It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Project Churchill??

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:24 PM
hi ive been viewing this message board for sometime and decided to make an account on here

these past few months ive started to become REALLY interested in military aircraft!!

i'm from the UK so of course i'm going to take an interest in what us lot have got in the works

it was great seeing the MOD test flying 'UAV Corax' and HERTI, this definatly shows how detmined the MOD are not to fall 'too far' behind the US
- i'm also keeping a close eye on the JSF (F-35).

but what i'm really wanting more information on is ''Project Churchill' does anyone have any information on this project??, i can't really find anything about it.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by st3ve_o]

[edit on 31-1-2006 by st3ve_o]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:38 PM
What little I know is very sketchy but as far as I understand it 'Project Churchill' does not actually feature an aircraft design (at least not yet) but is more about integrating (also known as 'giving away') UK UCAV knowledge and experience with similar US work (such as J-UCAS experience etc) in the hope of developing a joint Anglo American UCAV programme, its the 'Britain and America working together' aspect that the 'Churchill' name refers to.

However the prospect of this depresses me and I suspect that Churchill would turn in his grave if he knew about it.

The reason being that, reading between the lines, its really about the UK once again backing out of developing an indegenous (or even pan European) UCAV programme and instead going cap in hand to the USA hoping to become minor partners in their next venture and giving away all we have acquired in the process with nothing coming back the other way.

Have we learned NOTHING from the Miles M.52, HS Trident, Vickers 583/F-111, Harrier, faceted LO research in the '60's and F-35? Just how thick can we be?

Churchill himself manipulated America and played congress like a piano to get what he wanted, and they've been doing it back to us ever since. I don't blame, or hold any grudge towards, America of course. 'Never give a sucker an even break' indeed.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by waynos]

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:46 PM
I see your point WAYNOS. However yu often hear Mp's saying how much Britain spends in ridiculous weapon projects. So in one hand you want indigenpus resources on the other you don't want to spnd money on it. I think Britain lacks a policy on that matter.

I remember before the invasion to Iraq that a lot of people compian that the guns used by the Royal Marines were not up to standards to the American M-16.

What do you think Britain should do?

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:02 PM
See what I post on UK Unmanned Spy Plane

Originally posted by Popeye
Did anyone else notice the reference to Project Churchill in the BBC article this is the J-UCAS US/UK Coalition Warfare System Demonstration.

If found this Project Churchill Sample Task Order (word Doc) on a USAF site

Not sure exactly what's its focus, though it seems to be more focus on co-operation between US and UK platform than developing actuall flying UCAVs


Under a little-discussed effort called Project Churchill, the UK's long-running and highly classified work into UCAVs and home-grown stealth technology is being linked to J-UCAS. Apparently, the goal is that a future UK-developed UCAV will be fully interoperable with J-UCAS systems.

Dstl (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory) has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in the recently signed US/UK $100m J-UCAS Coalition Warfare System Demonstration Project Arrangement, known as Project Churchill. The signing of the agreement was the culmination of over four years’ work where Dstl was responsible for the US/UK Air Systems research collaboration. Dstl enabled an information exchange and sharing of knowledge on Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV), which led to the agreement being signed. Dstl is now responsible for the UK side of the research and collaboration.

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:04 PM
Well, for a start, I have never complained about the UK spending money on defence. However I am not advocating a 1930's style rearmament programme either.

My annoyance is not what weapons we buy (we will still be buying them even if America builds them for us) it is the way the industrial capability of BAE is constantly retrenching to the point now where you would hardly believe that the UK was once one of the worlds leading Aerospace manufacturing countries and that, in 1945, there were 27, yes TWENTY SEVEN, British aircraft fiirms with active and imaginitive design departments.

Obviously that level is ridiculously unsustainable, but we are now at the poijnt where BAE systems has not introduced a new type of its own design into production for a military customer anywhere since the Hawk T.1 entered production in 1975! Since then we have revamped the Harrier, revamped the Tornado into a fighter, designed a promising delta canard fighter then chucked it to build a collaborative version of the same plane fifteen years later, I will stop reeling them off now before I slit my wrists.

My point is simply that BAE Systems (reportedly the fourth largest defence contractor on the planet) really should be looking a developing and marketing its own stuff, or at the very least looking to be an equal, or joint biggest, partner in any such venture. What do we actually have ? 20% of Airbus (and NO home grown civil production at all from the country that gave birth to the Viscount, HS 748, BAC One Eleven and BAe 146) and 10-20% of the F-35.

In the past we could take it for granted that the UK would be a major partner in in collaborative ventures, we cannot expect this at all any more. But France can, and good for them I say.

What do I think we should do? I think BAE needs to produce and market its own UCAV and be represented in the market alongside the EADS and Boeing models, not be scratching around hoping for a morsel from whoever will throw it. A successful export programme is not a drain on funds, it CREATES them.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by waynos]

new topics

top topics

log in