Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'

Old 27th Feb 2019, 15:44
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 352
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.
Phil_R is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 16:08
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,504
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.
jindabyne is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 14:06
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Donkey9871 View Post
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.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 17:36
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Bristol
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
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.


Donkey9871 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 19:50
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Donkey9871 View Post
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.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 21:32
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Bristol
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
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.

Last edited by Donkey9871; 1st Mar 2019 at 00:40. Reason: Omitted fact
Donkey9871 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 23:39
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Bristol
Posts: 11
"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!

Last edited by Donkey9871; 1st Mar 2019 at 00:57. Reason: Update
Donkey9871 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 09:41
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Donkey9871 View Post
"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!
I am sure that our paths must have crossed at some point because I was also working on those safely related processes but in Naval Marine. That may give you a clue as to my identity.
I would love to know yours.

I really don't think this is the right place for you to have a rant at RR as without them being able to defend themselves it could do a lot of reputational damage.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 10:37
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
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.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 11:22
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
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.
Very good advice. If it were me I would ask the administrators to remove all the posts related to this subject including mine.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 17:16
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 352
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.
Phil_R is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2019, 17:48
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,177
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?
pr00ne is online now  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 16:11
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 352
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.
Phil_R is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 17:20
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Phil_R View Post
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.
All very interesting but what has any of this got to do with the title of this thread.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 19:17
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
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.
Phil_R is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 21:36
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by Phil_R View Post
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?
Bing is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 22:02
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 352
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.

Last edited by Phil_R; 3rd Mar 2019 at 22:20.
Phil_R is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 17:54
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,017
Leonardo targets role on UK's Tempest next-gen fighter

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

From the article:-
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."
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 09:52
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Phil_R View Post
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.
reader8 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2019, 07:51
  #220 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,059
Interesting snippets from latest AW&ST article on the Tempest.....

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircr...e-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 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.


ORAC is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.