It is interesting what impression may be gained from a report by the wording that was chosen by the original scribe. By which I would question whether anything has actually been scrapped at all. I admit this is the first I have seen but it would appear to me that the programme has, more accurately been 'redefined'

Obviously I need to explain myself here, It appears that the decision has been taken to use 'legacy' (ie existing) assets with the addition of UCAV's, such as we have seen reported on other threads.

However one of the options for FOAS was for an F-35 or Typhoon based 'fighter leader' working in conjunction with UCAV's. Therefore it is the same thing.

Actually the article tells us very little as by its own definition (and I cannot see the sunbscriber version which may answer this) it doesn't actually discount the other option of C-17 or A-400 based cruise missile launchers, although in the light of other announcements it might be that the decision has been taken to use the Nimrod MR/A.4 in this role (in which case we will need more than 12 surely?)

Neither do we know whether a full production version of 'replica' has been ordered or not so the phrase "or on order" could cover this too.

For a precedent of the changing name of the project look no further back than the Typhoon which, in its UK definition stages, was evolved through AST 396, AST 403, and various other guises before the BAe P.120 became the baseline for todays Typhoon.

Therefore in conclusion I think this may be a sign of FOAS (as was) moving forward a little and the MoD deciding it now has something to be secretive about, or at least it might be.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by waynos]

Hmm, remember last time the RAF decided there was no future for manned aircraft...?

But they may be right this time. Is the stealthy Nightjar UCAV part or all of the new capability? AFAIK Replica was only a demonstrator to allow BAE to get a slice of the US contract business and was not intended to result in a production aircraft.