UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 281
Likes: 29
From: Fife
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
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
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 174
Likes: 14
From: Perth
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 240
From: The back of beyond
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.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
From: UK
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
AW&ST: Saab 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 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.”
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 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.”
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 2
From: Longton, Lancs, UK
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?
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?
Last edited by jindabyne; 24th February 2019 at 10:51.
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Likes: 33
From: England
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?
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?
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.
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 11
Likes: 1
From: Bristol
Engine options
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.
Last edited by Donkey9871; 25th February 2019 at 21:54. Reason: Typo
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 3
From: NEW YORK
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
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
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
2) Typhoon AESA has a repositioner, unlike any of the first gen AESAs you list......
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 2
From: Australia
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
From: UK
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?
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?
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 364
Likes: 1
From: Essex
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,156
Likes: 1
From: Leicestershire, England
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
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 364
Likes: 1
From: Essex
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.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 2
From: Longton, Lancs, UK
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.
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.
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Likes: 33
From: England
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.
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.
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 11
Likes: 1
From: Bristol
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.
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.