed and unlike arguably the likes of Turkey, they are not low cost economies either. I know we are in danger of getting into the realms of conspiracy theory here, but I can’t but wonder what is adding enormously to the cost of almost anything we seem to do here compared to similar economies. Never heard a totally convincing explanation.

          • If you look at Gripen a lot of the component parts are British.

            personally, I think Gripen should be the RAF trainer, as it does a lot and can be frontline, I don’t really think Hawk or its replacement can.

            they are clearly doing a lot right as their weapons have stood the test of time and are being adopted by other nations, including us

          • Isn’t Gripen a bit “Hot” to be a trainer? Would be a bit scary flying your first jet with comparable performance with any of the frontline jets in the world

          • I am sure they could sort that out by limiting the performance to suit the training requirement.

            plus also most training is synthetic these days and there are no 2 seaters anymore to my knowledge.

            i do think it’s a valid option for the UK, especially given volume of UK content

          • They would probably end up spending over 10 billion on it to make it 2 seat and only have 50 percent of the components the same

        • ….and why i am still proposing that a new UK-National agency that, funded by a Sovereign Wealth Fund, should be set up to nurture, develop, and ensure that certain key critical strategic capabilities, equipment and assets are created or not lost, so that skills are retained and profits/spend not exported overseas. In the case of aviation, both civil and military, there would be specific nurturing of drones, software, transport, missiles, frontline fighters, bombers, and space. The UK MoD is not set up to do this or can be solely relied upon.

          • …forgot to add: …and only using the appropriate level of technology for the job. i.e. not wasting endless amounts of budget going to the usual suspects to take years of research or to line their pockets. Some times you don’t have to re-invent the wheel.

          • When you say “I am still proposing”, are you saying this is an idea you have had on forums like this or an official thing you’re campaigning for?
            Because I would sign that petition for sure

          • …sorry I should have clarified that I have only bored people on this forum banging on about it. Now if more people agreed, or there was a clear route to bring this to those in power, then I might put more effort in about it? 🙂

            Great that you and some others on this forum agree though.

          • I am Shure you would find sum support with the unions…
            I agree with you though great idea!
            Think of the government head line “A catalyst for change”

          • Sorry mate but I kind of dozed off there…. Can you type it in a more interesting zzzzzzzzzzz … bugger….. did it again…… zzzzzzz Way ?

          • Agree. Exploiting advances in rapid prototyping is definitely the way to work through concepts and define which are promising and the many that are not before moving through to spending serious money. There my be much that might be happening but the public are not told about. Good.

          • AlbertStarburst, Im not military myself, but family were/are, i have an opion and like to share my thoughts if i think they maybe of value or useful.
            Regards Sovereign Wealth Fund, im not sure, but through this fund could the likes of the Princes Trust which supports those obtaining Skills for Industry be applied to UK Defence under say eg ‘ The Kings Trust’ maybe its a stupid idea..just floating it🫣
            An organisation supported by his Majesty King Charles the 3rd, thus maintaining the Quality of Defence for the UK, providing high quality training for both military personel and Industry.
            Thoughts ?

          • Absolutely that would work. However my thoughts are for a much wider brief covering military and civilian, retain IP and manage UK resources and assets.

            For example the agency (call it say Royal Asset Works and Capabilities – RAWAC) would be funded by a Norway-style Sovereign Wealth fund that would say invest in energy infrastructure and oil/gas fields, but first the UK would need to set up a strategic framework so that energy is only sold back into the UK market – thus preserving the resource and lowering UK prices.

            For example, in aviation common parts/systems and standards would be mandatory – like the old Ministry for Aircraft Production. Ditto for the Navy, Army & Space.

            For example an armoured vehicle & Main Battle Tank design and production capability would be re-established – the Chally was not too bad – rather than the current German/American offerings for future MBTs, and expenditure to the UK total economy kept in the UK.

            These are sorts of thing such an agency could do, along with re-employing, as a priority, ex-military and developing UK talent. Does that make sense?

          • AlbertStarburst, indeed it does make total sence, hard part is getting it of the ground and started.
            If something like it happened, would have to keep an eye on the assets ! Make sure there are no sticky fingered ministers lining there off shore accounts lol.
            When you mentioned the chally it triggered a fond memory, as a wee boy i used to go down to Crossgates,(Barnbow/Vickers) mid 1970’s to watch the Chieftan Tank been tested over the concrete ramps ect, where i live about 3 miles away you could here the roar of the rolls royce engines used to give my butterfly’s in my gut. I just loved the sound..My Dad treated me one time at Sandhurst, on the sands,i got a ride in the gunners seat of a Chieftan Tank( they locked the sight on the Irish ferry,i was a happy lad that day i was 7 maybe 8 yrs old, a ride in a short wheel based landrover and Stalwart. Fond memorys you uncorked cheers🍺🥃

          • …yes getting the concept to somebody in Government is the tricky bit, unless somebody is reading this thread? I have run a big campaign before which took loads of time/resources, so I am reluctant to kick another off without big support…

            I too have had similar moments to you. Mine was growing up with BOAC and VC10s – the last great all-British airliner.

        • Problem been we just don’t own anything like the old days , our two steel plants what are left one is own by India and the other would you believe China .Like been said on another post Special steel for ships etc has to come from Sweden ,it’s madness. 👍

    • Yes, why hadn’t Taranis been further developed? What the hell are they waiting for… to be over taken by the competition!? Loyal wingman right there. AEW, Fuel, Reconnaissance. Maybe could even go off the carriers too. Seriously, someone in the MOD needs a bit of a shake don’t they?

      • I think cost was an issue, at the time they were pitching UCAV concepts with price tag in the hundred million plus for Taranis.

        Then Kratos said it could build for $2 million which is an absolute lie as they are now pitching $20 million+.

        • There is a lot of confusion (some rightfully) over Taranis and it’s like. It was a demonstrator a concept that was used to develop and perfect various technologies and by all accounts successfully, after all Magma was developed after it and was certainly still under test in recent years. Those te hnologies have fed into Tempest and no doubt any loyal wingmen that come out of that project.

          But what is it that people expect Taranis to have done had it been produced at that stage? A stealth deep attack drone? Trouble is attitudes to that concept have become a lot less optimistic over the last decade due to experience esp in Ukraine but the Middle East too. The Iranians managed to take control of a US drone of this type a decade ago and land it and it’s thought their own drone developments have exploited it. Meanwhile the survivability of such drones in a contested environment isn’t deemed as favourable as once thought, meaning efforts have concentrated upon stand off weaponry from the likes of the F-35. As a result the US failed to develop upon the extremely advanced complex autonomous Ai driven drones developed over decades by Northrop Grumman, despite their award winning software being deemed the most advanced anywhere. Instead the US is developing presently at least, drone tankers to support manned jets and will take it from there with new projects for potential attack variants.

          So where does that leave Taranis? I do think there is a future for these high end concepts, but I suspect work on Tempest will dictate exactly what form and role they will take. Cost will be a big factor in that regard and as such what technological goals are to be set for any given role within those cost/performance sliding parameters, I guess it’s like starting in the middle and adjusting both ways looking for the best compromise, but I’m sure since Taranis, technology has come a long way and will continue to do so. If we get Japanese input too surely that can only be advantageous too considering their advanced Ai and robotic technologies.

          Now I read somewhere this year and I can’t confirm it elsewhere unfortunately, that the Boeing Australia Moonbat drone is using a Bae autonomous flight system, which considering how Taranis was trialed there and the US likely is reluctant to share much of its closely guarded autonomous tech no doubt, may well have substance. If that report is indeed true then clearly Bae’s work is far from lost, indeed we know it isn’t because of Tempest and no doubt all manner of technologies from both that platform and Magma will reveal themselves over time but with ten years further development no doubt. So Taranis is far from a missed opportunity as things stand, in the future perhaps we will see.

          • Perhaps one of the issues with RPAS drones is that they aren’t cheap to run either. The last figures I saw for the US required more people in a drone squadron than a manned one. As increased autonomy reduces the requirement for ground operators, the operational cost will fall and loyal wingman type drones, like Ghost Bat, will form an increasing part of the mix.

            There are too many technical advantages in having a pilotless design for the idea to die.

          • ” As a result the US failed to develop upon the extremely advanced complex autonomous Ai driven drones developed over decades by Northrop Grumman, despite their award winning software being deemed the most advanced anywhere. Instead the US is developing presently at least, drone tankers to support manned jets and will take it from there with new projects for potential attack variants.”

            The US has all but confirmed that there are squadrons of the RQ-180 whitebat operational. There are pictures of this aircraft operating on multiple continents and just this past week they hinted that an even more advanced drone built by LM might already be operational.

            Always Always Always be very skeptical when a promising tech gets “cancelled” by the pentagon and seem to disappear from all discussion.

          • Also interestingly the B-21 which just had its first flight is ‘optionally manned’. Its meant to have a secondary role as an ISR platform and do things like data-link relay (and im sure other things) which I imagine would be handled just fine without a crew on board.

      • Taranis was a proof of concept, a scale model and test bed for future aircraft, it used the Adour from the Hawk and what was learned will be used in part, on future aircraft…….Tempest for example.

    • You can’t make this stuff up, really. Unite calls for more investment and its members blockade the result of that investment from earlier years. Then they’ll whine when it goes elsewhere.

    • It’s a sad state of affairs. Hamas has won this round of ongoing spat.
      The protests would have been part of the plan to start their operation, knowing the Israelis response under bibi would be bad.
      Another part of the plan is getting other groups to attack Israel and its interests.
      Another goal was to disrupt on going peace talks in the Middle East.
      Finally to get people to forget what actually happened and just be outraged at Israel’s actions. Hostages? Killing Israelis?
      The way protestors seem to think this country and freedoms they live under doesn’t require defending. See how far protesting gets them with another state takes over the U.K.

  7. This would be the same Unite union that backed Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party? The same Jeremy Corbyn who would have unilaterally left NATO and disarmed the armed forces if given half a chance?

    • Marxists always play both sides. That is why they push for Unions when the regime is democratic but when the regime is Marxist the unions disappear

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here