UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Likes: 33
From: England
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.
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.
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 11
Likes: 1
From: Bristol
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 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.
Last edited by Donkey9871; 28th February 2019 at 23:40. Reason: Omitted fact
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 11
Likes: 1
From: Bristol
"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 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; 28th February 2019 at 23:57. Reason: Update
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Likes: 33
From: England
"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 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 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.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 240
From: The back of beyond
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.
I'd suggest you rethink your post, but it's your call.
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Likes: 33
From: England
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.
I'd suggest you rethink your post, but it's your call.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 364
Likes: 1
From: Essex
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.
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.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 252
From: London/Oxford/New York
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?
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?
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 364
Likes: 1
From: Essex
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.
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.
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Likes: 33
From: England
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.
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.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 364
Likes: 1
From: Essex
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.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 343
Likes: 15
From: UK
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 364
Likes: 1
From: Essex
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.
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 March 2019 at 21:20.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,439
Likes: 54
From: Under a recently defunct flight path.
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:-
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."
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."
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: England
|
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,254
From: Peripatetic
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.
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.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 3
From: NEW YORK
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.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
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.
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.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,340
Likes: 112
From: UK
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.
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.
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,647
From: Ferrara
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
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