Thread by @TotherChris

✈︎ A thread on spending towards the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) and whether the UK should persevere.

🧵

✈︎ This thread is partly in response to an article by RUSI. Be sure to read this article, we're on the same side, and challenging / Red Teaming thoughts are what drives a better outcome. I do recommend following the author @Justin_Br0nk as well.

✈︎ Debate is good. There are two flaws in the article's argument that I would challenge:

1️⃣ The spend;
2️⃣ Throwing in the towel.

✈︎ If taken on the face of the article, the amount of Spend to date by the Government on TEMPEST alone is not enough to reach Delivery.

(All graphs indicative, not accurate, in order to convey the concept).

✈︎ However the article misses the Total Spend. This is through Historic and Parallel industry expenditure. Prior to Team TEMPEST specific spends, there was FCAS. We also have the new GCAP Programme to take us beyond TEMPEST, engaging two G10 nations specialising in aerospace.

✈︎ Whether this is enough to bring the programme across the line is an unknown. However this is not the only spend. The members of Team TEMPEST alone, confirmed publicly, have self-funded considerable work.

They themselves are investing in this Programme.

✈︎ There are also additional funded Programmes that cross over. Radar 2 (ECRS) and other sensors manufactured in the the UK are current and evolving, upgrading or equipping 4.5 and 5th Generation fighters already.

✈︎ There's a similar story on the Defensive systems end, with UK manufacturers supplying 5th generation aircraft with advanced defensive aids that are also transferrable to GCAP.

✈︎ Weapons system wise, the UK has Team Complex Weapons, an ingoing spiral development of precision weapons that are succeeding in exports. There is also the Joint New Air-Air Missile being co-developed with Japan, one of the GCAP members.

✈︎ Japan-wise, we should also note any historical / current Programmes that Japan wishes to contribute data and materiél from. MHI are also self-funding to invest in GCAP.

✈︎ There is also indirect funding available in the UK. A Defence Project hiring Apprentices? Civ funds to help pay for them. National Security involved? NSS Investment Fund. Japan and Italy have similar underpinnings.

✈︎ The RUSI article also didn't look at the historic importance of the EAP aircraft for EuroFighter.

✈︎ Getting to a flyable prototype cannot be underestimated:

✈︎ It is a System of Systems, opposed to Bespoke, approach.

All of the components are, by design, evolved from mature tech and transferrable to and from GCAP (TEMPEST before it, FCAS, before that).

The UK should perform more "parts bin" R&D IMHO.

Very "Skunk Works".

✈︎ Throwing in the towel has two significant effects:

The first is it significantly damages the Aerospace industry in the UK. Defence pushes the cutting edge, drives manufacturing and tolerance improvement.

The UK is genuinely good at this stuff.

✈︎ The second is often used as an argument for throwing in the towel but should be seen as the opposite:

UK Defence Aerospace Development keeps us in the "Tier 1" partner bracket with the US.

Allow me to expand.

✈︎ On at least two occasions, Lobbyists succeeded in triggering blocking actions in the US Senate to deny the UK access to F-35 tech and software.

✈︎ On both occasions, the UK threatened to withdraw *our* critical tech & software combined with demoing our parity of R&D in return. This ensured "Tier 1" status. There's a reason the UK's F-35B's have "all-access" to F-35 kit/software, and other partners... simply don't.

✈︎ Throw in the Towel on GCAP and not only does the UK not get its own future combat aircraft, but it also does not get "all-access" to future US tech and the defence aerospace industry here dies.

The US Senate and Lobbyists are *not* your friend.

Even when they are.

✈︎ The RUSI article echoes calls just over a decade ago to throw in the towel on F-35 involvement and buy F-18 instead. A Boeing lobbying campaign included test-flights in F-18's and Apaches for Defence journalists here.

Beware Lobbyists bearing Gifts.

✈︎ A quick aside on the F-35A.

Further F-35B procurement does not hamstring the RAF, but F-35A procurement hamstrings the FAA/RN.

We're "in" on CEPP*. Why are we jeopardising that?

F-35B is also a damaged / dispersed airstrip option.

We implement lessons learned, no?

*Carrier Enabled Power Projection

✈︎ In summary, the RUSI article misses two foundational factors in GCAP: Actual Spend and Tech Buy In.

If we followed naïve advice to throw in and trust the US Senate and their Lobbyists the UK would lose the slim edge its aerospace industry has over other G7 nations.

✈︎ Do follow @Justin_Br0nk and @RUSI_org. One opinion / misstep of advice does not invalidate their other contributions or debate points and I look forward to reading more.

Red Team, out 🫡

/FIN