UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest' [Archive]

Heathrow Harry

16th Jul 2018, 12:12

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44848294

A model of the UK's planned new fighter jet, the Tempest, has been unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show.

The UK's Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, said the jet could be used with either pilots or as a drone. The aircraft, which will eventually replace the existing Typhoon fighter jet, will be developed and built by BAE Systems, engine maker Rolls-Royce and Italy's Leonardo.Mr Williamson said the UK would be investing £2bn in the new project.

The hope is to see it flying by 2035.Mr Williamson said the programme was aimed at ensuring the UK's continued leadership in fighter technology and control of air space in future combat: "We have been a world leader in the combat air sector for a century, with an enviable array of skills and technology, and this strategy makes clear that we are determined to make sure it stays that way."He added that the UK, currently excluded from the latest fighter programme underway between France and Germany, was not against forming a partnership with other nations: "It shows our allies that we are open to working together to protect the skies in an increasingly threatening future - and this concept model is just a glimpse into what the future could look like."'Direction of travel'

Aeropace giant Airbus embraced the move: "Airbus welcomes the UK's commitment of funding for the future fighter project. We look forward to continuing collaborative discussions with all relevant European players."Earlier, the chief executive of BAE Systems, Charles Woodburn, told the BBC's Today programme that the new jet would be some time in coming."We already have the Typhoon platform which forms the absolute bedrock of European air defence and that'll be in service for decades to come," he said.He added that the inner workings of the new craft would start life within the Typhoon."The important thing about the new concept is that it will illustrate a direction of travel and many of those technologies that will be embodied in that will first see their service through the Typhoon."For example, upgrades on the avionics, upgrades in the weapons systems, upgrades in the radar will be deployed through the Typhoon and will be deployed there and then."

Heathrow Harry

16th Jul 2018, 12:14

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/660x371/_102547853_mediaitem102547505_d74bebbab3f7ccdd1bc8c3d276b0eb 5ced89be4c.jpg

air pig

16th Jul 2018, 12:15

Why is it manned?

Why not, comms and data links can be spoofed or jammed.

white rabbit

16th Jul 2018, 12:15

Why is it manned?

The intention is for it to be in both manned and unmanned versions.

PDR1

16th Jul 2018, 12:16

Why is it manned?

Because if we put the operators in bunkers omn the UK the opposition will focus their efforts on attacking the UK. By putting a crew in the vehicle we give them something to shoot at.

PDR

Buster Hyman

16th Jul 2018, 12:39

the jet could be used with either pilots or as a drone.
How to make your Crews feel wanted, 101.

Onceapilot

16th Jul 2018, 12:48

...and I suspect, we'll never see it flying either. Not so much a paper plane as a cardboard plane?

This is mocked-up from a Tonka wreck? Certainly looks like they nicked the undercart. Hmmm, one pie-in-the-sky after another. Presume this will be carrier capable? ;)

OAP

Heathrow Harry

16th Jul 2018, 13:02

Because if we put the operators in bunkers omn the UK the opposition will focus their efforts on attacking the UK. By putting a crew in the vehicle we give them something to shoot at.

PDR

How else will you get SO's with the "right" experience???

Bob Viking

16th Jul 2018, 13:21

I know I’m not surprised but threads like this take on a familiar pattern.

It’ll never be as good as a TSR2/Phantom/Hunter. It’s ugly. We won’t get enough. It’ll be rubbish. I wouldn’t have done it like that. Etc, etc ad infinitum.

Clearly I am wired differently to lots of people on this forum. When I read the article I think ‘brilliant, a new fighter’. It shows forethought and ambition with a fair amount of commitment to it so far.

As for the piloted/unpiloted mix I think it makes perfect sense. The mothership and drone concept is not new. It should actually excite us not scare us.

Anyway, I expect I’ll be a lonely voice amongst the masses but why not try to see the positives. If nothing else it shows that my kids may get to be fighter pilots after all.

BV

BEagle

16th Jul 2018, 13:46

Frostchamber

16th Jul 2018, 14:05

1. Government allows UK design leadership to atrophy over many years, turns us into subcontractor to the world, lacks the balls to craft a positive UK-led way forward that shows faith in the UK aviation industry and fails to back the industry in the way that other counties like France support theirs = moan.

2. Government shows signs of responding to that, finally and unexpectedly growing a pair and backing UK industry with a proposal involving UK design leadership of a UK-driven Typhoon replacement, on a timeframe that reflects Typhoon OoS = still moan.

Sic transit PPRuNe.

I'm pleased and cautiously encouraged to see this development. I also fully expect that this early concept will evolve somewhat over time, and acknowledge that a lot of difficult water will pass under the bridge before it gets anywhere near IOC.

hoss183

16th Jul 2018, 14:06

Looks an awful lot like the F22

Not_a_boffin

16th Jul 2018, 14:09

Glad to see that OAP is now on board with the idea of carriers and is supportive of at least starting the project with an eye to deck operations - probably not STOVL - and not repeating the mistakes of the past by designing a purely land-based cab........

ORAC

16th Jul 2018, 14:17

A naval version in 2035? We should just about have had the last F-35B delivered by then with 30+ years service ahead of them.....

siunds like a plea to go down the F-111/F.35 rabbit hole all over again.....

MPN11

16th Jul 2018, 14:22

Tempest Mk. VII? Not much like its predecessors, though.

Do we have to perpetuate aircraft names? I know it appeals to some, but I’m finding it a bit silly.

Stitchbitch

16th Jul 2018, 14:53

Are we copying the Chinese now? :E
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/768x513/chengdu_j_xx_vlo_prototype_45s_694ad283e072afc4febd23c3c9d39 f649f7f26cd.jpg

Not_a_boffin

16th Jul 2018, 15:08

Very definitely not a plea for a repeat of F111 and F35. But then again they were very different things. A low-level strike bomber asked to be a long-range carrier based interceptor and a strikefighter asked to do several things, including be cheap(!), be STOVL, be an F16-alike, be an A6(ish) alike, all in one airframe. A big ask.

All I'm suggesting here is that the early stages of what appears to be an air-dominance type aircraft design and requirements exercise does not dismiss immediately the need to fly off a ship - preferably using catapults and arrester gear. If it becomes a serious cost/performance limiter, then fair enough, drop it, but we should try to avoid repeating a situation where the question is never even asked, because either "SHAR flies off ships" or "CVS is too small".

You never know - there might actually be an export market for it.........as well as potential closer to home.

Just a spotter

16th Jul 2018, 15:15

Excellent news.

Post Brexit, blighty can partner with the Iranians on the project.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/600x418/8pxufwr_597d359eea736886f32ed6cbf7d133cfe024e441.jpg

:}

JAS

Onceapilot

16th Jul 2018, 15:17

Jeez Guys, it's a wood and filler mock-up of...nothing. Anyone able to explain the costings that equate to the quoted " £2B" UK Gov support? Hot air! So this is what, 6th Gen? UK cannot afford to do this on its own. I suggest this is just political fudge to keep BAe in the game for a while, a £200M per year life-support R&D drip feed, not a real design or reflection of what might be needed in 20 years time. :hmm:

OAP

Heathrow Harry

16th Jul 2018, 15:22

Tempest Mk. VII? Not much like its predecessors, though.

Do we have to perpetuate aircraft names? I know it appeals to some, but I’m finding it a bit silly.

Yeah but lots of names have been used - some others are no longer politically acceptable

we could call it the "Aspiration" I guess.............

Igundwane

16th Jul 2018, 15:26

Front end also looks like it can be clipped on and off and swapped with various other " pods" for the want of a better description

ORAC

16th Jul 2018, 15:29

“Now I will believe that there are unicorns...”

Onceapilot

16th Jul 2018, 15:29

You can tell how desperate BAe and the RAF are here, they have named it before designing it! "Team Tempest" etc...blah! :ooh:

OAP

Igundwane

16th Jul 2018, 15:30

Sure. It is a flying boat with retractable gear. Floatplane tenders are cheaper and easier to build and deploy than proper carriers.

And use more up to date software and OP systems than what was installed on the new carrier 😳

Rhino power

16th Jul 2018, 15:37

And use more up to date software and OP systems than what was installed on the new carrier 😳
I assume you're referring to the drivel that was in the media about the QE class carriers running XP just because a screen aboard the ship was seen with the XP screensaver on it? Nothing could be further from the truth, but then, facts should never get in the way of an ill informed comment should they...

-RP

camelspyyder

16th Jul 2018, 15:40

Will this be our first indigenous combat jet since Sea Harrier?

Or is it just a cardboard copy of Hollywood's Firefox machine?

Clyffe Pypard

16th Jul 2018, 15:58

Do hope it gets on better than the TSR 2

Davef68

16th Jul 2018, 16:17

Manned and unmanned sounds a good mix - manned aircraft for Air Defence and ground support (The old mk 1 eyeball) and autonomous/RPV for interdiction and long range attack options.

And at least they have avoided Dave mk 2 ((Clive?) by naming it first

VX275

16th Jul 2018, 16:17

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/660x371/_102547853_mediaitem102547505_f859a2745e69ccdc03ecdb403dfd09 590fe73dd6.jpg

If the F-35 was the Dave can I suggest this is called Bruce. Look at that chin and the smug look, Bruce Forsyth reincarnate.

Mil-26Man

16th Jul 2018, 16:23

Some people on here are nothing more than dripping, whinging, moaning, miserable, downbeat denigrators of their country, their services, their people and their society, aren't they Onceapilot?

Enemies of the people and saboteurs, the lot of them!! Ho hum.

Heathrow Harry

16th Jul 2018, 16:25

In service 2035... and that's TODAY's Target - 17 years of cash flow for BAe....

Buster15

16th Jul 2018, 16:55

If the government is REALLY prepared to 'go it alone' and provide all the necessary resources to deliver such a programme then I applaud such an initiative.
The reality is likely to be quite different primary due to the massive costs.
It is vital that the UK aerospace industry is positioned to acquire the required technologies in order to take advantage or collaborate with whoever is both ambitious and capable of producing a new fighter in the required timescale.

Igundwane

16th Jul 2018, 17:00

Tankertrashnav

16th Jul 2018, 17:03

Is there going to be a two seat version that can be flown without a pilot or a WSOP? ;)

MPN11

16th Jul 2018, 17:14

I’m on the “Good News” side of the fence.

Pleas knock on my coffin and let me know how it goes in Service.

ORAC

16th Jul 2018, 17:25

Chine - not chin.........

Airbubba

16th Jul 2018, 17:54

I assume you're referring to the drivel that was in the media about the QE class carriers running XP just because a screen aboard the ship was seen with the XP screensaver on it? Nothing could be further from the truth, but then, facts should never get in the way of an ill informed comment should they...

-RP

Here's an update from articles last month saying that XP may be gone (an upgrade to Windows 7 perhaps?) when and if the carrier becomes operational in 2026:

Does Britain's Big New Warship Still Run Windows XP?HMS Queen Elizabeth is impressive. Her software is not.By Kyle Mizokami (https://www.popularmechanics.com/author/14085/kyle-mizokami/)Jun 28, 2017

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy's newest vessel and the largest one ever built in the United Kingdom, is an impressive ship. Nine hundred and nineteen feet long with a crew of 1,600, the ship can carry up to 40 aircraft. Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship, Prince of Wales, will form the UK's main expeditionary force at sea, sailing into hotspots with their decks full of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Oh, and Queen Elizabeth also runs Windows XP.

The brand new carrier left its dockyard in Rosyth for the first time on Monday, where it was assembled from subsections built all over the UK. The London-based newspaper The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/27/hms-queen-elizabeth-royal-navy-vulnerable-cyber-attack) reported that computers running the positively ancient PC operating system were spotted on the carrier during a tour.

Update: There has been some speculation that the Queen Elizabeth won't be running XP when it becomes fully operational in 2026, and that these claims are overblown.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27108/hms-queen-elizabeth-windows-xp/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27108/hms-queen-elizabeth-windows-xp/)

Another recent report:

Software (https://www.theregister.co.uk/software/)HMS Windows XP: Britain's newest warship running Swiss Cheese OSSpotted on carrier control room screens - reportsBy Gareth Corfield (https://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/Gareth-Corfield) 27 Jun 2017 at 13:52

Updated The Royal Navy’s brand new £3.5bn aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is currently* running Windows XP in her flying control room, according to reports.

Defence correspondents from The Times and The Guardian, when being given a tour of the carrier’s aft island – the rear of the two towers protruding above the ship’s main deck – spotted Windows XP apparently in the process of booting up on one of the screens in the flying control room, or Flyco.

“A computer screen inside a control room on HMS Queen Elizabeth was displaying Microsoft Windows XP – copyright 1985 to 2001 – when a group of journalists was given a tour of the £3 billion warship last week,” reported (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/3bn-warship-fitted-with-outdated-software-at-risk-of-cyberattack-zf5xzv39k) Deborah Haynes of The Times, accurately describing the copyright information on the XP loading screen.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/hms_queen_elizabeth_running_windows_xp/

melmothtw

16th Jul 2018, 18:40

If the government is REALLY prepared to 'go it alone' and provide all the necessary resources to deliver such a programme then I applaud such an initiative.

It's not - in its 36 pages the Combat Air Strategy mentions partners 85 times. Saab currently sitting on the fence and weighing up its options, but I wouldn't bet against future involvement from them and perhaps even Airbus (they were certainly very positive about the programme today).

Buster15

16th Jul 2018, 18:48

It's not - in its 36 pages the Combat Air Strategy mentions partners 85 times. Saab currently sitting on the fence and weighing up its options, but I wouldn't bet against future involvement from them and perhaps even Airbus (they were certainly very positive about the programme today).

If you read my input you will see that my view is pretty much the same as yours.

SASless

16th Jul 2018, 19:27

Who's to say there is even going to be an RAF in 2035 the way the down sizing is going on?

Rockie_Rapier

16th Jul 2018, 21:07

A purely UK product?

Not with Leonardo on board. I wonder how that's going to work out, post Brexit?

TBM-Legend

16th Jul 2018, 21:47

I name this aircraft : Planey McPlaneface!

Phantom Driver

16th Jul 2018, 22:01

Who's to say there is even going to be an RAF in 2035 the way the down sizing is going on?

Better tell your kids/grand kids to forget the dreams of being a fighter pilot . The Machines are coming to take over .....https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon9.gif

FODPlod

16th Jul 2018, 22:25

Here's an update from articles last month saying that XP may be gone (an upgrade to Windows 7 perhaps?) when and if the carrier becomes operational in 2026:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27108/hms-queen-elizabeth-windows-xp/ (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27108/hms-queen-elizabeth-windows-xp/)

Another recent report:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/hms_queen_elizabeth_running_windows_xp/ (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/hms_queen_elizabeth_running_windows_xp/)
Did you note the year of those ridiculous articles which arose after a reporter visiting QNLZ spotted a Windows XP screensaver on a contractor's laptop?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-aircraft-carriers-dont-run-windows-xp/

SASless

16th Jul 2018, 23:07

No way off the shelf Windows XP would be bought by MOD.....they would have to forego paying BAE and others Zillions of Pounds to create proprietary software that doesn't work......hang on a mo....isn't that what Microsoft is so damn good at doing?

melmothtw

17th Jul 2018, 05:46

A purely UK product?

Not with Leonardo on board. I wonder how that's going to work out, post Brexit?

Not Leonardo, but Leonardo UK which is a British-registered company that will supply the EW systems and the like. Italy a good prospect for partnership, but not on board yet.

tucumseh

17th Jul 2018, 06:09

In 1997, if you'd looked at the Sea King AEW Mk7 development rig you'd have seen the 'Windows 98' logo when booting up.

Does that mean in 21 years MoD has advanced four years? :E

ORAC

17th Jul 2018, 06:54

Reminiscent of the EAP prior to Typhoon?

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/farnborough/2018/07/16/introducing-tempest-the-uks-next-gen-fighter/

“........The Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative, or FCAS TI, contract to develop the technologies is being delivered over 10 years, which is expected to be followed by a more production-focused initiative. While the program is being delivered by a team of British companies, all the parties stressed that the team is looking for partners, be it at the TI stage or later on in the program.......

FCAS TI essentially replaces the Anglo-French FCAS program that kicked off in 2014, although Air Cmdr. Linc Taylor, assistant chief of staff of capability for combat air for the Royal Air Force, stressed that work with France is still very much a priority of the U.K. “This leverages some really strong work we are doing with France,” Taylor said........

A number of demonstrators will be used by the Tempest team to test different aspects of the design, according to Michael Christie, strategy director at BAE Systems, who added that development will begin immediately now that the combat air strategy contract has been signed. He also said some existing demonstrators are being used and that wind tunnel testing has been underway since the beginning of the year to help determine the aerodynamic properties needed from the design.

Bone, meanwhile, noted Leonardo UK hopes a flying demonstrator will begin tests in the mid-2020s.......

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 07:01

This is mocked-up from a Tonka wreck? Certainly looks like they nicked the undercart. Hmmm, one pie-in-the-sky after another. Presume this will be carrier capable? ;)

OAP
Using OTS components in models and prototypes is not unusual, think AVRO 707.

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 07:05

If the F-35 was the Dave can I suggest this is called Bruce. Look at that chin and the smug look, Bruce Forsyth reincarnate.
I do believe you are right. How about Philip or Gavin though? Theresa just doesn't fit.

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 07:20

Better tell your kids/grand kids to forget the dreams of being a fighter pilot . The Machines are coming to take over .....https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon9.gif
Actually I think they are ahead of you.

Grandson aged 13 wants to be an engineer. Nephew now in RN training to be a nuclear propulsion engineer. Another nephew wants a Cyber apprenticeship. A nephews rejected RAF option and is now with easyJet. We have a niece 19 looking at RAF but not AFAIK aircrew.

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 07:28

Are we copying the Chinese now? :E
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/768x513/chengdu_j_xx_vlo_prototype_45s_694ad283e072afc4febd23c3c9d39 f649f7f26cd.jpgThe Temptresses bird catchers are a lot smaller. As I said years ago, isn't it strange how modern designs across the world follow a fashion. Swing wings, then twin tails, then deltas, then tailess, then angled tails. Copycats all.

Cows getting bigger

17th Jul 2018, 07:41

Have BAe dusted-off FOAS?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/628x314/foas_98db7a05fa01809565e40c01e19284d6b3a2ddd4.png

Onceapilot

17th Jul 2018, 08:14

FCAS TI essentially replaces the Anglo-French FCAS program that kicked off in 2014, although Air Cmdr. Linc Taylor, assistant chief of staff of capability for combat air for the Royal Air Force, stressed that work with France is still very much a priority of the U.K. “This leverages some really strong work we are doing with France,” Taylor said........

Hopefully, the "really strong work" with France will not involve a one-way techno-transfer, followed by an underhand...Non! :ouch:

OAP

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 08:36

Hopefully, the "really strong work" with France will not involve a one-way techno-transfer, followed by an underhand...Non! :ouch:

OAP
OAP, remember the Fairy Delta 2.

Weren't the 50s amazing? A company that made the Stringbag creating a world speed record breaker? A company that made the Frightened producing the 188. A company making an aircraft slower than a train making the Buccaneer. Or English Electric. And I forgot Saunders Roe.

Of course there were also companies that remained true to type, Hawker, Supermarine, Avro and Shorts.

B Fraser

17th Jul 2018, 10:13

If the F-35 was the Dave can I suggest this is called Bruce. Look at that chin and the smug look, Bruce Forsyth reincarnate.

Brilliant ! I can just hear the fighter controllers calling "higher, higher...….. lower, lower". All it needs is a small rug on top of the canopy and job done.

:ok:

Davef68

17th Jul 2018, 11:16

Have BAe dusted-off FOAS?

Does explain why "Replica" re-emerged in 2014

Lima Juliet

17th Jul 2018, 11:49

XR219

17th Jul 2018, 12:53

Does explain why "Replica" re-emerged in 2014
Nose profile is a bit different (reverted to a conventional nose-mounted radar configuration, rather than conformal antennae?), but yes, looks like it owes a lot to Replica.

chopper2004

17th Jul 2018, 13:00

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/134x220/book_point_of_impact_483ffe4d7d4af1bde7776ace5f3f7d3ba545ce9 3.jpg

JN second piece of fiction centred around doomed RAF combat aircraft is called the Tempest lol

XR219

17th Jul 2018, 13:01

Not Leonardo, but Leonardo UK which is a British-registered company that will supply the EW systems and the like. Italy a good prospect for partnership, but not on board yet.
To be pedantic, the UK subsidiary of Leonardo Società per azioni is actually called "Leonardo MW Ltd." (MW for "Marconi-Westland", apparently).

Airbubba

17th Jul 2018, 14:40

Here are excerpts of a somewhat skeptical analysis (with some interesting pictures) from thedrive.com:

The U.K.'s New 'Tempest' Stealth Fighter Project Already Faces Serious Challenges

The country is eager to remain competitive militarily and economically, but it's not clear if they can afford their own advanced fighter jet.

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK
JULY 16, 2018

The U.K. Ministry of Defense has unveiled new plans for a new stealth fighter jet called Tempest at the biennial Farnborough Airshow. The announcement coincides with the release of a new Combat Air Strategy, which focuses heavily on sustaining and expanding the United Kingdom’s domestic defense industrial base and international cooperation in that sector, but there are already questions about the project’s viability given the country’s increasingly uncertain political and economic future.

Underscoring the emphasis on engagement with the private sector, U.K. Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson offered details about Tempest and the country’s new aerial warfare strategy in front of a full-size notional mockup of the jet at BAE’s booth at Farnborough on July 16, 2018. The U.K.-headquartered firm will lead “Team Tempest,” which also includes engine-maker Rolls-Royce, Italian defense contractor Leonardo, and the European missile consortium MBDA.

“We have been a world leader in the combat air sector for a century, with an enviable array of skills and technology, and this Strategy makes clear that we are determined to make sure it stays that way,” Williamson said. “British defense industry is a huge contributor to U.K. prosperity, creating thousands of jobs in a thriving advanced manufacturing sector, and generating a U.K. sovereign capability that is the best in the world.”

Though Tempest’s design isn’t anywhere close to firm, slides Team Tempest showed at the event described a number of increasingly common basic requirements for an advanced fighter jet design. Though described as a sixth-generation design, what BAE Systems and its partners have shown so far looks very much like what many countries are looking at for new fifth-generation types. The mockup and concept art show a stealthy, modified delta-wing planform with a pair of vertical small, outwardly-canted vertical stabilizers.

It’s not the first time the United Kingdom has attempted to develop its own advanced fighter jet, either. In the 1990s, the Royal Air Force launched the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) program, which eventually led to the BAE Replica fighter jet concept.

That aircraft, which Tempest appears to borrow from in many ways, never flew and FOAS came to halt in 2005. The country decided instead to purchase the F-35.

In 2012, the United Kingdom and France embarked on what they called the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) project, which focused on developing stealthy unmanned combat air vehicles. Airbus has since used FCAS to describe a Franco-German stealth fighter program that also includes a number of similar requirements to the Tempest program, including supporting loyal wingman-style manned-unmanned teams.

That aircraft, which Tempest appears to borrow from in many ways, never flew and FOAS came to halt in 2005. The country decided instead to purchase the F-35.

In 2012, the United Kingdom and France embarked on what they called the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) project, which focused on developing stealthy unmanned combat air vehicles. Airbus has since used FCAS to describe a Franco-German stealth fighter program that also includes a number of similar requirements to the Tempest program, including supporting loyal wingman-style manned-unmanned teams.

Regardless, the U.K. government is clearly hoping to leverage these efforts for its own use to both speed up development and find ways to share burdens and otherwise lower costs. By their very nature, stealth fighter programs have proven to be very time-consuming and costly endeavors.

On top of that, despite the prominent Union Jack in the Team Tempest logo, it’s hard to deny that the program already has a distinctly pan-European flavor given the involvement of Leonardo and MDBA. Also, prior to the announcement, the Ministry of Defense had reportedly been in talks with Swedish officials about a shared stealth fighter effort. BAE Systems is already working together with Turkey’s TAI on its TFX program and could join Japan's future stealth fighter project, as well.

The immediate problem, of course, is whether the United Kingdom will be able to position itself as a viable partner, let alone leader in such a program given its present political and economic turmoil. This is almost entirely a result of plans to leave the European Union, also known as the British Exit or Brexit. The U.K. government is struggling to firm up its own negotiating position ahead of attempting to begin talks with E.U. officials on a deal to disentangle themselves from the organization.

If and when the United Kingdom succeeds in extricating itself from the regional bloc, it will immediately throw up barriers to direct industrial cooperation with European defense contractors. It will almost certainly make existing multi-national partnerships, such as MBDA and the Eurofighter consortium that produces the Typhoon fourth generation fighter jet, more complicated.

With a demonstrator aircraft not even scheduled to take to the sky for more than six years, there is a distinct chance that the political and economic environment in the United Kingdom will have changed substantially before the Tempest project even gets going. Prime Minister Teresa May’s government has suffered a number of important resignations just in July 2018, including that of now former Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, and it is unclear how long she may last in that post.

With all this in mind, the Ministry of Defense will have to work hard if it wants to move Tempest ahead at all, let alone keep to its stated timetable. Otherwise, it’s very possible that the program could end up being a repeat of FOAS and the Replica.

The U.K.'s New 'Tempest' Stealth Fighter Project Already Faces Serious Challenges - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22190/the-u-k-s-new-tempest-stealth-fighter-project-already-faces-serious-challenges)

Jackonicko

17th Jul 2018, 17:07

A purely UK product?

Not with Leonardo on board. I wonder how that's going to work out, post Brexit?

The bit of Leonardo involved is what we used to call Selex, and before that GEC-Marconi. They're based in Scotland…..

While the relevant bit of MBDA is based in Stevenage…..

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 18:40

MPN11

17th Jul 2018, 19:24

I know there is a certain appeal using sequential names with repeating previous names. I was pondering a weather event that did not repeat an earlier one. How about Tsunami? Appropriate for a certain sqn in the future and signifying swamping an enemy :)
You are picking the Squadron numberplate already :)

Oh, what about:
Fury
Gladiator
Meteor
Camel ? Designed by a Committee? (Hat/Coat/Tasi)

Pontius Navigator

17th Jul 2018, 19:58

But they lack the T and weather connection.

How about Turbulent then or Thunder, Thunderer, Torrent, Twister

PS

SASless. Ty, didn't think of that one - Thunderflash

TWhirlwind - if made in Yorkshire

SASless

17th Jul 2018, 23:45

Thunder Bolt.....errrrr....sorry taken already......so how's about Thunder Mug!

tartare

17th Jul 2018, 23:57

Looks like an under-nourished Austin Allegro rip off of an F-35.
Vertical tails - even though they're canted?
I thought that future penetrating counter air flying wing thing that the USAF has been touting was more sixth generation.

Finningley Boy

18th Jul 2018, 10:45

Well I hope that this gets the go-ahead and won't be canned like so many previous generation UK designs.

Perhaps it might even fly on the 70th anniversary of Duncan Sandys sticking his knife into British fighter design?

While researching Duncan Sandys rationale behind the umanned fighter future, or rather all missiles only future, on another different note, National Service, he clearly nailed his colours to the Royal Navy mast. Sandys was appalled at the idea of the Senior Service having to take a share of NS conscripts, he could understand pushing them all in the Army and RAF direction but the Navy! Heaven forefend the dark blue service needed highly skilled and qualified tradesmen etc who would need to be selected. It provided some insight into the the supposedly dispassionate thinking behind the ill-advised notion of an all missile future. Although it wasn't a routine occurrence in 1957, it would be interesting to know if the CAS of the day put it to him that missiles can't shadow and identify and so on?

FB

Frostchamber

18th Jul 2018, 11:42

You are picking the Squadron numberplate already :)

Oh, what about:
Fury
Gladiator
Meteor
Camel ? Designed by a Committee? (Hat/Coat/Tasi)

Given all the scepticism, I'd suggest Defiant. And besides, what could possibly go wrong with a name like that.

PDR1

18th Jul 2018, 11:51

Looks like an under-nourished Austin Allegro rip off of an F-35.

That's OK - the significant features of the F35 were all plagiarised from Hawker's P1216 anyway...

:)

PDR

PDR1

18th Jul 2018, 11:55

Oh, what about:
Fury
Gladiator
Meteor
Camel ? Designed by a Committee? (Hat/Coat/Tasi)

Well to be fair the Tempest was the next in the logical sequence, given that Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest were the Hawker 2nd-gen monoplane fighters. I suppose that means the next one to follow the Tempest will have to be Fury, of course.

PDR

ORAC

18th Jul 2018, 13:56

If you want to sell it to Japan or get them as a partner - call it Tsunami.

though from some of the comments Zero would seem more appropriate to their views....

B Fraser

18th Jul 2018, 14:07

If the name has to be weather related then there's only one suitable answer. Given the amount of cash it will consume and the number of politicians who will stick there noses in, it has to be...…

wait for it...….

wait for it...…………

"Trough".

MPN11

18th Jul 2018, 14:25

<giggle> :ok:

camelspyyder

18th Jul 2018, 14:26

That's OK - the significant features of the F35 were all plagiarised from Hawker's P1216 anyway...

:)

PDR

...and that was copied from the Luftwaffe '46 fantasy art site in the first place :ok:

Jackonicko

18th Jul 2018, 17:10

Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest seems pretty good to me.

I suppose Hurricane works too.

But if you want fart humour and a letter T…..

"Trump"

Haraka

18th Jul 2018, 18:14

I guess the most Famous "super" Typhoon names were those "Divine Winds" associated with wrecking the Mongol fleets trying to invade Japan in the late 13th Century.
Can't see that name catching on though.

Darren_P

18th Jul 2018, 19:21

O1zXOXAZKe0

gr4techie

18th Jul 2018, 19:37

Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest seems pretty good to me.

I suppose Hurricane works too.

But if you want fart humour and a letter T…..

"Trump"

In fitting in with the naming convention, they should call it the "Tad Breezy"

Prangster

18th Jul 2018, 20:32

Thunder Bolt.....errrrr....sorry taken already......so how's about Thunder Mug!'
'Tis obvious the ideas team dedicated to cocking the snook towards our 'European friends' having noted we were to be cold shouldered on the development of a new Euro fighter decided to set a metaphorical hare running along 'suck it and see' lines. They may be entirely serious but then again may not. As to proposed early budget, mere chickenfeed in the world of realpolitik

tartare

18th Jul 2018, 23:55

Actually, planform wise it seems to have more than a little in common with the YF-23.... no tail wings?
And that seat is very upright...

Rockie_Rapier

19th Jul 2018, 03:10

The bit of Leonardo involved is what we used to call Selex, and before that GEC-Marconi. They're based in Scotland…..

While the relevant bit of MBDA is based in Stevenage…..
Well yes and the parent company is Italian. (BAE has branches in the USA and Australia are they not part of BAE?)

Pontius Navigator

19th Jul 2018, 06:05

Prankster, that was considered with its predecessor too but no objection was raised. Then when we were asked to send in names for station callsigns my boss selected Typhoon. Never thought it would be accepted, but it was.

chopper2004

20th Jul 2018, 09:26

FARNBOROUGH, England (Reuters) - Britain will invest 2 billion pounds to 2025 to develop a fighter jet called Tempest that could be used with pilots or as a drone, its defence minister said on Monday, unveiling a life-sized model of the new stealthy warplane.

UK to invest 2 billion pounds in new fighter programme through 2025 (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-airshow-fighter/uk-to-invest-2-billion-pounds-in-new-fighter-programme-through-2025-idUKKBN1K60LG?il=0)

U.K. to Unveil 'Tempest' Fighter Jet Model for Post-Brexit World (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/williamson-to-unveil-model-of-u-k-s-next-generation-fighter-jet)

The Daily Star has a photo, if you don't mind them trawling through your computer.

BREAKING: Britain unveils new futuristic fighter jet TEMPEST – and it can fly UNMANNED (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/716712/tempest-fighter-jet-britain-farnborough-air-show-bae-systems-gavin-williamson-raf-mod)

Laughingly I am on business here at FIAS2018 and didnt see the Tempest till the tuesday so here are my photos of the beast. I even sat inside it and had a go on the VR ..good luck to BAE on it.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1801/41713106570_9f82d2c49b_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1761/29650208188_a7fbd7d498_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1829/43521853221_286ce6d1c5_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/850/42617037895_253af07736_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/839/41713105340_4789772160_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/937/42617036675_76c8147635_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1801/41713103910_c13dcf2d18_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/29653094668_12b2959940_b.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/859/43524662631_72089ae332_b.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/921/43524662811_c156693778_b.jpg

2805662

20th Jul 2018, 09:54

Interesting profile. With the line underneath the chine, below the cockpit, perhaps they should’ve gone with “Pelican”.

just another jocky

20th Jul 2018, 11:25

Just This Once...

20th Jul 2018, 15:00

Looking at the space/volume available in the forward fuselage suggests that someone is serious with the design; form following function and all that.

57mm

20th Jul 2018, 18:26

Please tell me those little white markings on the upper fuselage surface are not boom receptacle doors......

VX275

20th Jul 2018, 18:36

Please tell me those little white markings on the upper fuselage surface are not boom receptacle doors......
Vertical launched missile bay doors. Well did anyone else see any evidence of how it will be armed?

MPN11

21st Jul 2018, 09:45

The return of Schräge Musik?

Pontius Navigator

21st Jul 2018, 11:13

MPN, at least we do name them. The cuz both names and numbers but never seem to use the name. I suppose 'Strato . . ' was as much Boeings as USAF.

What would you suggest?

Exrigger

21st Jul 2018, 11:27

The Landing Gear will be easy to sort out as it looks like it is the same as the Tornado gear, plenty of spares around, and Tech Pubs will be a lot of cut and paste from Tornado manuals, should allow money to be spent on other things.

MPN11

21st Jul 2018, 11:49

MPN, at least we do name them. The cuz both names and numbers but never seem to use the name. I suppose 'Strato . . ' was as much Boeings as USAF.

What would you suggest?

Random stab and offered by you earlier ... Thunder

At least it begins with T, and is weather-related :)

Sun Who

23rd Jul 2018, 07:34

Airbus/BAeS Fighter Jet Merger (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/airbus-boss-tom-enders-eyes-bae-fighter-merger-cnfp6d2c0?shareToken=c2f8a61a3ed51456455cabc7ccdf63cb)

ORAC

23rd Jul 2018, 07:47

The only reason Airbus/France/Germany would want to talk about UK participation is to kill a competing UK programme - whilst retaining their lead in airframe/engine/flight software etc. We’ve been down this path with Dassault too many times before.

Meanwhile......

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/saab-ceo-says-warplane-maker-could-join-u-k-led-fighter-program

Saab CEO Says Warplane Maker Could Join U.K.-Led Fighter Program

Saab, maker of the Gripen warplane, said it’s interested in joining a U.K.-led project to develop a cutting-edge combat aircraft that would be a mainstay of defense programs in two decades time.

While Saab is also evaluating a rival Franco-German fighter plan, the Tempest program funded by Britain’s Ministry of Defence and including BAE Systems Plc and Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc has more appeal for the Swedish company, Chief Executive Officer Hakan Buskhe said Friday. “We’re much more intensive in discussion with the Brits than the other consortium,” Buskhe said in a phone briefing. “It looks very promising, and I think we jointly can do good things together.” BAE once held a 35 percent stake in Saab and the pair cooperated in a venture to help market the Gripen.

Britain unveiled a full-sized model of the new Tempest fighter at the Farnborough air show on Monday, pledging 2 billion pounds ($2.6 billion) of funding for a concept aircraft through 2025. Team Tempest also includes the U.K. arm of MBDA (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/1720864Z:LN), Europe’s biggest missile company, and Leonardo SpA (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/LDO:IM) of Italy, a partner of BAE on the current Eurofighter program......

Leonardo said at the expo that it’s open to cooperating on other fighter programs but at the moment is in the British “camp.” Other candidates for joining Tempest include Japan and nations in Asia, where demand for warplanes is increasing as China and India flex their military muscle.

Buskhe said the focus elsewhere on developing a future combat plane might spur sales of the Gripen, given Saab’s commitment to building a further version of the plane, the Gripen E, which is scheduled for first delivery next year. The upgrade jet has won orders from Sweden and Brazil. “That gives us, the only ones building a new fighter, a big advantage,” he said. “We have something new, they have a plan to change something old to something new.”

melmothtw

23rd Jul 2018, 09:24

Saab CEO Says Warplane Maker Could Join U.K.-Led Fighter Program

Could also read; Saab CEO Says Warplane Maker Could Join U.K. or French and German Fighter Programs

Farnborough 2018: Saab open to fighter partnership, if Gripen E tech included | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/81766/farnborough-2018-saab-open-to-fighter-partnership-if-gripen-e-tech-included)

"We are talking to everyone at the moment, and we are open to working with everyone”

- Everyone is just hedging their bets at the moment.

Heathrow Harry

23rd Jul 2018, 10:01

"We’ve been down this path with Dassault too many times before "

Too damn true - all the way back to the G.91 .................

chopper2004

25th Jul 2018, 11:21

Apparently it appeared inside the BAE (?) tent at RIAT ....unbeknown to a lot of us who attended. Am surprised a lot of RIAT volunteers, ATC staff etc were able to see this let alone keep schtum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1zXOXAZKe0

KenV

25th Jul 2018, 12:18

pasta

25th Jul 2018, 12:48

What's up with the European commitment to delta wings? The French, Germans, UK, Sweden keep churning out delta wing designs. Everybody else in the world (US, Russia, China, Japan, etc) seem to have gotten past the delta. Am I missing something?
I assume it's supposed to be representative of the concept (6th gen, domestic design/build) rather than an accurate depiction of the final configuration. It's easier to sound like you mean business if the journos have something concrete to look at...

melmothtw

25th Jul 2018, 13:10

Have 'got past' the delta-wing, or just haven't mastered it yet?

KenV

25th Jul 2018, 14:08

Have 'got past' the delta-wing, or just haven't mastered it yet?This reminds me of the USAF general's quip regarding the Mirage 2000: "They've perfected the F-106."

KenV

25th Jul 2018, 14:12

I assume it's supposed to be representative of the concept (6th gen, domestic design/build)....Exactly my point. Why must a representative "domestic" European design have a delta wing? What is the fascination with deltas?

melmothtw

25th Jul 2018, 15:34

...and just Google 'Boeing F/A-XX'. But you know, 'Europeans'.

Pontius Navigator

25th Jul 2018, 15:39

Ken, I asked a similar question previously, each decade all manufacturers have the same basic plan - delta, swing-wing, canard, twin tail, wedge tail etc. Europe, AFAIK, didn't adopt the twin tail after the Shackleton ☺.

KenV

25th Jul 2018, 18:26

They're just european so they don't know a lot about aircraft

The Aviationist » Northrop Grumman has just released an animation that shows how 6th Generation fighters might look like (http://theaviationist.com/2016/02/05/new-ad-shows-6h-gen-fighter/)

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-6th-generation-fighter-jets-will-be-slow-unstealthy-12193

Ummm, that Northrop link? It's a flying wing, NOT a delta. Neither is the Navy bird. (and for Melmot, neither is the Boeing bird).

As for the absurd notion that Europeans "don't know a lot about aircraft" that's bollocks. I'm not remotely suggesting that deltas are a bad idea or obsolete. I'm just asking why Europe is enamored with deltas. I'm assuming they have their reasons.

typerated

25th Jul 2018, 20:28

Ken,

Fair call, although I suspect this has come out of an older design study.

Interesting regarding the Mirage2000. I thought when it came out it was ahead of it's time. Not in the use of a Delta though!
But in it's performance being optimised for the top right hand corner of the envelope. If it had had decent missiles and radar it could have owned the high ground!
Rather than fighting in an area to everyone else advantage (lower down and slower)!

I certainly found the 2 seat low level attack version an interesting choice.

I'm sure you would know but I always thought the F-18 was far to much the other way compared to the Mirage ( optimised for low and slow) - perfected the Sopwith camel for low speed handling you could argue!

PEI_3721

25th Jul 2018, 21:12

Most high performance fighters have some association with a delta wing.
‘The Lightning’ wing was a cutout delta, the twiddly bits mounted a bit further back. The Tornado similar with the wings swept; Typhoon put the control surfaces forward of the wing.
The future, use a delta platform with the controls outboard or ‘stealth’ embedded, Tempest ?

The Mirage dynasty has its roots in the FD2 delta.

Twin fins, but The Lightning MK6 had twin ventral fins !

Pontius Navigator

26th Jul 2018, 07:03

PEI, so did the Belfast . . .

KenV

26th Jul 2018, 15:24

Interesting regarding the Mirage2000. I thought when it came out it was ahead of it's time. Not in the use of a Delta though!
But in it's performance being optimised for the top right hand corner of the envelope. If it had had decent missiles and radar it could have owned the high ground!
Rather than fighting in an area to everyone else advantage (lower down and slower)!
I'm sure you would know but I always thought the F-18 was far to much the other way compared to the Mirage ( optimised for low and slow) - perfected the Sopwith camel for low speed handling you could argue!It all boils down to how you expect to fight. For decades the fighter mafia has insisted on extreme maneuverability and de-emphasized or outright poo-poo'd speed and altitude. Consider the F-35 saga. When it was "revealed" that the F-16 could out turn the F-35 you'd think the world was about to end. Personally, I'm not convinced excellent high AoA and turn performance are really the answer, but that's what the "experts" have insisted on for the past several decades.

Interestingly, many experts are now insisting that the "next generation fighter" will be a missileer carrying a large number of very long range missiles, except it will need to be stealthy and supercruise!

LowObservable

26th Jul 2018, 16:06

Delta wings combine low supersonic drag, structural efficiency, internal fuel volume and space for semi-conformal and external stores. They're also resistant to stall and transonic wing drop.

The bad news is that high lift happens at high alpha with lots of drag, and you have less space for pitch and roll control. European engineers have mitigated these problems with double-deltas, canards and relaxed stability.

The US teen-series and the contemporary Russian fighters were designed with a heavy emphasis on transonic maneuver, before anyone was ready to attempt the degree of relaxed stability that's necessary to make a canard-delta do well in that regime. (Typhoon has been described as an airplane that would have natural pitch stability if you took the canard off.)

By the way, all the JSF designs were canard-deltas or deltas before the Navy got involved.

ORAC

2nd Aug 2018, 06:35

https://hushkit.net/2018/07/30/project-tempest-musings-on-britains-new-superfighter-project/

Project Tempest: Musings on Britain’s new superfighter project

............”There are rumours going around that many in the RAF and MoD do not want the full 138 F-35s on order. Insiders suggest a ‘silver bullet’ force akin to USAF’s 1990s F-117 force is being mooted in high places. Stealth is not required for all missions, and comes at a great cost (though the F-35’s situational awareness advantage isuseful for many missions). It is likely that fewer aircraft will be delivered and to protect the RAF’s independence some of these will be F-35As..........

.........”“It is not historical destiny which makes the British warlike, but particular political and military programmes of the recent past. So I would say that in the early twentieth century the United Kingdom was more warlike than myth suggested, much more so, but it is only in recent years that we have had a gleeful indulgence in military adventurism overseas. The United Kingdom did once have a major world role, now it just pretends to. It is now really a big Canada, but political leaders want to see themselves at the head of a small United States.” This bloated self-perception sometimes leads to Britain going it alone on military procurement programmes its smallish domestic market cannot justify. This can lead to a higher unit price, which leads to a lack of export success, which in turn keeps the unit price high.........

pr00ne

2nd Aug 2018, 08:31

Utter tosh.

A big Canada?

Totally ignores the UK influence and involvement in the world, soft power is so much more effective than mere military clout, and that comes from generations of involvement with virtually every country on the planet.

MPN11

2nd Aug 2018, 08:45

This bloated self-perception sometimes leads to Britain going it alone on military procurement programmes its smallish domestic market cannot justify. This can lead to a higher unit price, which leads to a lack of export success, which in turn keeps the unit price high.........

Agree 100%. Indeed that was the subject of my major presentation at Staff College. Support for British industry is, of course, a factor ... and other factors come into play too. But think of overseas sales of the L85 rifle, the debacle of NimWACS and several other UK-only projects that cost us a fortune and gained no traction at all in overseas markets, when comparable items were available broadly off the shelf from other sources.

Davef68

2nd Aug 2018, 11:41

The French manage to design and export pretty well

NutLoose

2nd Aug 2018, 12:08

“Now I will believe that there are unicorns...”
― William Shakespeare (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/947.William_Shakespeare), The Tempest (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1359590)

KenV

2nd Aug 2018, 15:54

Interesting regarding the Mirage2000. I thought when it came out it was ahead of it's time. Not in the use of a Delta though!
But in it's performance being optimised for the top right hand corner of the envelope.Speaking of the "top right hand corner of the envelope": the North American F-108 Rapier was a Mach 3 cranked delta designed in the late 50s. It was very ambitious, very expensive, and cancelled. Lockheed's YF-12 was intended to replace the F-108 using the same Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar/fire control system and GAR-9 (later AIM-47) missile as F-108 but at much less cost. But it too was cancelled. The F-106 was also optimized for the top right hand of the envelope but was fairly quickly replaced by the F-4 Phantom, a much less optimized and more rounded design and arguably the precursor of all multirole fighters. With these experiences and that of the Lightning, it seemed clear that the concept of a fighter optimized for high speed/high altitude intercept had been debunked, so I'm not sure why France decided to go that route with the Mirage 2000.

But none of the above efforts were a complete waste. A downgraded simplified version of the F-108 eventually became the A-5 Vigilante, the YF-12 became the SR-71, the Hughes AN/ASG-18 fire control system became the AWG-9 used in the Tomcat, and the GAR-9/AIM-47 missile became the AIM-54 Phoenix.

Speaking of the F-4, what was the strongest argument against it? It's dogfight performance. The fighter mafia folks insisted that ancient Mig-19 aircraft routinely beat the F-4 in a dogfight.. This was mostly true due to fighter operations doctrine and fighter pilot training, not aircraft performance. And even when proper training (i.e. Topgun) and adding leading edge slats enabled the Phantom to perform very well in a dogfight, the die was cast. Whatever replaced the F-4 would need to have a gun and eye watering dogfight performance, and that requirement remains to this day, even if it no longer makes sense. Witness the caterwalling when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16. Interestingly, the performance specs for the future fighter appear to be remarkably similar to the specs the F-108 was designed for. Have we come full circle?

ORAC

2nd Aug 2018, 16:05

I think the UK is reverting to what it wanted as an F-3 replacement - a long range interceptor, not a dogfighter.

The Typhoon was originally only planned to replace the Wattisham/Germany based F-4s in the dogfight role against the Mig-29 plus the Jaguar in the day fighter role. The F-3 replacement was supposed to be a two seat interceptor suitable for long range CAP to the north against Russian bombers and for oceanic fleet defence in the SACEUR role. The cut backs and demise of the F-4/Jag left a paid for airframe in search of a role.

In that respect, if you look as the progression from the F-4 to the F-3 to the XX, then yes - a 6th generation F-4 is exactly what the RAF is after.

KenV

2nd Aug 2018, 16:29

The French manage to design and export pretty wellThe Rafale is indeed a very capable aircraft, if a bit smallish. But export? Rafale has a depressingly long list of failed export bids. The exports to Egypt and Qatar are arguably attributed to the Arab Spring and Obama's waffling about further US involvement in the middle east.

pr00ne

2nd Aug 2018, 17:28

Jaguar a day fighter? Now I've heard everything!!

NutLoose

2nd Aug 2018, 20:16

We had Sidewinders on them in Germany Pr00ne mounted on the inboard pylon, but more a self defence measure I think. So even back then before they got over the wing rails it was capable of carrying them.

ORAC

2nd Aug 2018, 20:41

OK, wrong term, but you know what I mean - no fancy radar or electronics, day fighter site and day visual bombing,

pr00ne

2nd Aug 2018, 21:25

ORAC,

Yes in all honesty I do, I was just being playful.

That thing called a Jaguar that replaced the Radar, fancy Electronics and all weather equipped Phantom FGR2...

LowObservable

2nd Aug 2018, 22:00

KenV:

Lockheed's YF-12 was intended to replace the F-108 using the same Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar/fire control system and GAR-9 (later AIM-47) missile as F-108 but at much less cost.

This is not really correct. The YF-12 started some time after the F-108 had been cancelled and there was never a production order.

The F-106 was also optimized for the top right hand of the envelope but was fairly quickly replaced by the F-4 Phantom.

That's not really correct either. The first USAF F-4s and RF-4s substituted for F-105s and RF-105s. There was a proposal at the time for an F-106 restart, but like the YF-12 it fell victim to the virtual disappearance of the threat and the failure of the Sovs to build a supersonic intercontinental bomber. The Six itself wasn't replaced until the 1980s.

I'm not sure why France decided to go that route with the Mirage 2000.

France was well inside Backfire range. In any case, the M2000 was a different beast aerodynamically from the F-106 or M-III and a decent multi-role airplane.

A downgraded simplified version of the F-108 eventually became the A-5 Vigilante.

I know it says that in Wikipedia but the A3J-1 flew before the F-108 passed its mock-up review.

The fighter mafia folks insisted that ancient MiG-19 aircraft routinely beat the F-4 in a dogfight.. This was mostly true due to fighter operations doctrine and fighter pilot training, not aircraft performance.

It was the MiG-17, and it had a lot to do with aircraft characteristics because dogfights were happening at high subsonic speeds. The Fighter Mafia was not formed at that time - they formed as a reaction to the USAF's insistence that the next fighter had to be high-fast and agile.

Witness the caterwalling [sic] when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16.

And after all the misinformation, the usual unnecessary dig against people who disagree with Ken.

reader8

2nd Aug 2018, 23:19

Don't underestimate one other important pay-off for these aspirational blackboard projects - R&D and IP.

As noted above, the reality is that such a project is unachievable for the UK alone. Consider though that UK industry needs continual R&D, and would like free money from the government, which needs political support, which relies on public sentiment.

The press are unlikely to give many column inches to a complex computer simulation generating lower radar cross sections, or a lab which comes up with a significant advance in composite materials, but a sexy ''stealth fighter" made of cardboard and clay - yes please!

So, at Farnborough we have mission accomplished. Press headlines and probably more than a few billion from HM Govt. Plow this into R&D, protect the IP that results and the UK keeps its place at the table when the workshare for international projects comes along.

None of this is a bad thing, so long as when we buy 'foreign' (there's really no such thing anymore) we get at least the balance back in workshare and R&D. And BAE have, I hope, perfected it. Taranis, Herti and now this. All unlikely to go into production (and we probably shouldn't try) but all generate technology with a value that BAE/UK plc can sell which keeps jobs and investment in the UK. F35 is in production now which means that the balance of power comes into play. Russia and China will develop a counter-technology and so the West knows that it's time to plan for F35's replacement now. The UK needs a place at that table, which means that BAE, as our largest defense contractor, need to decide where to throw the $$'s to get us there.

So enough of the 'Oh look, another British product disaster coming'. The UK had better have learned the lesson by now, we've repeated that particular grade at least three times. If the politicians and BAE have finally grasped reality - Good on them.

glad rag

4th Aug 2018, 21:05

"Witness the caterwalling [sic] when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16. "

Really? You got some proof of that KenV ??

:}

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/510x640/ksfhu2613ekaxyugospm6g_t7kul3ji8xqp6cksveys_78646fc2b8bf8bc2 ae8d929d46f4c3d4e3d352c8.jpg

F16 vs F4 best speed/height compromise ITR...

Martin the Martian

4th Aug 2018, 21:38

Sweden has managed to stay ahead in the fighter game, and a population only slightly larger than that of London. In any case the Swedes will want at some point to think about a Gripen follow-on, and there could be the opportunity for co-operation there.

glad rag

4th Aug 2018, 21:42

glad rag

4th Aug 2018, 22:07

drustsonoferp

5th Aug 2018, 09:25

wont the krauts have IP on that stuff it being centre fuselage?
That might matter considering an early model made from easily available parts to whet the public and political appetite, but I doubt it’ll make much difference in the final article.

ORAC

5th Aug 2018, 09:27

EAP vs Typhoon.

Just This Once...

6th Aug 2018, 08:37

It is remarkable how eager we are to do the UK aero industry a disservice. The UK leads on the trickier bits of the Airbus series (aerodynamics, wings and a number of other key components), has a substantial part of the satellite market, effectively designed the fit, form and function of 'multinational' aircraft such as Tornado and (as has already been mentioned) there is more than just a nod of EAP in Typhoon. Same goes for both civilian and military engine design. We have a great deal invested in air weapon systems and made a reasonable effort in selling some UK designs on the international market.

Even in the post-TSR2 period we did ok going our own way with the Hawk, Harrier I and Sea Harrier and we worked well in bringing some US DNA into the Harrier II. The reciprocal is also true as there is a considerable amount of UK technical and commercial input into the JSF program. I contend that we do have the baseline required to go it alone and given the history with political and financial delays caused by multinational programmes (eg German EFA delays) or for European countries to overstate their planned production numbers to gain a commercial work share advantage. Germany and Italy purchased far fewer Tornados than they claimed at outset whilst the UK actually exceeded their commitment.

Going it alone in modern parlance is effectively leading all stages of design and production - whilst still allowing international companies to compete and contribute to parts of the programme at the discretion of the lead country. We have done it in the past and continue to do so in other specialised industries (space, automotive, F1, pharmaceuticals et al) and given the recent pain and risk brought about by multinational programmes we may well do better by leading a new aircraft programme rather than just participating.

EAP86

6th Aug 2018, 11:54

there is more than just a nod of EAP in Typhoon.

I believe that this is true although many of the influences will be fairly invisible to most observers. I understand that in the early days of the Typhoon FCS Joint Team (GE lead), there was quite a bit of debate as to whether the EAP or FBW Starfighter experience should be given most weight. A presentation comparing the performance achievements of both programmes was made to the whole team after which there were far fewer arguments.

I contend that we do have the baseline required to go it alone

While technical information and techniques can be preserved much of what makes a 'technical capability' is resident in the engineers actually doing the work. Capability which isn't exercised in meaningful work is soon lost. Hopefully the Tempest is an attempt to keep the capability alive. F35 helped but the UK was technically active in a small subset of the range of capabilities. Some years ago (before retirement) I was involved in an exercise to investigate the whole range of capabilities to engineer fast jet aircraft including assessment of when the loss of capability becomes a threat to future competence. The outcomes were so concerning, they were briefed at senior level within Government (not just the MOD). I'm pretty sure that some areas of technical capability have now diminished to the extent that recovering them will take some time and investment.

EAP

Davef68

6th Aug 2018, 13:32

EAP was born out of the design work BAe and MBB did in the early days of the project, and the final form of both EAP and Typhoon was born more from the German design than the BAE one

MBB TFK-90
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/777x483/moniteur33_p35_785f1a71c2a8fc44175367c49d6c3a6ccf553ebe.jpg

BAe P110 - always reminded me more of a twin engined Gripen
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1024x768/efa_p110_d0d32370c1c16b06a999810e49be81907707d6e5.jpg

ORAC

6th Aug 2018, 13:36

I believe Saab have a rounded capability - and a fast prototyping and build to budget reputation. A joint programme seems far more likely to succeed in the required timeframe than anything requiring a joint venture with the French or Germans.

KenV

6th Aug 2018, 14:28

"Witness the caterwalling [sic] when the F-35 was revealed to have less turn performance than the F-16. "
Really? You got some proof of that KenV ??Really??? Where've you been? The "F-35 Cancelled" thread includes pages and pages and pages of caterwauling about the F-35's deficient turn performance relative to the F-16. You were a contributor to that caterwauling. (scroll to the posts around July 2015 / post number 6400.)

And the caterwauling wasn't just here in PPRUNE. Here's an article from that period that reflects the general caterwauling on this subject:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

LowObservable

6th Aug 2018, 22:49

Ken -
There's a line from C.S. Lewis' The Hideous Strength that's stayed with me for a long time.
At Belbury one used the words "whining" and "yapping" to describe any opposition which the actions of Belbury aroused in the outer world.
Animal-noise metaphors are an unsubtle insult used by the desperate and unimaginative.

KenV

7th Aug 2018, 11:02

Ken - Animal-noise metaphors are an unsubtle insult used by the desperate and unimaginative.But "caterwauling" has such panache and is so fitting to the subject that it would be a shame not to use it.

glad rag

7th Aug 2018, 23:37

Really??? Where've you been? The "F-35 Cancelled" thread includes pages and pages and pages of caterwauling about the F-35's deficient turn performance relative to the F-16. You were a contributor to that caterwauling. (scroll to the posts around July 2015 / post number 6400.)

And the caterwauling wasn't just here in PPRUNE. Here's an article from that period that reflects the general caterwauling on this subject:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

But you still haven't provided proof to discount the F16/F35 mismatch/caterwailing that you alluded to.

If this is the case, prove it and stop your silly game playing.

But hey ho ..on a lighter note.

If it's Boeing, it's not going.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/boeing-starliner-fuel-leak-risks-nasa-access-iss-2018-8

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/276x183/download_ffhh_636cfd4f627d3fdd82afbf57b373113229cc2bbb.jpg

Enjoy.

KenV

8th Aug 2018, 13:13

But you still haven't provided proof to discount the F16/F35 mismatch/caterwailing that you alluded to.Aaaaah! You're not claiming the caterwauling did not happen, but instead you're asking for "proof" the caterwauling was not misplaced. Your gut hatred for the F-35 has kept you in the dark over the past few years. Below are a few articles that rebut your caterwauling. There are LOTS more. Google is your friend.

And oh yeah, about your oft repated claim that the F-35 is not multi-role? Read the last two sentences in that last article (the one by the Norwegian pilot in The Aviationist.) He totally trashes your absurd claim. And that was written over two years ago. The F-35 has improved since as has the experience of its pilots in actual operations.

https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beaten-flatley-comeback-2017-4
https://warisboring.com/norwegian-pilot-yes-the-f-35-can-dogfight/
https://www.businessinsider.com/f35-pilot-f-35-can-excel-dogfighting-2017-1
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/pilots-say-f-35-superior-within-visual-range-dogfight-criticisms-laid-to-rest/
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Engines

8th Aug 2018, 13:52

To perhaps help move the thread off yet another discussion about F-35 merits and demerits:

Looking at the Tempest 'mock up' (in my own view, it's really not much more than a three dimensional doodle), does anyone share my view that this particular concept is probably not looking at operating from a QE class carrier? I'd offer the thought that any future UK combat aircraft programme should at least consider the need to be able to operate at sea. As ever, I realise that many PPruners out there who know much better than me will disagree.

So - any thoughts on whether 'Tempest' should go to sea?

Best Regards as ever to those in town who have to decipher what's in the crystal ball

Engines

ORAC

8th Aug 2018, 16:03

Who's carriers?

Not ours - in the timeframe quoted it's a Typhoon replacement and the F-35B will be operating from the carriers - which I can't see ever getting a catapult system after the last fiasco.

The USN are planning on the F-A/XX. Everyone else who is a possible customer is staying STOVL/VTOL.

That does leave the Chinese - but they'll steal the plans anyway......

https://youtu.be/oQXI4ZC_7NA

KenV

8th Aug 2018, 17:00

To perhaps help move the thread off yet another discussion about F-35 merits and demerits:

Looking at the Tempest 'mock up' (in my own view, it's really not much more than a three dimensional doodle), does anyone share my view that this particular concept is probably not looking at operating from a QE class carrier? I'd offer the thought that any future UK combat aircraft programme should at least consider the need to be able to operate at sea. Being able to operate at sea and being able to operate from a STOVL carrier are two very different things. Adding a vertical lift system would add tremendously to the cost and complexity of any aircraft, not to mention have a deleterious effect on range, payload, and performance. Adding CATOBAR capability to the aircraft would be much more doable, but that would entail extensively modifying the QE carriers.

KenV

8th Aug 2018, 17:05

Who's carriers?
Not ours - in the timeframe quoted it's a Typhoon replacement and the F-35B will be operating from the carriers - which I can't see ever getting a catapult system after the last fiasco.
The USN are planning on the F-A/XX. Everyone else who is a possible customer is staying STOVL/VTOL.
That does leave the Chinese - but they'll steal the plans anyway......
https://youtu.be/oQXI4ZC_7NAGotta love the Zero Length Launch. The Zero Length Landing? Not so much.

OFBSLF

8th Aug 2018, 17:28

I don't see how the UK has the money to fund this project.

PDR1

8th Aug 2018, 17:45

It will be funded from the brexit dividend, obviously.

PDR

Pontius Navigator

8th Aug 2018, 17:46

JATOG RATOG I also remember a German F104..

It would have been a good cold war option for all types in event of a post attack runway disruption. Get them off the ground at least.

Heathrow Harry

8th Aug 2018, 19:05

Navalising the Tempest would cost a fortune and we wouldn't be able to operate them off the QE's anyway. Adding VTOL for 50 airframe s would be lunacy...

Engines

8th Aug 2018, 20:14

Gents,

Thanks for the early replies. One thing I would try to clarify is this. The 'Tempest' isn't yet a design, and probably not even a 'design study'. It's just a concept. Not a man-hour has yet been spent on actually designing the thing. Given that, what I'm offering for discussion isn't 'navalising' it, or 'adding VTOL' (by the way, VTOL certainly wouldn't be a required capability, given current propulsion technology - although STOVL might be).

What I'm offering as question is whether PPruners think that any eventual 'Tempest' should be designed from the outset to have the capability to operate in some way or another from the carriers. One could offer a few examples of successful combat aircraft that were able to operate from land and sea effectively - my list would be F-4, F/A-18, A-4, A-7, Buccaneer and Harrier. I'm sure I've missed a few.

I'm not saying that the Tempest should designed this way - I'm just genuinely interested in what other PPruners think of the idea.

Best regards as ever to the teams who turn requirements into reality

Engines

Splash1983

8th Aug 2018, 20:35

Engines,
Long time no see, but you eloquently state a very reasonable case and for that reason, it probably won't happen. A12 was the USN A6 initial replacement before the Bombcat and F-14 community saw the light and too late it was deemed to be a concept too far and it died an early death. Super Hornet kept the manned flight dream alive. Whatever Tempest is dreamed to be, it won't be a Carrier aircraft as too many people still regard carrier aviation as a false economy. QE class should have had a proper angled deck and catapult launch system, the payload benefits are huge and recovery system speaks for itself. I speak from practical experience of operating from CVN, it should have been the solution from the outset for QE, but UKPLC bottled it!
I hope I'm wrong, but just don't see the MOD being logical in it's approach to this.
Splash

BEagle

9th Aug 2018, 07:00

Surely by the time Tempest enters service the world will have realised that aircraft carriers are simply obsolete? Impossible to protect from highly accurate air launched hypersonic missiles...

Heathrow Harry

9th Aug 2018, 08:46

petit plateau

9th Aug 2018, 11:18

Engines,

Looking at the Tempest cartoon (which is all it really is), it seemed to me to be a reasonable way to catch politicians' mindspace and thereby make a positive case for a UK industry base, before the default becomes otherwise. We can all see that a clutch of 'entrant' nations have advanced 'heavy' fighter design and/or manufacture (D&M) aspirations (Turkey, India, South Korea, Japan, Brazil), plus of course incumbents of Sweden, UK, Germany, France, China & Russia & USA. Given that Brazil is out of the game now, and discounting China & Russia for obvious reasons, the question becomes how many programmes can reasonably get through to a Final Investment Decision from what is left. I would say Germany+France will; USA will; and perhaps one other. Tempest is bidding to become that one other, as there could easily only be two. If you then compare the UK's list of industrial capabilities, plus the desirable attributes (I hesitate to say requirements/specification), and add in the corresponding bits of the other D&M nations, plus the nations that will have purchaser needs (but not D&M), you might just about be able to pull together a business case. It seems to me that is what they are trying to pull together.

Programmatically:
- suits consortium build
- capable of frequent through-life technology insertion (spare space, spare electrical power)
- affordable initial costs
- but high-end
- so likely spiral development

Vehicle:
- twin engine
- long range / long endurance / large capacity
- low observable
- supercruise
- evolve towards two versions: one manned single seat; the other unmanned (you can see how this might solve some of the tech transfer issues)
- big radar

There is the outside chance that, if this is successful, it could actually get taken up by the USA. That's a real wild card, but their long range penetrating fighter requirement isn't a million miles from some of the attributes we see here and you could see the losers in their programme wanting a second bite of the cherry.

Given that the QEC has gone STOVL/STORL and that the F35's programme life will pretty much match the QEC design life, there is no need for UK to have a second shipborne fighter on the books. Nor do any of those potential partner nations have a real need (or ability to host) a heavy twin-engined fighter on a carrier. (the best thing India could do is admit they are going down the wrong design pathway, and instead licence build the QEC).

Finding the sweet spot between the long range/endurance needs of Japan & South Korea & India, and the shorter range needs of Turkey & Sweden will be an issue. Getting enough of them to sign on early enough to get the quantities required for this to have a business case is the issue. And being able to get enough capability into the initial stages of the programme without the upfront costs blowing out of control / yet without the capability achieved being so far below the capability desired. However you cut it this has got to be at least as good as the best of F22+F35 or it won't pass the laugh test in the buyers.

Interesting to watch.
regards, pp

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2018, 11:24

What I'm offering as question is whether PPruners think that any eventual 'Tempest' should be designed from the outset to have the capability to operate in some way or another from the carriers. One could offer a few examples of successful combat aircraft that were able to operate from land and sea effectively - my list would be F-4, F/A-18, A-4, A-7, Buccaneer and Harrier.

A question I asked at the start of the thread - and still believe should be considered in the CA Strategy until proven impractical and/or unaffordable and certainly not limited to STOVL. I'd add A6, Skyraider and F14 to Engines' list. For clarity, proven does not mean what Gary Google tells you this week, but a targeted set of work that identifies what constraints actually are and what cost impact may be thirty years hence.

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2018, 11:26

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2018, 11:32

That gets back to the whole Carrier thread (s) - they're nice to have if you can afford them and they have real advantages in anything short of an all out war - at which point they have a very limited life expectancy ..........

Do you want to put your new state of the art (=expensive!) Tempest on them? Maybe, sometimes - but it's not going to be their main base or main function

An opinion, as opposed to a fact. It's also arguable that pretty much any asset you care to name has a limited life expectancy in all-out war. Just a thought - have a look on any sat photo of an airfield, see how long it takes to ID the sqn ops building, the fuel farm and the bomb dump. Then think how many ways they can be attacked / suppressed. An airbase missing those features is just as dead as a ship with a hole in it.

KenV

9th Aug 2018, 12:04

Surely by the time Tempest enters service the world will have realised that aircraft carriers are simply obsolete? Impossible to protect from highly accurate air launched hypersonic missiles...How many times and for how many decades have we heard this same refrain: "they're obsolete because they're impossible to protect from (fill in the blank)." So far the blank has been filled with high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, etc etc etc. And yet somehow a land based airfield is magically NOT "impossible to protect" from any of those systems.

Heathrow Harry

9th Aug 2018, 13:09

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2018, 13:28

Ken

Of the " high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles" how many have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945?

Land based jet-aircraft & anti-ship cruise missiles - in the Falklands - and that's it. And they were enough to give the RN a serious attack of the vapours

The rest have never been used - I suspect that the USA would not take kindly to anyone nailing a CVN so unless you are very small, or intend to kick off a major war you stay clear of them - but that doesn't make them invulnerable

Selective as ever. Number one, I don't think anyone is suggesting that carriers are invulnerable. Instead it's merely being pointed out that they're nowhere near as vulnerable as some would make out and more importantly, their relative vulnerability compared to fixed airbases is a lot closer than those same people would care to admit.

Secondly, last time I looked, no carriers were sunk or even damaged despite the best efforts of the Argentine air force and navy and despite the absence of AEW cover for those carriers at the time.

Lastly, one might reasonably argue that STRKFLTLANT was prepared and trained to go up against SSN, plus fast heavy bombers toting supersonic ASM in their own backyard - and win. Not a service renowned for kamikaze tactics......

Standing by for whataboutery.....

KenV

9th Aug 2018, 15:31

Ken Of the " high altitude heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, kamikazes, land based jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, EMP weapons, nuclear submarines, air independent submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, super sonic anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles" how many have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945?How do you define "have actually been targeted at a carrier since 1945" The soviets most certainly "targeted" our carriers with all the above (except perhaps kamikazes) but never press the launch button. We in the meantime tracked and intercepted all the above but never pushed the launch button. The point is, people have been calling aircraft carriers obsolete and non survivable essentially since the day they were invented and here we are nearly a century later with carriers steaming all over the world projecting power like NOTHING else ever has.

Land based jet-aircraft & anti-ship cruise missiles - in the Falklands - and that's it. And they were enough to give the RN a serious attack of the vapoursAs well they should. Yet no carriers were sunk so the measures taken to protect them from those weapons was effective. And in the meantime the carriers gave lots of Argentinians "a serious attack of the vapours." Why do you imagine that only cuts one way?

The rest have never been used - I suspect that the USA would not take kindly to anyone nailing a CVN so unless you are very small, or intend to kick off a major war you stay clear of them - but that doesn't make them invulnerableInvulnerable? Who even remotely suggested carriers were invulnerable? That's a strawman. But given their near century track record carriers are clearly less vulnerable than a lot of naysayers suggest. Further, they are no more vulnerable, and given their mobility likely less vulnerable, than any land based airfield. Or are you suggesting that all aviation assets are "obsolete" because the facilities they operate from (whether ship based or land based) are "too vulnerable?"

LowObservable

10th Aug 2018, 11:17

Invulnerable? Who even remotely suggested carriers were invulnerable? That's a strawman. But given their near century track record carriers are clearly less vulnerable than a lot of naysayers suggest. Further, they are no more vulnerable, and given their mobility likely less vulnerable, than any land based airfield. Or are you suggesting that all aviation assets are "obsolete" because the facilities they operate from (whether ship based or land based) are "too vulnerable?"

Let's disassemble this a bit. (The word "naysayers" is a clue. It's generally a warning sign of poor logic ahead.)

Well, nobody has suggested that carriers are invulnerable. On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to spend tens of billions on a ship and air wing, with >5,000 people on board, and have only 11 of them, unless you think that it has an extremely high probability of survival in the sort of conflict for which it is designed.

And the "near-century track record" is less significant than you think. When carriers were attacked repeatedly by peer opponents they were sunk quite frequently (five in one engagement). Since WW2 there has been no peer-level attack on a carrier. I don't think that any sensible person would argue that a regiment-strength Backfire attack on a carrier group wouldn't have been a damned close-run thing at best, and I can think of at least one contemporary weapon system that had a firing solution on a CVN in a serious exercise.

Comparing carrier vulnerability to land bases is misleading in the extreme, to the point of being dishonest. Land bases are obviously easier to hit, but are very hard to sink; and there are places where one hit on a carrier will prevent it from operating aircraft pending dockyard repair.

KenV

10th Aug 2018, 14:09

Well, nobody has suggested that carriers are invulnerableAgreed. HH clearly implied otherwise.

On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to spend tens of billions on a ship and air wing, with >5,000 people on board, and have only 11 of them, unless you think that it has an extremely high probability of survival in the sort of conflict for which it is designed.Why are there "only 11" super carriers? Certainly not because of their alleged vulnerability. They are at least two big reasons: 1) they are very expensive and affordability raises its ugly head. 2) Congress has given USN a specific set of tasks to do and USN has stated they can do them with nine carrier air wings which in turns drives the need for 11 carriers. On the other hand Congress is notorious for making the "need" and the tasks fit the budget that they set usually with little or no consideration for the actual threats/risks that exist. But the bottom line is that the number of carriers that are built is not determined by the perceived vulnerability of those carriers.

And the "near-century track record" is less significant than you think. When carriers were attacked repeatedly by peer opponents they were sunk quite frequently (five in one engagement).Indeed. That being said, what was proven to be the most effective carrier killer? Another carrier. Once Japan lost her carriers she stopped being a "peer opponent" on the high seas and the US carriers were able to act with near impunity there after. With the result that Japan lost all the territories she grabbed in the 30s and early 40s and had her homeland nearly completely destroyed..

Since WW2 there has been no peer-level attack on a carrier. I don't think that any sensible person would argue that a regiment-strength Backfire attack on a carrier group wouldn't have been a damned close-run thing at best, and I can think of at least one contemporary weapon system that had a firing solution on a CVN in a serious exercise.All this is true, and indeed no "sensible person" has made the argument you posed. What is also true is that post WWII no carriers were sunk, no carrier was denied the ability by an opponent to accomplish whatever mission it was given, and in no way was any carrier made "obsolete" by any of the weapons and combination of weapons that have been described/listed here. Of course carriers are vulnerable. That goes without saying. But so is EVERY weapon platform and that vulnerability makes NONE of them "obsolete".

Comparing carrier vulnerability to land bases is misleading in the extreme, to the point of being dishonest. Land bases are obviously easier to hit, but are very hard to sink; and there are places where one hit on a carrier will prevent it from operating aircraft pending dockyard repair.Misleading in the extreme because carriers sink and land bases don't? How many carriers have been over run by enemy troops? How many land based airfields? How many Japanese island bases were bombed into oblivion by carrier aircraft and/or isolated and then choked to death by sea power? How many land bases were abandoned because the fight moved beyond the effective reach of that airbase? Carriers have this odd habit of moving to where the fight is. And sometimes it's on the other side of the globe. I'm not arguing that carriers are "better" or less vulnerable than land bases. But neither are they necessarily more vulnerable. Just like carriers, land bases have their strengths and their vulnerabilities. What I'm arguing is that carriers' vulnerabilities do not make them "obsolete" any more than land based airfields' vulnerabilities make them obsolete. Or to put it another way, most anything that would make a carrier obsolete would make a land based airfield obsolete. And so far, no weapon nor combination of weapons have made EITHER obsolete.

ORAC

10th Aug 2018, 14:13

May I suggest that the carrier debate gets moved to the carrier thread, and leave this to the Tempest?

Heathrow Harry

10th Aug 2018, 16:54

May I suggest that the carrier debate gets moved to the carrier thread, and leave this to the Tempest?

Fair enough!!

Engines

10th Aug 2018, 19:12

ORAC,

My aim in raising the question was simply to see if anyone was willing to even consider whether any future ‘Tempest’ aircraft should be required to operate from a UK carrier.

Clearly, you’re not willing to consider that, and I fully and happily respect that point of view, as I respect all other points of view. However, I think it would be a pity if PPrune decided that the question shouldn’t even be discussed.

But I’ve asked the question, had a few answers and will leave the thread to run it’s course now.

Best regards to all those keeping an open mind,

Engines

ORAC

10th Aug 2018, 20:08

Engines,

I have no problem with discussing if the Tempest should operate off an aircraft carrier - but the argument was descending into a recap of the purpose and survivabiity of a carrier itself - which seemed better suited for the New Carrier thread.

As I stated myself I do not see the practicality in the expected programme. The lifetime of the QE2 class is covered by that of the F-35 and I cannot see them being retrofitted for catapults therefore UK funding for a carrier variant seems unlikely - and no other customers seem apparent.

Designing in the capability regardless seems moot. The French did that for the Rafale so it could operate off the Foch - the “ten ton” weight limit etc - which led them to drop out of what became the Typhoon. A carrier aircraft is a compromise because it adds the additional weight in structure, undercarriage, hook and materials etc to survive operating off a carrier and in a salt environment - and a compromise by definition means you compromise the design of a land only based aircraft.

If if you need to do so, or see extra sales from doing so, it might be advantageous to do so. But if you don’t you compromise the design against other new competing land only aircraft - which might lose sales as a result.

To retunr to my original point - who are you going to sell it too?

melmothtw

10th Aug 2018, 21:06

Who was the F-4 ever sold to?

Rhino power

10th Aug 2018, 22:06

Who was the F-4 ever sold to?

Completely out of context! The F-4 was designed and built as a carrier based aircraft for the US Navy, SPECIFICALLY, it just happened that it was so good that it was a no brainer for many land based air forces too. The Tempest is a design concept for the RAF only, why go to all the expense of making it carrier capable from the start when there is no (current, or, as yet, future) requirement from the FAA, or any guarantee that you will sell a single one of any future version to any other Naval air arm?

-RP

LowObservable

11th Aug 2018, 00:36

General comment: I think we have thoroughly demonstrated at this point that STOVL imposes limitations on the "dustcover" (airframe) that are costly to the CTOL variant. CV + CTOL may not be as difficult (cf Rafale).

Ken... I would ask you again to stop YELLING IN ALL CAPS. Anyway...

But the bottom line is that the number of carriers that are built is not determined by the perceived vulnerability of those carriers.

Not correct. No intelligent strategy would rely on so small a number of assets if they were not regarded as highly survivable.

Indeed. That being said, what was proven to be the most effective carrier killer? Another carrier.

Not correct. The threat to the carrier came from massed air attack (nobody cared where they took off from) and from submarines.

What is also true is that post WWII no carriers were sunk, no carrier was denied the ability by an opponent to accomplish whatever mission it was given, and in no way was any carrier made "obsolete" by any of the weapons and combination of weapons that have been described/listed here.

Meaningless, I'm afraid. As you know, there was no active conflict where this situation would have arisen.

SamYeager

11th Aug 2018, 11:36

@LowObservable - Since you appear to have missed this post I'm repeating it below so that you can follow its advice:-

May I suggest that the carrier debate gets moved to the carrier thread, and leave this to the Tempest?

Jackonicko

27th Aug 2018, 21:04

May I draw attention to a lengthy Tempest piece at:

https://www.facebook.com/aerospaceanalysis/posts/981650792041079?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDcXOm1nuefWoE6EmChjxK2XK b72TYmYlUfwDzJQdWasDSQZAO4mTl3_2FLCOQc2_0xgZXGHJWKu5zeGbmZnm H9eLz_WNgOJcOAhoigLpn7Xyd1WOeBCxjU3uCFWiZvxbn7G_c&__tn__=K-R

(https://www.facebook.com/aerospaceanalysis/posts/981650792041079?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDcXOm1nuefWoE6EmChjxK2XK b72TYmYlUfwDzJQdWasDSQZAO4mTl3_2FLCOQc2_0xgZXGHJWKu5zeGbmZnm H9eLz_WNgOJcOAhoigLpn7Xyd1WOeBCxjU3uCFWiZvxbn7G_c&__tn__=K-R)

ORAC

5th Oct 2018, 06:31

Well the Japanese are pressing ahead with a new fighter and seeking international coooperation.

From the article they seem to discount working with LM on an updated F-22, and also seem to think the USN F/A-XX and USAF PCA won’t be available in the required timeframe - so BAe And Tempest might be in witha shout.

ROFL though at the idea that developing their own will be cheaper than buying off the shelf or that they can get it in service in The 2030s, particularly since they state they’ve been working in their own engine for over a decade and it hasn’t even run yet.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181004/p2a/00m/0na/001000c

Pure Pursuit

5th Oct 2018, 07:14

Perhaps BAE Systems should concentrate on getting their 4th Gen fighter to work properly first? Into its second decade in service and it still has a mech radar, poor pod integration and very limited data fusion....

Will we ever learn not to trust this company?!

EAP86

5th Oct 2018, 10:02

...it still has a mech radar,

I believe EF has been pursuing the new radar for some time but funding from the Nations was pretty slow in arriving.

EAP

pr00ne

5th Oct 2018, 11:50

flighthappens

5th Oct 2018, 15:51

Pure Pursuit,

Except for the fact that it is NOT 'their" 4th generation fighter it is Eurofighter Gmbh's 4th generation fighter who ARE working on new and enhanced capabilities but are rather hamstrung by reluctant customers.

When will we ever learn not to trust reductionist myth pedallers?

Or: UK don’t have the money for their planned typhoon upgrades - how can they make Tempest work.

The project as a result of the four partner nations is unnecessarily complex in terms of getting unified decisions on cost and direction. Despite this and subsequent the BAE apologist viewpoint that some people offer, there are many I have spoken to in the project at different levels seem to think the RAF aren’t getting VFM.

EAP: the Typhoons peers have had E-Scan for well over 10 years. F-15C (2006), F-22 (IOC), F-18E/F (2007). At present the typhoon AESA is many years from service.

chevvron

5th Oct 2018, 16:08

The intention is for it to be in both manned and unmanned versions.
But in 1957, Duncan Sandys said 'no more manned aircraft'.

EAP86

6th Oct 2018, 11:38

Or: UK don’t have the money for their planned typhoon upgrades - how can they make Tempest work.

The project as a result of the four partner nations is unnecessarily complex in terms of getting unified decisions on cost and direction. Despite this and subsequent the BAE apologist viewpoint that some people offer, there are many I have spoken to in the project at different levels seem to think the RAF aren’t getting VFM.

EAP: the Typhoons peers have had E-Scan for well over 10 years. F-15C (2006), F-22 (IOC), F-18E/F (2007). At present the typhoon AESA is many years from service.

Not just the UK. Some years ago a trick question was doing the rounds at EF: "Which Nation is paying their bills?" The answer of course was "None of them." Note that I wasn't having a dig at the UK in particular. (Note also that all of the peers you mention have the benefit from the world's largest military budget)

As an "apologist" if I had any to defend industry, I'd point out that industry initially funded around 60% of the AESA investment from their own coffers. This came from a Project Manager I've known for over 20 years so a credible source.

EAP

Coochycool

8th Oct 2018, 00:58

Noting the similarity of that giant pie in the sky Airfix kit to one or 2 Chinese designs, could I proffer that in spite of the derision Chinese strategy tends to attract, its actually not a terribly bad idea to accost proven designs and reap the benefits at reduced cost and risk.

Is there therefore not an argument for some consortium buying up the YF-23 plans and just building that instead? Obviously with a relevant software upgrade amongst other minor mods as appropriate.

Have we not now reached the stage that certainly UK Plc should start asking itself, just how good does this thing actually have to be, if the development costs and vulnerability to cancellation actually mean we would only ever end up with a handful, if any? Quantity has a quality of its own after all.

If you built an updated YF-23 you might even find you had the US as a potential customer.

Just my tuppenceworth

Cooch

Speedywheels

8th Oct 2018, 03:11

At present the typhoon AESA is many years from service

Define ‘many’?
My company has orders to supply production items for e-Captor next year so I call BS on your comment.

melmothtw

8th Oct 2018, 06:52

Define ‘many’?
My company has orders to supply production items for e-Captor next year so I call BS on your comment.

2020 for the Kuwaitis, so one-and-a-bit years away. Will still be several years after this before any of the core nations field an AESA operationally, which I think was the crux of the OP's observation. Indeed, I understand that the core nations have yet to decide on precisely which configuration of AESA they want, with the UK and Germany after enhanced capabilities that Italy and Spain aren't too fussed about.

orca

8th Oct 2018, 17:57

Hi Engines,

I think that within whatever Tempest turns out to be we will struggle (but perhaps achieve - let’s dare to dream) to square all the relevant circles; for example ‘High end for RAF but suited to export’, ‘Cutting edge but free of ITAR’, ‘Multi-nation collaboration that shares NRE with partners, guarantees orders but remains agile and simple’, ‘Primarily uses MBDA stores but allows the export customers choice to use existing stockpiles’. ‘Ground breaking but on time’.

I think that given the barely (but possibly!) surmountable challenge they’ve been set - it will suit British industry to stay well away from shipborne recovery and launch as a layer of complexity and a technical challenge they simply don’t want to consider.

ORAC

23rd Feb 2019, 15:26

AW&ST: Saab (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=40638) Considers Joining FCAS Design Effort

Sweden’s Saab has further hinted that the company could be close to joining the UK’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS) effort.

CEO Hakan Buskhe told investors that the company has had “fruitful discussions” with the UK and other partners on FCAS as he presented the company’s 2018 annual results on Feb. 15. He said any cooperation strategy on a future program would have to “build our capability, not drain it.” He added he had not yet seen results of Spain joining the Franco/German set up—its entrance was formally recognized on Feb. 14—but said: “We can’t really see our part on that.”

Last year the company confirmed it was having a “deepening dialog” with London about the UK’s Combat Air Strategy and FCAS Technology Initiative, formally launched at the Farnborough Airshow last year. The UK Combat Air Strategy calls on the UK to take the lead in a multinational cooperation effort to develop and produce a combat aircraft and associated system to replace types such as the Eurofighter Typhoon (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=668&pgName=Eurofighter+Typhoon) by the early 2030s.

Saab already appears to be preparing for this date. At the end of last year, the company carried out a 6 billion Krona ($640 million) rights issue to lay the groundwork for future growth, with Bushke stating the money could be used to support cooperation with the UK down the road. The money would “increase the speed of the growth of the company,” and support what he called “megaorders.”

Asturias56

23rd Feb 2019, 17:12

British Italian Swedish and maybe Dutch - the Spanish will go in with the Germans & French I'll bet

unmanned_droid

24th Feb 2019, 10:08

The Spanish have gone in with the Germans and the French.

jindabyne

24th Feb 2019, 10:27

Buster15

24th Feb 2019, 18:10

Tempest will probably not come to fruition. BAES no longer has the in-house requisite skills capability. Insider opinion, not mine. But maybe they can be imported?

Also, UK Government arguably doesn't have the funds to go it alone. It didn't in the 80's, and circumstances have almost certainly not created any such allowance since. IMO.

But with Sweden?

I agree. The UK and BAE have not produced a complete fighter jet for many years.
Also, having never even produced a 5th Generation, making the leap in technology to a 6th Generation is massively optimistic.

The only saving grace could be Taranis technology transfer.

Donkey9871

24th Feb 2019, 18:58

etudiant

25th Feb 2019, 13:48

The entire design chain for high speed aircraft is facing extinction, largely for lack of relevance to the actual challenges of the day.
Nobody needs a 6th generation fighter. Also, given the costs, it stretches credulity to believe that a handful of such will be relevant in any plausible fight.
So these efforts smack of a desperate make work, with no real purpose other than to preserve some capability in the unlikely event it might be needed sometime

Jackonicko

26th Feb 2019, 01:08

EAP: the Typhoons peers have had E-Scan for well over 10 years. F-15C (2006), F-22 (IOC), F-18E/F (2007). At present the typhoon AESA is many years from service.

1) Typhoon AESA will be in service (with Kuwait) next year
2) Typhoon AESA has a repositioner, unlike any of the first gen AESAs you list......

flighthappens

26th Feb 2019, 02:35

1) Typhoon AESA will be in service (with Kuwait) next year
2) Typhoon AESA has a repositioner, unlike any of the first gen AESAs you list......

when will it see frontline RAF service?

What percentage of the fleet will be so outfitted?

orca

26th Feb 2019, 06:44

What price for a seat at the first discussion between a Super Hornet APG-79 user, a F-35 APG-81 user and the Johnny Come Lately Typhoon driver talking frankly about their kit?

I’d love to think that the repositioner was worth waiting over a decade for!

In the available time - have we sorted out the MIDS fit?

Phil_R

27th Feb 2019, 14:13

Even if it's possible, even if it can be funded, I don't trust the UK to run this kind of project. Here's why.

Proposed developments to Harrier were abandoned.
TSR-2
Tornado ADV was pursued despite the program being more expensive and less capable than just buying F-15s.
Huge delays and cost overruns on Typhoon; widely agreed to be less effective than far cheaper Su-35. Some commentators describe it as obsolete at introduction; no more effective than developed F-15s.
Built carriers big enough to cat/trap, then bought more expensive, less capable VTOL-capable aircraft for them, creating worst possible price-performance ratio; carriers almost impossible to staff or protect anyway.

Why would any reasonable person not conclude that British military procurement policy has, for decades, been utterly, utterly catastrophic? And that's just aviation-related stuff. One is tempted toward the conclusion that these decisions are so political that government is incapable of making rational decisions, to the point where it's severely affecting national security.

Rhino power

27th Feb 2019, 14:34

Even if it's possible, even if it can be funded, I don't trust the UK to run this kind of project. Here's why.

...Typhoon; widely agreed to be less effective than far cheaper Su-35...

By whom? links, sources?

Notwithstanding that the Typhoon was an international programme and not one run solely by the UK, it has been the UK that, admittedly slowly, have been at the forefront of developing the Typhoon whilst the other partner nations have dragged their feet, much as they did during it's initial design/development...

-RP

Phil_R

27th Feb 2019, 14:44

The Typhoon-vs-Su-35 quote was someone at RUSI; I could look the name up. The analysis was weighed heavily on the idea that the Su-35 has better manoeuvrability, and particularly a radar with high transmit power, very good EW (within publicly available information) and missile fit. In a (plausible) scenario where rules-of-engagement required visual identification (Baltic air policing was mentioned) a visual-range engagement was felt to be much in favour of the Russian aircraft. At longer ranges, AMRAAM was felt to be showing its age in the context of Su-35 EW capability.

jindabyne

27th Feb 2019, 15:08

Phil R

Wildly inaccurate on most counts. But on so many, and I'm too busy right now to launch into more historically correct assertions.

Sorry, not intending to be evasive. But I'm sure others might offer different perspectives in due course.

Buster15

28th Feb 2019, 13:06

Admittedly we only have one UK manufacturer for aero engines but I do hope that if future aircraft are going to be equipped with RR engines the contract ensures that the use of concessions and DDRs is prohibited. UK MoD pays a lot for the engines they have in their aircraft and the price is the same irrespective of how many concessions and DDRs RR apply to them. I very much doubt thare are any engines currently in service that actually comply with original design specification. RR churn out any old rubbish and apply concessions and DDRs to cover the deficiencies/defects. Supposedly overhauled engines have parts that don't conform to the limits routinely installed. Engines returned to RR for repair are routinely returned to service with defects that have not been rectified. New build engines frequently have concessions applied to non-conforming parts and DDRs incorrectly applied to new parts. Unfortunately the contracts to supply engines permit these behaviours.

As an ex Production Concession and ex DDR signatory, you raise some interesting points.
Regarding Concessions, I agree with your concern and in an ideal world they would not be necessary. However, for a concession to be approved, it has to go through a rigorous engineering assessment to ensure that Fit/Form/Function or appearance would not be affected and that the part would performance normally.

Regarding DDR's, this process is primarily to allow the customer/operator to request the Design Authority to make an assessment on the suitability of a run part or a part in-service to be either refitted to one of their modules or engines or to be classified as serviceable.
It was primarily intended to obviate in service logistical problems mainly at (the old) ML 2/3/4. The DDR process is also used to develop in service acceptance standards where satisfactory evidence can be used to relax certain limits. So as you can see, DDR's are there for the benefit of the customer and have a significant affect on cost of ownership.

Regarding repaired engines returned from RR it is again the customs decision as to whether they wish to use the DDR process and as with Concessions, the customer can agree or disagree with their use.

While you may be correct that many engines feature such parts you are not correct when you say that these parts do not conform or reflect the design intent. For them to be approved engineering must be able to confirm that they do not adversity affect the design intent. Should that not be the case the customer will be consulted as to whether they are prepared to accept them.

Lastly I would most certainly not agree with your statement regarding fitting 'any old rubbish'. In my practical experience this is not only not the case but any part that would fit your description would be and are scrapped.
Having worked on a number of collaborative engines, all the engine companies involved operate with almost identical processes so this is not unique to RR.

Donkey9871

28th Feb 2019, 16:36

As an ex Production Concession and ex DDR signatory, you raise some interesting points.
Regarding Concessions, I agree with your concern and in an ideal world they would not be necessary. However, for a concession to be approved, it has to go through a rigorous engineering assessment to ensure that Fit/Form/Function or appearance would not be affected and that the part would performance normally.

Regarding DDR's, this process is primarily to allow the customer/operator to request the Design Authority to make an assessment on the suitability of a run part or a part in-service to be either refitted to one of their modules or engines or to be classified as serviceable.
It was primarily intended to obviate in service logistical problems mainly at (the old) ML 2/3/4. The DDR process is also used to develop in service acceptance standards where satisfactory evidence can be used to relax certain limits. So as you can see, DDR's are there for the benefit of the customer and have a significant affect on cost of ownership.
Regarding repaired engines returned from RR it is again the customs decision as to whether they wish to use the DDR process and as with Concessions, the customer can agree or disagree with their use.

While you may be correct that many engines feature such parts you are not correct when you say that these parts do not conform or reflect the design intent. For them to be approved engineering must be able to confirm that they do not adversity affect the design intent. Should that not be the case the customer will be consulted as to whether they are prepared to accept them.

Lastly I would most certainly not agree with your statement regarding fitting 'any old rubbish'. In my practical experience this is not only not the case but any part that would fit your description would be and are scrapped.
Having worked on a number of collaborative engines, all the engine companies involved operate with almost identical processes so this is not unique to RR.

As a former DDR signatory on all Bristol engines myself, I know whereof I speak. Your statement of the rules pertaining to DDRs is correct, however, those rules are not allways followed. This is probably not the time or place to cite examples which would support my statements, however, since the introduction of MRMS type contracts where RR bear the cost of repairs not the customer, the DDR system is definitelyy not working in the customers favour. My point is that it is my hope that UK MoD will ensure that future contracts either remove or severely restrict their use beyond the existing concurrence system.

Buster15

28th Feb 2019, 18:50

As a former DDR signatory on all Bristol engines myself, I know whereof I speak. Your statement of the rules pertaining to DDRs is correct, however, those rules are not allways followed. This is probably not the time or place to cite examples which would support my statements, however, since the introduction of MRMS type contracts where RR bear the cost of repairs not the customer, the DDR system is definitelyy not working in the customers favour. My point is that it is my hope that UK MoD will ensure that future contracts either remove or severely restrict their use beyond the existing concurrence system.

Good. You are obviously talking from a position of knowledge.

I no longer work there but I was a bit concerned that someone was saying that RR was fitting rubbish on a public forum with no opportunity for the company to be able to respond.

Anyway. To the best of my knowledge, there was no instances of a concession or DDR part causing any subsequent problems.

Regarding MRMS, having been involved in the planning for this, use of the DDR process was taken into account during costing so the customer has benefited.
Don't ignore the usefulness of DDR's in the development of in service acceptance standards; something of direct benefit to the end user. How else do you think such limits would be arrived at.

Donkey9871

28th Feb 2019, 20:32

Good. You are obviously talking from a position of knowledge.

I no longer work there but I was a bit concerned that someone was saying that RR was fitting rubbish on a public forum with no opportunity for the company to be able to respond.

Anyway. To the best of my knowledge, there was no instances of a concession or DDR part causing any subsequent problems.

Regarding MRMS, having been involved in the planning for this, use of the DDR process was taken into account during costing so the customer has benefited.
Don't ignore the usefulness of DDR's in the development of in service acceptance standards; something of direct benefit to the end user. How else do you think such limits would be arrived at.

I agree that, thus far, there has not been an instance of a DDR being implicated in an incident (to my knowledge) mainly because of the dilligence, intellect and experience of those signing those DDRs, many of whom are unsatisfied with the current state of affairs, however my original point remains that the use of DDRs and Concessions is no longer in the interests of the UK MoD. I am only too well aware how first line limits are being applied at I and Enhanced I level and the subsequent maintenance burden that this imposes upon the operator, hardly of benefit to the customer, as customers have stated. When UK MoD had ML2 & 3 facilities they made the decisions regarding the application for and acceptance of DDRs to alleviate spares shortages and for operational expedience, now that those facilities sre effectively under the control of RR that is not entirely the case. Inspectors seem to believe that the first port of call upon identifying a defect is to raise a DDR without even considering rectification, which, coupled with the instructions from on high to drive costs down is resulting in items that would not have been issued making it out of the workshop. Put simply, if I buy half a dozen eggs in Tesco (other supermarkets also sell eggs) I expect them to be relatively fresh, not cracked, of the correct size and from the type of farm advertised on the box. Passing off stale, undersized battery farm eggs as fresh, large and free-range would attract the attention of Trading Standards. Future contracts need to ensure that the same level of oversight is applied.

Donkey9871

28th Feb 2019, 22:39

"I no longer work there but I was a bit concerned that someone was saying that RR was fitting rubbish on a public forum with no opportunity for the company to be able to respond."

I would welcome RR questioning my statements publicly but I'm prepared to wager that they will keep their collective heads well below the parapet on this one, it doesnt take a genius to work out exactly who I am and once that has been established the silence will be deafening purely because they know that I happen to know exactly which cabinet they put the skeletons in for this and many other issues. The "cover up" culture doesn't stand up well to scrutiny and they know it. When you have a green ball in each hand you have the undivided attention of the jolly green giant. I like that feeling! I'm sure RR don't! I would encourage any current employees to bring this thread to the attention of their managers. I shall await their failure to contact me with bated breath! Of course if they do choose to contact me then I would be obliged to justify my statements and other instances of the "cover up culture" fully and in a far more public forum than this. That would involve calling many, many witnesses and the questioning of a number of published airworthiness documents (eg ADR830) that might just not be in the best interests of a certain UK aero-engine manufacturer, and not just on the military side, I also did work for Derby whose attitude to Red Tops and SARs was questioned by me. Disgruntled employee? Yes! Question is, can I prove my statements? Does anyone think I would be foolish enough to make them in public if I couldn't? No, didnt think so!

Buster15

1st Mar 2019, 08:41

melmothtw

1st Mar 2019, 09:37

Donkey, you may or may not be aware that internet anonymity offers no protection against libel and that if RR decided to bring a case against against you then the administrators of this site would be legally compelled to help identify you. You may or may not also be aware that in a libel case it would not be up to RR to prove that you libeled them, but it would be up to you to prove that you have not.

I'd suggest you rethink your post, but it's your call.

Buster15

1st Mar 2019, 10:22

Phil_R

1st Mar 2019, 16:16

All of this is really building my confidence in the UK military-industrial complex.

One is left with the unpleasant feeling that any small-to-medium sized military power could more or less walk up the mall and knock on the door if it felt like it. I'm not proposing that's particularly likely, of course. Just possible. Which it shouldn't be, given the UK defence budget.

pr00ne

1st Mar 2019, 16:48

Phil R,

You obviously have never heard of IUKADGE, QRA and CASD, ALL things rather effective in preventing the ludicrous scenario you propose.

Why do so many Brits appear to love belittling their country?

Phil_R

3rd Mar 2019, 15:11

I could wave a flag and declare everything's fantastic in a display of patriotic fervour, if you like, but I think it's better to confront the problem.

The first two things you mention boil down, in effect, to a very small number of Typhoons. The third is an almost-unusable nut-cracking sledgehammer that does not prevent attacks; it can only avenge them in a way that will almost never be appropriate.

I could add to my list of concerns. Nimrod MRA4; scrapped at horrific cost; perhaps a foolish concept from the outset. Type 45; practically unarmed against anything but aircraft, and unable to operate even in that limited role in warm water.

OK. Fine. I have only public information to go on and I am ready to be persuaded otherwise. Based on the available information, though, it is reasonable to conclude that British military procurement is wasteful and ineffective, to such an extent that people are likely to be unnecessarily killed. I do not want bright, dedicated young people burned to death in the hulk of a Type 45 because the propulsion or electrical generation system failed at a critical moment, or because it has no way of opposing any plausible enemy shipping, or because the Royal Navy has no airborne ASW support, despite more than enough funding being available for all of that to be done.

Buster15

3rd Mar 2019, 16:20

Phil_R

3rd Mar 2019, 18:17

All very interesting but what has any of this got to do with the title of this thread.

Fair question. The answer is that my post is intended to demonstrate why I don't trust the UK to manage a project of the scale of the newly-announced aircraft. Or, to put it another way, should we bother? We'll only screw it up, like we have many, many other projects.

Bing

3rd Mar 2019, 20:36

or because it has no way of opposing any plausible enemy shipping, or because the Royal Navy has no airborne ASW support, despite more than enough funding being available for all of that to be done.

So not a fan of Harpoon then, or the Merlin? Or the 45s that have been to the Gulf since the engine fix has started to be rolled out?

Phil_R

3rd Mar 2019, 21:02

At risk of dragging this further off course into a discussion of Type 45...

As far as I knew Harpoon was to retire shortly, though I notice that it's been extended to 2023. In July last year, Janes reported that it was only installed on three of six Type 45s. From what I can tell, these are very old Block 1C weapons, so even if we allow that any given Type 45 has exactly half a chance of actually having them, is it really a plausible capability in 2019? Greater capability than this can be bolted on to a large fishing boat. And yes, the helicopter can provide some degree of ASW support, until it needs to refuel. I was thinking more of the lack of any sort of maritime patrol aircraft, which moreover, we're told, has the potential to compromise CASD because they were traditionally used as part of measures to ensure that ballistic missile submarines weren't simply followed out of Faslane.

Possibly I shouldn't be attempting all this analysis. Still, these are not particularly new arguments and I apologise for clogging up the board with them; I would be very happy to be told that none of this is a problem. Regardless, I think these are reasonable questions, and cast some doubt on the ability of the UK to make a good job of this newly proposed aircraft, which is what I've been getting at.

Lyneham Lad

20th Mar 2019, 16:54

Has been mentioned before that Italy was considering involvement. A report on Flight Global fleshes this out somewhat.

From the article (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/leonardo-targets-role-on-uks-tempest-next-gen-fight-456692/):-
Leonardo is hopeful that Italy can join the UK's Tempest sixth-generation fighter programme, building on the involvement of its defence electronics division in the effort.

Although the company is headquartered in Rome, it has a large presence in the UK, including the former Selex operation.

Norman Bone, managing director of Leonardo's electronics division, said during a financial results briefing on 14 March: "We are very clear as a company that it would be our preference for a collaboration that included Italy in the long term on Tempest."

reader8

21st Mar 2019, 08:52

Fair question. The answer is that my post is intended to demonstrate why I don't trust the UK to manage a project of the scale of the newly-announced aircraft. Or, to put it another way, should we bother? We'll only screw it up, like we have many, many other projects.
^
|
This, which is a shame, but I think bourne out by recent experience. If I were an underwriter I would think this project was fairly high risk.

It's easy for companies to get onboard a concept, and why wouldn't you if there might be money to be made? It costs nothing to express an interest and more air-miles for the directors so win-win.

That said, we haven't heard much of a peep since RIAT, so I still suspect the whole thing was more headlines, ministerial handshakes and style than substance.

Wonder how '''Loyal Wingman" will turn out.

ORAC

13th Sep 2019, 06:51

Interesting snippets from latest AW&ST article on the Tempest.....

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/uk-tempest-initiative-draws-allies

........Britain wants to be able to develop the Tempest in half the time it took to develop the Eurofighter, breaking the cost time curves that have pushed up the cost of military combat aircraft programs exponentially in recent years.

Disrupting this paradigm, say officials, means existing industrial business models will need to change. They suggest one of the keys is the use of the Pyramid open-systems architecture. “[It not only] significantly reduces the time and cost of upgrades and modifications,” says Air Cdre. Daniel Storr, Royal Air Force (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=27110) head of future combat air acquisition, “[but also] introduces competition for additional applications and weapons. . . . [And] it does not have to be driven through one company.” ..........

Officials are also exploring whether the design margins for the platform could be changed as part of a review of “historic norms.” Rather than designing for the traditional 30-40-year life of a fighter, Storr suggests Tempest could have a 20-year life, after which the air force could “throw away the shell and reuse the subsystems.”........

The team is also looking at a new business model, where industry could recoup its costs throughout the life of the program, through research and development and not just during the production phase, suggests Storr.........

The idea has traction in UK industry, with officials pointing out that the technologies being developed for Tempest will not be “bespoke” for that platform but exploited on other platforms. “The investment and return equation here is going to be different; if we come up with the same equation we did before, we will probably create what we had before,” says Christie. “Revenues are going to flow in a different way, and we are up for that. . . . The government wants something that is affordable, and we [as industry] want something that is competitive and to sell in volume.”......

Engineers are keen to avoid the upgrade challenges that have resulted from the unstable configuration associated with the Typhoon and the use of canard foreplanes, which has challenged the integration of weapons and stores. “The design driver is to go for ease of upgrade, and that drives certain things into the design. . . . Stability makes it easier to do that,” said officials.

etudiant

13th Sep 2019, 11:33

Sounds familiar, think is the standard spiel before any new program gets traction. The F-35 had a similar pitch, claiming a transformation in the production process. Sadly reality fell short of the vision.

Vilters

13th Sep 2019, 12:00

Lima Juliet

13th Sep 2019, 19:11

Some seem to forget that wars are won or lost on the ground.

All super powers have Air Power to dominate the sky in the first days of a conflict. And yes, we "can" build better aircraft.

But when all is said and done, the borders are marked on the ground.

See IS? They had NO air power, and still they managed to keep us busy for over a decade. And we are still not done with that gang.

Oh, really? How would you explain this in 1945? No ground forces involved in this...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/402x480/image_f72b757d66eeda2e620e5126d08b09ec5ed89989.jpeg

Asturias56

14th Sep 2019, 08:58

It's a bit of a one shot tactic tho'??? You can't nuke everyone - well you can but...............................

Wars are not necessarily won or lost on the ground BUT you have to roll out the PBI to actually take over - otherwise you finish up with Saddam back at home in mid 1991 and ready for Round 2

TURIN

14th Sep 2019, 09:35

Oh, really? How would you explain this in 1945? No ground forces involved in this...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/402x480/image_f72b757d66eeda2e620e5126d08b09ec5ed89989.jpeg

Not been used in aggression since. I wonder why?

Asturias56

14th Sep 2019, 11:45

absolutely destroys real estate values......................

rattman

23rd Sep 2019, 01:04

Oh, really? How would you explain this in 1945? No ground forces involved in this...

All the ground forces that died to capture tinnian and the other islands the b-29 flew from. Also many historians believe russians invaision of the northern islands did more to prompt the surrender than the nukes did

Lima Juliet

23rd Sep 2019, 06:07

All the ground forces that died to capture tinnian and the other islands the b-29 flew from. Also many historians believe russians invaision of the northern islands did more to prompt the surrender than the nukes did

If you think like that, next you’ll be claiming that the Battle of Hastings secured the airfields for the Battle of Britain! Also, as I understand it the Soviets only took the Kuril Islands which have been long disputed between nations. What the Soviet Union did do though, was carve Korea in half with the US at the back end of the war (leading to the Korean War 5 years later and an uneasy ceasefire ever since!).

ORAC

7th Mar 2020, 18:08

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Aerospace-Defense/Japan-s-next-gen-fighter-to-be-built-with-US-not-UK

Japan's next-gen fighter to be built with US, not UK

wiggy

7th Mar 2020, 20:33

If you think like that, next you’ll be claiming that the Battle of Hastings secured the airfields for the Battle of Britain! Also, as I understand it the Soviets only took the Kuril Islands ..

You may disagree but rattman is correct , many modern historians are of the opinion that it was actually a combination of the A bomb raids and then the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that led to the Japanese surrendering when they did.

Lima Juliet

8th Mar 2020, 20:24

Imagegear

14th May 2020, 16:32

A little more fudge and blunder but I just don't think there will be any fiscal appetite for this now.

Tempest

IG

pr00ne

14th May 2020, 16:55

Imagegear,

On the contrary, this will be far now be more important to a "Global Britain" post Brexit and post Covid. There is an economy to be rebooted and this is not an austerity led Government. They will spend on infrastructure and this sort of UK led thing will be a priority.

Imagegear

14th May 2020, 17:03

Pr00ne

I know a little about how "funny money" circulates around in the UK economy, normally without much leaving the UK, but this will require a partnership between nations.

Are you still of the opinion that there will be enough cash floating around in those other economies not to mention the confidence in achieving success? I suppose we are talking 2034 so still some time to shelve it.

IG

A_Van

15th May 2020, 07:06

I do disagree. The Japanese were hoping to seek favourable terms for surrender after the Potsdam Declaration in Jun 45 and the first bomb on Hiroshima. The brokers for those favourable terms were hoped to be the Soviets, whom had been neutral with Japan since a pact in 1941. When the Soviets invaded on the same day of the Nagasaki bomb, the hopes for those favourable terms were totally lost. What we will never know is whether the Soviet invasion would have changed that surrender - if the Japanese had surrendered in the hours between the Soviet invasion and the second bomb, we would have done. Unfortunately, the story is very convenient to anti nuclear weapon believers on the theory of deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction. I believe the Soviet invasion was just another stressor, on top of the naval blockade “Operation STARVATION” and the fire bombings. The coupe de grace was indeed the 2x Bombs that delivered on the Potsdam Declaration. The rest is history...

The operation against Japan began exactly as it was agreed at the Yalta (Crimea) conference in Feb. 1945 where Britain and US urged the USSR to join the war against Japan in 2-3 month after "Hitler is kaput". Uncle Joe was keeping his word given to Roosevelt and Churchill, though the country was bloodily ruined and all expected to say farewell to arms in May '45.
Anyway, it was the biggest land operation in Far East with about 1 Mln Japanese troops involved and some 1.5 Mln Russian.
And the operation took place on the territory that was earlier occupied by Japan. So, it was rather a liberating action (for Mongolians, Chinese and Koreans).

As for the main topic (6th gen. fighter), I recall the British project called "Hotol" in 80's (stands for "horizontal take off and landing"). It was about a spaceplane. In reality there were just a few guys making drawings on paper with quite a limited budget. And much noise in aerospace journals. The French were very angry when this Hotol was compared to their Hermes. They already had a launcher at that time, a high fidelity mock-up, many onboard systems ready, ground test facilities and simulators, and astronaut candidates.

pr00ne

15th May 2020, 09:58

Imagegear,

ALL economies are going to be in very much the same boat and all will have a need to boost and stimulate their economies, and Government infrastructure and other spending are going to be key to that, so yes, I think there will be the resources available for this sort of spend internationally.

A Van,

HOTOL was not a fighter project in any shape or form. It was a relatively cheap reusable method for putting satellites in orbit. Apart from the US Space Shuttle none of the competing schemes went through to production. BAE Systems in their British Aerospace guise of the time DID have a very active stealth next generation fighter project that was did make substantial progress and it was this that bought the UK into the only tier 1 presence on the Joint Strike Fighter all the way from initial concept through design selection through to production.

A_Van

15th May 2020, 11:08

A Van,

HOTOL was not a fighter project in any shape or form.

Sure it was not. My message was that it was at the same very early stage - a concept - like this "Tempest" is now.

It was a relatively cheap reusable method for putting satellites in orbit.

Correct. Provided there would be a ram/scram jet engine available at low cost. But it is not, even as of now.

Apart from the US Space Shuttle none of the competing schemes went through to production.

Soviet Buran successfully flew and there were 3 other orbiters in production when the program was stopped.
A smaller plane-type spacecraft was also developed. If you are interested, you may please type "MAKS project Molniya" is a search engine and see many pictures popping out. Many of them are not drawings, but photos shot at production plants.

Asturias56

15th May 2020, 16:26

"It was a relatively cheap reusable method for putting satellites in orbit." I think you missed out the word "intended " ahead of cheap.....

BAe are full of good intentions but remarkably bad at meeting the ones do with cost

MAINJAFAD

15th May 2020, 17:06

The operation against Japan began exactly as it was agreed at the Yalta (Crimea) conference in Feb. 1945 where Britain and US urged the USSR to join the war against Japan in 2-3 month after "Hitler is kaput". Uncle Joe was keeping his word given to Roosevelt and Churchill, though the country was bloodily ruined and all expected to say farewell to arms in May '45.
Anyway, it was the biggest land operation in Far East with about 1 Mln Japanese troops involved and some 1.5 Mln Russian.
And the operation took place on the territory that was earlier occupied by Japan. So, it was rather a liberating action (for Mongolians, Chinese and Koreans).

As for the main topic (6th gen. fighter), I recall the British project called "Hotol" in 80's (stands for "horizontal take off and landing"). It was about a spaceplane. In reality there were just a few guys making drawings on paper with quite a limited budget. And much noise in aerospace journals. The French were very angry when this Hotol was compared to their Hermes. They already had a launcher at that time, a high fidelity mock-up, many onboard systems ready, ground test facilities and simulators, and astronaut candidates.

The Brits have done a lot of projects like that. I once met one of the guy's who worked on HOTOL, who was actually a woman and I asked her why did it die (like a load of other aerospace plane projects at the same time like the X-30). Her Reply "We all cocked the maths up". Hermes of course went nowhere as well.

Lyneham Lad

30th Jun 2020, 13:56

Lengthy article on Flight Global:-
UK keeps Tempest programme on target, despite downturn (https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-international/uk-keeps-tempest-programme-on-target-despite-downturn/138928.article)

Snip:-
As the last decade was nearing an end, the UK unveiled and then expanded an ambitious programme to develop a new class of future combat air systems (FCAS) with the potential to bolster not only its military capability, but also the fortunes of its defence industry. Had the coronavirus outbreak not intervened, the nation’s Tempest project would again have grabbed headlines from 20 July at the Farnborough air show – the same location where it was revealed with great fanfare in 2018.

Buoyed by the signature of agreements with Sweden and then Italy last year, the UK’s plan to develop a variety of equipment to succeed the Eurofighter Typhoon in service from the middle of next decade has since made quiet but steady progress.

A Team Tempest industry team brings together the expertise of national defence champion BAE Systems and propulsion house Rolls-Royce, along with the UK arms of Leonardo and MBDA. Working with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Royal Air Force (RAF) Rapid Capabilities Office, their collective ambition is to deliver a new manned fighter, along with unmanned systems – operating as a so-called “additive capability” – and increasingly sophisticated and networked air-launched weapons.

A notional Tempest fighter shown at the last Farnborough event gave some indication of the UK’s thinking, but a firmer set of concepts is now shaping up, ahead of the delivery of an outline business case proposal to the MoD at the end of this year.

“BAE Systems and our industrial partners in Team Tempest will be supporting this submission with evidence of our technology and transformation progress to help deliver confidence that UK industry will be well positioned to help lead the design and development of a next-generation combat air system,” says Andrew Kennedy, strategic campaigns director at BAE Systems Air.

Despite the disruption caused by the coronavirus crisis, and the Brexit process before it, the timing of the proposal’s delivery remains on the schedule set within the UK’s overarching Combat Air Strategy document, published in mid-2018.

Asturias56

30th Jun 2020, 15:28

"UK’s plan to develop a variety of equipment" - so not necessarily a manned fighter at all

Out Of Trim

30th Jun 2020, 16:43

A Team Tempest industry team brings together the expertise of national defence champion BAE Systems and propulsion house Rolls-Royce, along with the UK arms of Leonardo and MBDA. Working with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Royal Air Force (RAF) Rapid Capabilities Office, their collective ambition is to deliver a new manned fighter, along with unmanned systems – operating as a so-called “additive capability” – and increasingly sophisticated and networked air-launched weapons.

Seems to me to still be planned as a manned fighter, but with a "loyal wingman" type unmanned aircraft system networked to operate alongside.

ORAC

20th Jul 2020, 22:08

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/07/20/british-next-generation-fighter-program-taps-new-suppliers/

British next-generation fighter program taps new suppliers

LONDON – A raft of top systems suppliers have been recruited to join the team leading Britain’s development of the Tempest next-generation fighter aircraft.

Bombardier in Northern Ireland, GKN, Martin Baker and Qinetiq, alongside the UK arms of Collins Aerospace, GE Aviation and Thales, have signed up to collaborate with the BAE Systems-led team working on the future air combat system, it was announced July 20 on what should have been the opening day of the Farnborough air show before Covid-19 caused the event's cancellation.

At the same time as the announcement, Sweden’s Saab revealed it was setting up a UK hub to potentially participate in future combat air systems work between the two nations.......

ORAC

18th Jan 2021, 11:45

https://www.c4isrnet.com/home/2021/01/15/secrets-of-tempests-ground-breaking-radar-revealed/

Secrets of Tempest’s ground-breaking radar revealed

orca

18th Jan 2021, 12:21

I wonder if they’ll reveal the secrets to Radar 2 - where it is, how much has it cost, when it will be fitted fleet wide, how does it compare to APG-79 and 81...for example?

Seems to me that one can justify a degree of cynicism wrt Tempest sensors given ‘the Typhoon story so far’.

ORAC

2nd Jun 2021, 06:32

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/05/25/british-team-tempest-is-itching-to-enter-new-fighter-design-phase-this-summer/

British ‘Team Tempest’ is itching to enter new fighter design phase this summer

LONDON – Britain’s effort to develop a sixth-generation combat jet is on track, with the concept and assessment phase of the program expected to be signed off by industry and government imminently, according to officials involved in the discussions.

An announcement by the Ministry of Defence on a contract starting the next phase of work on the British-led Tempest future combat air program is expected in the next few weeks, said a BAE Systems spokesman.

“We are making good progress on the route to the concept and assessment phase, with the shared aim of launching the next phase of an international program to jointly develop and deliver world-leading future combat air capability. We expect to agree the concept and assessment phase contract in the summer,” the spokesman said.

The spokesman wouldn’t be drawn on an exact date but with Parliament due to go into summer recess in July that could potentially trigger a contract announcement ahead of that.

A deal for the concept and assessment phase marks the first proper step to the launch of a full-fledged 6th-generation combat jet program by the British and their international partners.…..

ORAC

30th Jul 2021, 08:00

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2021/07/29/britain-inks-200-million-contract-with-team-tempest-for-future-fighter-jet/

Britain inks $200 million contract with Team Tempest for future fighter jet

WASHINGTON — The British Defence Ministry has signed a £250 million (U.S. $199 million) deal with Team Tempest, a group of companies working on the country’s future combat jet, to provide digital and physical infrastructure to develop the aircraft.

The ministry said the latest contract is part of the government’s investment of more than £2 billion on the project, which will be spread out over the next four years.

With the contract signed between the government and BAE Systems — one of the four founding members of Team Tempest that also includes Leonardo UK, Rolls-Royce and MBDA UK — the Future Combat Air System program has entered its concept and assessment phase (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/05/25/british-team-tempest-is-itching-to-enter-new-fighter-design-phase-this-summer/).*

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace made the announcement Thursday at BAE Systems’ Warton facility, calling the deal a “multimillion-pound investment that draws on the knowledge and skills of our U.K. industry experts.”

“Boosting our already world-leading air industry, the contract will sustain thousands of jobs across the U.K. and will ensure that the U.K. remains at the top table when it comes to combat air,” he said.

The government’s lead for future combat air capabilities, Richard Berthon, called the FCAS effort “hugely important in ensuring the U.K. and its partners have the skills and technology we need to give us the battle-winning edge for the future.”

“Developing the system allows us to drive a revolution in digital development and harness the power of open-systems architecture,” Berthon added.

Italy and Sweden are also involved with the sixth-generation fighter jet program, having signed a memorandum of understanding with the U.K. in 2020, with plans to share the workload on developing the aircraft. Leonardo CEO Alessandro Profumo said Thursday that the Tempest project will serve as “a game changer” for British and Italian technological innovation.

And earlier this month, Wallace met with his Japanese counterpart, Nobuo Kishi, in Tokyo where they agreed to accelerate bilateral discussions on developing subsystems for the program, including for power and propulsion.

* CADMID Cycle. This phase should include Main Gate.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2020/05/28/british-defence-acquisition-a-primer-on-the-process/

ORAC

6th Aug 2021, 07:28

Italy commits cash from their defence budget to the programme.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/08/05/italy-hikes-2021-defense-spending-finds-cash-for-tempest/

Italy hikes 2021 defense spending, finds cash for Tempest

ROME – Italy has hiked defense spending with a new budget that includes the first 20 million euro Italian funding for the Tempest fighter.….

The part of the budget devoted to procurement stood at four billion euros, ($4.7bn) up a massive 44 percent on the previous year.…

The ministry said it was ring-fencing seven key strategic procurement programs including the Tempest (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/04/13/italian-military-chief-envisions-the-tempest-fighter-zapping-missiles/) fighter program, in which Italy is teamed with the UK and Sweden.

Hitherto, the defense ministry has failed to launch funding for the program, despite warning that Italian industry would risk missing out on choice early workshare.

This year, the money has begun to flow, with 20 million ($24m) euros due in 2021 and the same amount in 2022 and 2023 according to the budget.

Over the following three years, 90 million euros ($106m) would be freed up in total, while 1.85 billion euros ($2.2bn) would be budgeted between 2027 and 2035, for a total investment of 2 billion euros ($2.4) between now and 2035……