Did you not just read my list of costly things the UK has developed, some specifically for Tempest. Including: a new engine, development of stealth technology, development of next-gen radar systems, development of directed energy weapons, development of new airframe manufacturing techniques, development of a new EW system is also in the works.
The UK is contractually tied into Tempest now, the idea being that it cannot be terminated because financially it’s costlier to cancel than to just finish the project.
Have you considered that perhaps the UK has been saving in areas like ordering more Eurofighters in order to put money aside for Tempest. A cost which has not been incurred by Germany and to a much smaller degree for Italy than the UK. Not that I’m suggesting that but every single thing you’ve mentioned in the UK not buying has been explained in perfectly reasonable terms to you.
Not really sure what this is supposed to mean, the UK/BAE have been responsible for the vast majority of successful Eurofighter export bids.
.
.
.
Whilst I do agree the UK armed forces are in a laughable state, Tempest is one of the few projects that doesn’t reflect that, and believe me Japan scrutinised the UK defence industry before agreeing to sign the co-development agreement.
Anyway, this is vastly off-topic, Im not discussing it any further here.
The Government can cancel the UKs participation within the programme at any time and have been known to. No one has developed a Gen 6 airframe that budget is going to stretched to absolute limit. We havent managed to develop an indigenous Gen 5 airframe and neither have the proposed business partners.
Yes we are a Tier 1 partner on the F-35 programme, to go to Gen 6 is a massive leap from that.
This is a serious undertaking and would swallow a large percentage of Britains defense spending.
At a time when the UK needs to purchase Archer, Boxer, Ajax, CR3, SHORAD systems and new small arms.
Necessary upgrades to the current Typhoon fleet.
Producing more surface ships and RN AUKUS submarine development.
If you look at UK defence spending really look at it, we are nothing short of broke.
We can only pick and choose programmes that are necessary.
We will know more when the defence spending review has concluded.
yes the outer wing pylons have 14 inch lugs for 1000lbs classs weapons and the middle and inner ones have 14 and 30 inch lugs for 1000 and 2000lbs class weapons. plus the same electrical connection standard everywhere. they’re all wired for smart weapons.
the only limit is weight and size (in terms of aerodynamics and clearance)
All types of A2A missiles can be carried on all wing pylons if MFRL is provided to the inner and middle pylons so total of 6 missiles (3 on each side).
Taurus KEPD 350 and Storm Shadow/Scalp EG can only be carried on inner or middle pylons so total of 2 (1 on each side).
Brimstone, AGM-88 HARM and SPEAR 3 can be carried on all wing pylons so total of 6 missiles for AGM-88 HARM, 18 missiles for the brimstone and 18 missiles or 24 missiles for SPEAR 3 (3 on each side).
Marte ER and Joint Strike Missiles can be carried on all wing pylons so total of 6 missiles (3 on each side).
The rest are bombs, Paveway II/III/Enhanced Paveway, 500-lb Paveway IV, Small Diameter Bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), HOPE/HOSBO, and Spice 250.
yes, though its 4 on each side with the ITSPL ( IR SRAAM Only)
Yes, this is a clearance / aerodynamics restriction, 4 missiles total might also be too heavy
yes for brimstone and spear-3, not sure what the HARM rail mounts on
marte ER was test-fitted with 6 missiles (not integrated though), not sure abt JSM, different dimensions & weight
currently integrated are afaik just paveways (enhanced and not enhanced). SDB might be possible with 24 total but not sure, there might be clearance or aerodynamic issues. jdam should be fine, hope&hosbo… who knows, they never really went anywhere, spice250 is about the same as SDB.
the inner wing pylons have a big length and width restriction because they’re in front of the landing gear and right next to the fuselage. I think that the quad SDB rack (BRU-61/A) is fine because its smaller than a paveway (this is ignoring aerodynamics though). the Smart Quad Rack (SQR) for spice-250 should also be fine imo
all in the realm of “technical compatibility” though. spear-3 is only planned (if at all) to be used on triple racks (just like brimstone) and then 4 at most because they want those external fuel tanks. remember, if you take the tpod, you lose the center line fuel tank. so a typical combat loadout would be 6 brimstone, 2 paveways, 2 fuel tank, 4 MRAAMs and 2 IR SRAAMs. and the tpod ofc
Are You sure?
They were multiple sources saying the opposite, and there was also a picture of and Italian Eurofighter fitted with marte with test-flight insignia in a ITAF hangar. Sure, we didn’t saw any video or picture of an Efa with them in the air, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done.
