UK unveils new next generation fighter jet, the 'Tempest'
The project might not be, but then G-BYAW isn't the airframe to be used - that was scrapped last October as mentioned - big image, so just a link
https://i.ibb.co/tBM1f7G/DSC7364.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/3fhB7p1/gbyaw.jpg
I wonder if it ever was the intended testbed
https://i.ibb.co/tBM1f7G/DSC7364.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/3fhB7p1/gbyaw.jpg
I wonder if it ever was the intended testbed
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I know this won't be popular, but believe it's important for the UK to be realistic about the (much higher than acknowledged) cost of a competitive #GCAP fighter, to reduce risks:
https://t.co/2aer9BIx5n
The Global Combat Air Programme is Writing Cheques that Defence Can’t Cash
https://t.co/2aer9BIx5n
The Global Combat Air Programme is Writing Cheques that Defence Can’t Cash
The following users liked this post:
"the development and procurement of Typhoon cost the four core partner states somewhere in the region of £100 billion in FY 2022/23 terms. This cost estimate excludes weapons development, fleet operating costs, infrastructure and personnel training.
By contrast, for the entire GCAP system-of-systems, the UK has so far committed to spending £2 billion during the initial research and scoping phases, and Italy has only committed to €1.8 billion, with an ambition to ultimately spend another €2 billion by 2034. Recent UK announcements of £250 million and £656 million funding tranches have only covered the contract allocation of the previously committed £2 billion, not new money. Perhaps more worryingly, the most up-to-date public version of the MoD’s Major Projects Portfolio lists the total estimated programme cost up to the forecast retirement date of 2070 at just £10.69 billion. This total would include through-life ownership, mid-life upgrade and operating costs, so a significant portion of it would not be allocated to funding initial development and acquisition."
By contrast, for the entire GCAP system-of-systems, the UK has so far committed to spending £2 billion during the initial research and scoping phases, and Italy has only committed to €1.8 billion, with an ambition to ultimately spend another €2 billion by 2034. Recent UK announcements of £250 million and £656 million funding tranches have only covered the contract allocation of the previously committed £2 billion, not new money. Perhaps more worryingly, the most up-to-date public version of the MoD’s Major Projects Portfolio lists the total estimated programme cost up to the forecast retirement date of 2070 at just £10.69 billion. This total would include through-life ownership, mid-life upgrade and operating costs, so a significant portion of it would not be allocated to funding initial development and acquisition."
Perhaps more worryingly, the most up-to-date public version of the MoD’s Major Projects Portfolio lists the total estimated programme cost up to the forecast retirement date of 2070 at just £10.69 billion. This total would include through-life ownership, mid-life upgrade and operating costs, so a significant portion of it would not be allocated to funding initial development and acquisition."
The 100 billion for the Typhoon on the other hand includes the procurement/manufacturing of ~600 Aircraft + engines. Which is >50billion alone. I smell an apples to oranges comparison.
That said, 10 billion is indeed nothing when it comes to development of a new fighter aircraft.
But the way I read it and looking at the figure it would surely not include any manufacturing/procurement, would it?
The 100 billion for the Typhoon on the other hand includes the procurement/manufacturing of ~600 Aircraft + engines. Which is >50billion alone. I smell an apples to oranges comparison.
That said, 10 billion is indeed nothing when it comes to development of a new fighter aircraft.
The 100 billion for the Typhoon on the other hand includes the procurement/manufacturing of ~600 Aircraft + engines. Which is >50billion alone. I smell an apples to oranges comparison.
That said, 10 billion is indeed nothing when it comes to development of a new fighter aircraft.
Within this figure, development costs alone were £6.7 billion, or £11.11 billion in inflation-adjusted terms
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A thread on spending towards the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) and whether the UK should persevere.
This thread is partly in response to an article by RUSI. Be sure to read this article, we're on the same side, and challenging / Red Teaming thoughts are what drives a better outcome. I do recommend following the author @Justin_Br0nk as well.
Debate is good. There are two flaws in the article's argument that I would challenge:
1️⃣ The spend;
2️⃣ Throwing in the towel.….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...641198081.html
This thread is partly in response to an article by RUSI. Be sure to read this article, we're on the same side, and challenging / Red Teaming thoughts are what drives a better outcome. I do recommend following the author @Justin_Br0nk as well.
Debate is good. There are two flaws in the article's argument that I would challenge:
1️⃣ The spend;
2️⃣ Throwing in the towel.….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...641198081.html
A thread on spending towards the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) and whether the UK should persevere.
This thread is partly in response to an article by RUSI. Be sure to read this article, we're on the same side, and challenging / Red Teaming thoughts are what drives a better outcome. I do recommend following the author @Justin_Br0nk as well.
Debate is good. There are two flaws in the article's argument that I would challenge:
1️⃣ The spend;
2️⃣ Throwing in the towel.….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...641198081.html
This thread is partly in response to an article by RUSI. Be sure to read this article, we're on the same side, and challenging / Red Teaming thoughts are what drives a better outcome. I do recommend following the author @Justin_Br0nk as well.
Debate is good. There are two flaws in the article's argument that I would challenge:
1️⃣ The spend;
2️⃣ Throwing in the towel.….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...641198081.html
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
17 Posts
Quite. The idea of including assorted weapons and previous-generation equipment costs in the investment total only creates a relevant comparison if the same philosophy was applied to the cited development costs for previous combat aircraft. I'd hazard a guess that that was not the case: "let's inflate our development cost figures by adding on every conceivable ancestor and ancillary capability", said no-one ever.
The debate about whether 6th gen fighters due to enter service circa 2040 should have a pilot is one thing (highly contestable IMO... look at the recent sharp uptick in AI progress and consider that 2040 is still 17 years away). But to my mind it helps clarify things if we ask whether 7th gen fighters are likely to need one. If you accept that's vanishingly unlikely, then going all-in on drone development and accepting we might be forced to buy an American piloted 6th gen export variant if it turns out to have been the wrong decision suddenly becomes a much more tolerable risk. The rationale for investing huge sums in domestic piloted 6th gen combat aircraft expertise then looks much less about preserving strategic capabilities for the future, and much more of a business proposition. But a business proposition requires an honest view of likely export numbers, with full consideration of unit price competiveness and the exportability constraints likely to accompany the LO and AESA technology required to satisfy the prime customer requirements. Not a straightforward argument at all.
The debate about whether 6th gen fighters due to enter service circa 2040 should have a pilot is one thing (highly contestable IMO... look at the recent sharp uptick in AI progress and consider that 2040 is still 17 years away). But to my mind it helps clarify things if we ask whether 7th gen fighters are likely to need one. If you accept that's vanishingly unlikely, then going all-in on drone development and accepting we might be forced to buy an American piloted 6th gen export variant if it turns out to have been the wrong decision suddenly becomes a much more tolerable risk. The rationale for investing huge sums in domestic piloted 6th gen combat aircraft expertise then looks much less about preserving strategic capabilities for the future, and much more of a business proposition. But a business proposition requires an honest view of likely export numbers, with full consideration of unit price competiveness and the exportability constraints likely to accompany the LO and AESA technology required to satisfy the prime customer requirements. Not a straightforward argument at all.
"But a business proposition requires an honest view of likely export numbers"
Let's be honest -apart from co-production what was the last UK export success? Hawk?
When anyone looks at buying something they will look at the UK Govt's constant habit of reducing the total order for every aircraft we've planned to buy for the last 60 + years.
Let's be honest -apart from co-production what was the last UK export success? Hawk?
When anyone looks at buying something they will look at the UK Govt's constant habit of reducing the total order for every aircraft we've planned to buy for the last 60 + years.
The author makes a good point on including spend on "tempest related programs". However, I would argue that including spend on 4.5/5th gen aircraft sensors and ASE etc is a bit of a stretch. I'd also suggest that a top tier place at the table for future drone programmes (as might be afforded by the Prof's argument) would be more helpful than a top tier place at the table for future crewed aircraft.
Without investment those capabilites will die.
It doesn't matter how the investment comes - it has to be made if you want to not become completely dependent. If you like being dependent then fine. I wonder why would a drone with super high tech expensive kit that cannot really do the full set of missions be the answer? Perhaps it is better to build something we can afford with relatively current technology that doesn't stretch the technological envelope too much.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There does seem to be an assumption that designing a 6th Gen top end drone is somehow different to designing a 6th Gen aircraft.
At the top end they’re likely to be manned/unmanned airframes with similar range, engines, sensors etc. Yes, you can take out the seat and the man to reduce size, increase range etc - but if you reinforce the structure for higher G you add more back. Look at the NGAD where they are looking at $500M per manned aircraft controlling drone wingmen - which will probably resemble Tempest in most regards.
At the lower end you can design with one use engines for kamikaze drones such as in Ukraine, but that’s not really a viable export market because everyone will be doing it.
So the dividing line - and cost savings - is far more nuanced than being suggested.
At the top end they’re likely to be manned/unmanned airframes with similar range, engines, sensors etc. Yes, you can take out the seat and the man to reduce size, increase range etc - but if you reinforce the structure for higher G you add more back. Look at the NGAD where they are looking at $500M per manned aircraft controlling drone wingmen - which will probably resemble Tempest in most regards.
At the lower end you can design with one use engines for kamikaze drones such as in Ukraine, but that’s not really a viable export market because everyone will be doing it.
So the dividing line - and cost savings - is far more nuanced than being suggested.
UK industry has some capabilities. Whether you choose to label them as 4/5 generation is a trick of argument. Lets just say that they can do better than what is in current 4.5 generation aircraft now because they have been working a lot since those 4.5 gen aircraft last got updated. What could we build now without doing any research at all? Probably something better than what we have.
Without investment those capabilites will die.
It doesn't matter how the investment comes - it has to be made if you want to not become completely dependent. If you like being dependent then fine. I wonder why would a drone with super high tech expensive kit that cannot really do the full set of missions be the answer? Perhaps it is better to build something we can afford with relatively current technology that doesn't stretch the technological envelope too much.
Without investment those capabilites will die.
It doesn't matter how the investment comes - it has to be made if you want to not become completely dependent. If you like being dependent then fine. I wonder why would a drone with super high tech expensive kit that cannot really do the full set of missions be the answer? Perhaps it is better to build something we can afford with relatively current technology that doesn't stretch the technological envelope too much.
My argument is not that the investment shouldn't be made on 4.5/5th gen to keep them relevant. Just that it's double counting to include development cost from them in a 6th gen platform which will require enhanced capabilities. You wouldn't include the development of tornado mission equipment in the development cost of Typhoon, though you might well use it as a starting point and build on it. Clearly there will also be some bespoke technologies that aren't from previous gen aircraft (AI development for example). But there's also a middle ground where "previous gen" development stops and "next gen" development starts. Where that is can be argued, but it's not a radar explicitly designed for Typhoon as an example.
The newer aircraft shouldn't have all new systems no matter how much one might think that "every new requirement is essential". The total risk should always be limited. Then you accept it's not going to be the same as what the US can pay for and that you might have to upgrade bits of it over time to improve it. So you try to leave a little capacity in space, power and all the other "budgets".
Anyhow To be fair I know nothing. I just work on upgrading software. I find that people try to make exquisite things from the outset and end up not having time to finish them. It's better to have something straighforward that works that you can improve on - if you have the time - and if you don't have time no worries because you have at least something that works in a basic way.
The following users liked this post:
