Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 6,903
- Reaction score
- 10,708
Yeah and it is an Meteor development from Diehl at the beginning of the 2000s for an ARM missile. Often pops in some threads here If i remember it right.That is a different and weird looking missile Forest Green, it looks strange having the four ramjet nozzles. Let's just say that I have never seen a missile like that before, is there any info on it?
As pointed out, this is Armiger, an ARM, not an AAM/ARM. It explicitly says Air to Ground on the board behind it in both English and German.What they need is a dual-capability AAM/ARM, like this earlier idea:
Arminger:
View attachment 732795
So we are planning on designing a Meteor Mk.2 with an improved dual mode seeker, that will prove to be a deadly combination in air combat. Would it have feature longer range than the baseline Meteor?
Yeah and it is an Meteor development from Diehl at the beginning of the 2000s for an ARM missile. Often pops in some threads here If i remember it right.
There has been discussion of an ARM or a dual role Meteor at various points, but it wasn't Armiger.
Your right. I Mixed it up with one concept which would have used Arminger's seeker and meteors body.Armiger was nothing to do with Meteor whatsoever, completely different concept and manufacturers.
Will never happen. The agreement stipulates that anyone who leaves still has to pay for all the contracts they are obligated for for a year after withdrawal. They would be stuck paying for research that their companies would have done except it would be foreign companies that they would be funding instead and getting literally 0 benefits from.![]()
UK’s next generation fighter jet programme in doubt
Armed Forces minister says he cannot make commitments on Tempest after Labour fails to match 2030 defence spending pledgewww.telegraph.co.uk
![]()
Will never happen. The agreement stipulates that anyone who leaves still has to pay for all the contracts they are obligated for for a year after withdrawal. They would be stuck paying for research that their companies would have done except it would be foreign companies that they would be funding instead and getting literally 0 benefits from.
Tend to agree, there's very little meat in these stories.It's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.
I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
I have a nasty feeling you are wrong there.It's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.
I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
LOL typical media troublemaking by taking a quote out of context.![]()
UK’s next generation fighter jet programme in doubt
Armed Forces minister says he cannot make commitments on Tempest after Labour fails to match 2030 defence spending pledgewww.telegraph.co.uk
![]()
What it says, taking out all the hypotheses and dogshite is:See here also:
![]()
New UK fighter jet could be axed in defence review
There are concerns that going ahead with a programme that is not expected to deliver new aircraft until the 2030s is not the best way to deter a threat of war from Russia.news.sky.com
Luke Pollard, the armed forces minister, called the project "really important" but said it would not be right for him to prejudice the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) by setting out in a speech which pieces of military kit are required to fight future wars.
i very much doubt that Leonardo will leave the program, it's just too lucrative for them at this point, they may complain now but will come to an agreement at the end, this isn't Leonardo and KNDS level of problems, it's normal now because thankfully Leonardo has started investing more in the production section so they'll make it work imo, i wouldn't be scared of GCAP going bustIt's just clickbait from the right-wing press and the usual suspects (RUSI) trying to discredit Labour before they've even begun work. Quite rightly no Minister is going to second-guess what the defence review will say. It's obvious that Tempest is vital to UK industry as well as that of Italy and Japan, but Leonardo throwing its toys around over workshare and Saudi petro dollars lurking around in the backroom shows nothing is yet a done deal.
I suspect there will be some kind of tradeoff analysis of ordering more F-35s now or waiting for Tempest in 2035 - assuming of course it arrives on time and on budget, which with the track record of the industry and aviation projects (and other MoD programmes) seems unlikely.
As Italy is in the EU that really isn't going to help...I fear that GCAP might be used as a sacrificial offering to smooth the EU views on the ongoing discussions with UK.
The signs are not looking good.
But this is crazy. If there is a general war with Russia in the next 5 years (we've been hearing that since 1946) then its immaterial anyway whether GCAP goes ahead. Even if we ordered 500 F-35s tomorrow they wouldn't be delivered in time, we might get a squadron of Typhoons maybe, but given such a war would likely end up with instant sunshine dished about and we'll have lots of other things to worry about that "I wish they had ordered 1,000 GCAPs for 2040".
I don't think any government seriously seems to think we're going to war with Russia, as they'd be increasing defence spending to 10% of GDP as in the early 1950s, not 2.5%.But this is crazy. If there is a general war with Russia in the next 5 years (we've been hearing that since 1946) then its immaterial anyway whether GCAP goes ahead. Even if we ordered 500 F-35s tomorrow they wouldn't be delivered in time, we might get a squadron of Typhoons maybe, but given such a war would likely end up with instant sunshine dished about and we'll have lots of other things to worry about that "I wish they had ordered 1,000 GCAPs for 2040".
There seems to be a lot of death wish fanaticism going on, Justin Bronk's argument seem fallacious in several respects.
thank you for your intriguing articles link, I'm fully suspire hear about F35 "B" which the British operate is actually under a black box and controlled by a USA officer on QoE Carrier, which I thought we had full access to and complete control (besides I'm aware of software and code which safeguard to the USA only which British Tier 1 partner cant access even more alarming thing is Israel has code and software, allowed mods even they are not tier 1 partner when British revenue as tier 1 partner no other nations have this tiers) hopefully MODs have don't have a second thought option to abandon GCAP and buy off the shelf USA aircraft. (also articles has good point ie TSR-2 and F-111, (my additional) Starfighter bribe - which cost FD2 and SR Project Deal etc) don't want to make the same mistake.![]()
The only way is Tempest - Royal Aeronautical Society
The Global Combat Air Programme is a multinational effort led by the UK, Japan and Italy to develop a new stealthy combat aircraft. But is GCAP the right solution? JOE COLES went in search of answers.www.aerosociety.com
I don't think any gover seriously seems to think we're going to war with Russia, as they'd be increasing defence spending to 10% of GDP as in the early 1950s, not 2.5%.
The GSSO on a QE is a British officer, just like it's a Dutch officer on a RNAF base or an Italian officer on an Aeronautical Militare facility. The SAP guidelines are standardized for F-35 partners and are about preserving Classified technology not giving the US an iron grip on the aircraft. All partners have SAP personnel who can work with/on the aircraft and non-SAP personnel who don't have access, just like with any Classified program in any normal military. There will be RAF service members who won't be allowed to peer behind GCAP's curtain too.thank you for your intriguing articles link, I'm fully suspire hear about F35 "B" which the British operate is actually under a black box and controlled by a USA officer on QoE Carrier, which I thought we had full access to and complete control (besides I'm aware of software and code which safeguard to the USA only which British Tier 1 partner cant access even more alarming thing is Israel has code and software, allowed mods even they are not tier 1 partner when British revenue as tier 1 partner no other nations have this tiers) hopefully MODs have don't have a second thought option to abandon GCAP and buy off the shelf USA aircraft. (also articles has good point ie TSR-2 and F-111, (my additional) Starfighter bribe - which cost FD2 and SR Project Deal etc) don't want to make the same mistake.
these good articles push reason to keep heads up and carry on funding GCAP regarding what (also hope do not give up then join FCAS German-French) will affect Japanese partner and future. which the Japanese and British need to solve issues.
Personality I think we should go 4% once sort British Equipment and Grow to the maximum required ie fleet, Army size, and Air Force to full strength and full back up then tune down to 2.5% better long-running with an upgrade and future projects and maintenance, afford to pay new equipment without the cut.
when a world conflict war potential or a high-level cold war; we need seriously we should go 5% and then increase it to 7.5% for any speed-up project to be quickly ready earlier than planned. (Speed up Spear EW and FC/ASW, GCAP and More other thing)
thank for clarifyThe GSSO on a QE is a British officer, just like it's a Dutch officer on a RNAF base or an Italian officer on an Aeronautical Militare facility. The SAP guidelines are standardized for F-35 partners and are about preserving Classified technology not giving the US an iron grip on the aircraft. All partners have SAP personnel who can work with/on the aircraft and non-SAP personnel who don't have access, just like with any Classified program in any normal military. There will be RAF service members who won't be allowed to peer behind GCAP's curtain too.
It's supposed to be that way, but from I have heard it hasn't worked out like that, at least not to date.The GSSO on a QE is a British officer, just like it's a Dutch officer on a RNAF base or an Italian officer on an Aeronautical Militare facility. The SAP guidelines are standardized for F-35 partners and are about preserving Classified technology not giving the US an iron grip on the aircraft. All partners have SAP personnel who can work with/on the aircraft and non-SAP personnel who don't have access, just like with any Classified program in any normal military. There will be RAF service members who won't be allowed to peer behind GCAP's curtain too.
Exhibiting at the show together for the first time, the three GCAP government partners and their lead industry partners BAE Systems (UK), Leonardo (Italy) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) will showcase the significant strides they are making to progress the delivery of a truly next generation combat aircraft.
The new concept model on display in Hall 5 features a much more evolved design with a wingspan larger than previous concepts to improve the aerodynamics of the future combat aircraft.