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 17th Mar 2023, 18:03
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,131
Received 173 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by Davef68
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
I'm aware of the airframe in question being binned / having served its purpose. Excalibur is not dead.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2023, 09:12
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,329
Received 104 Likes on 51 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Latest GCAP / TEMPEST mock up. The wing has changed the most from earlier TEMPEST concepts, as result of merging UK and Japanese work.
Nice mixture of F-101 and Buccaneer planform of the main wing with an YF-23 tail.
henra is online now  
Old 28th Apr 2023, 08:12
  #303 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,371
Received 1,569 Likes on 714 Posts
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
ORAC is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 28th Apr 2023, 13:29
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,378
Received 360 Likes on 209 Posts
"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."
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2023, 03:47
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's going to be interesting to see if this thread is still going if/when this jet makes it into operational service.
TheWestCoast is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2023, 07:45
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,329
Received 104 Likes on 51 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
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."
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.
henra is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2023, 08:08
  #307 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Originally Posted by henra
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.
Bold move critiquing Prof Bronk's analytical skills. For the UK:

Within this figure, development costs alone were £6.7 billion, or £11.11 billion in inflation-adjusted terms
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2023, 08:17
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,378
Received 360 Likes on 209 Posts
Originally Posted by TheWestCoast
It's going to be interesting to see if this thread is still going if/when this jet makes it into operational service.

The Future Carrier Thread started in April 2006 - and what IS astounding is that the OP, WEBF, is still posting fanboy posts on a regular basis.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 10th May 2023, 18:26
  #309 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,371
Received 1,569 Likes on 714 Posts
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
​​​​​​​

ORAC is offline  
Old 11th May 2023, 04:35
  #310 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
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
​​​​​​​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.
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  
Old 11th May 2023, 07:38
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,785
Received 75 Likes on 34 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.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 11th May 2023, 08:24
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,378
Received 360 Likes on 209 Posts
"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.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 11th May 2023, 08:42
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
​​​​​​​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.
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.
t43562 is offline  
Old 11th May 2023, 08:54
  #314 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,371
Received 1,569 Likes on 714 Posts
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.

ORAC is offline  
Old 11th May 2023, 10:24
  #315 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Originally Posted by t43562
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.
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.
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  
Old 11th May 2023, 13:00
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
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.
I get you, I think. I'm trying to say more that if development could be a kind of continual process rather than stop start it might turn out that you could sort of do that. The latest radar that Leonardo has is probably not in any Typhoons yet. It's aimed at being able to fit in a Typhoon so it should fit in any newer aircraft if the design is not too radically different.

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.
t43562 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 16th May 2023, 08:46
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,141
Received 97 Likes on 52 Posts
According to the JaSDF FB page, they are present at the air combat conference in Italy with Wiggy and Italian counterpart




cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 24th May 2023, 06:45
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,131
Received 173 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw
I'm aware of the airframe in question being binned / having served its purpose. Excalibur is not dead.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...light-test-757
melmothtw is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2023, 04:57
  #319 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,371
Received 1,569 Likes on 714 Posts
https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...warplane-demo/

UK vendors unveil tech for powering Tempest warplane demo

LONDON — British companies involved in the trinational program to develop the Tempest sixth-generation combat jet have lifted the lid on a fraction of the technologies being employed to fly a demonstrator aircraft within the next four years.

A new power plant manufacturing process, a bespoke simulator and auto-coding software all got a name check in a progress statement due for release by BAE Systems June 14.

BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK, MBDA, the Ministry of Defence and a number of British small- and medium-sized companies are collaborating to build the first British flying combat air demonstrator since the Experimental Aircraft Program took to the skies in 1986 – a design that eventually became the Typhoon fighter.

The British Tempest team are developing the sixth-generation fighter alongside Italy and Japan, working on what is known as the Global Combat Air Program.

The demonstrator program is, for the moment at least, a British effort. Separately, however, various technology development initiatives, including a new gas turbine, radar and other technologies, are being worked on by the nations involved in GCAP.

Richard Berthon, director for future combat air at the MoD, said the British demonstrator program will prove integration and develop national skills while providing data and learning in support of Tempest entering service by 2035.

“Tempest is no longer just an idea or concept on a computer; our industry partners have made real, tangible progress and are bringing the program to life through innovative projects, such as the flying demonstrator,” he said.

In what BAE described as a first for military aircraft, the company said engineers have used auto-coding to create safety-critical systems software in a matter of days rather than weeks.

“This enables rapid assessment of the flight control systems during more complex flight maneuvers with the simulator capturing crucial data about how the jet will handle and perform, years before its first flight,” said BAE.

A new facility at BAE Systems air combat center in Warton, Lancashire, has already enabled test pilots from BAE, Rolls-Royce and the Royal Air Force to fly more than 150 hours on the demonstrator aircraft in a new, bespoke simulator.

Rolls-Royce engineers have also been undertaking aerodynamic engine testing, employing new manufacturing processes to produce an engine duct which BAE says is “uniquely shaped to slow the air from supersonic to sub-sonic speeds at the engine face.”

According to the company, the intake has fewer moving parts than a traditional fighter jet design, enhancing the aircraft’s stealthiness.

Ejection seat trials involving a rocket propelled sled traveling at more than 500mph also got a mention in the statement, though no details were given.
ORAC is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2023, 15:13
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,183
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Defence News weren't there.

I was, Francis Tusa was, Craig Hoyle from Flight was, Tony Osborne from AWST was, a couple of local reporters were, and so were four Japanese reporters.

Plenty of details were given about the ejection seat tests, but perhaps not if you were simply relying on the press release!Crew escape system testing

Working alongside Martin Baker, a team of BAE Systems engineers led ejection seat trials, using an aerodynamically representative forward fuselage section mounted on a rocket-propelled sled - travelling at speeds of up to 450 kts. The seat for the Flying Technology Demonstrator will be an unmodified Martin Baker Mk16A ejection seat as used in the Typhoon, and aircrew will wear Typhoon flying gear, including the AEA and Mk 10 helmet, which were also used by the test mannequins.



The crew escape system team also included experts from GKN (canopy design), Hamble Aerostructures (fitment of detonator cords), and rig manufacturers EDM Ltd, as well as specialists from the Royal Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) and scientists from the Ministry of Defence.



The crew escape system test campaign started on 16 December 2021 with a static firing at Martin Baker’s factory airfield at Chalgrove, proving the canopy design – which was a cast acrylic design incorporating MDC technology from the BAE Hawk advanced jet trainer. This was followed by a series of four sled test seat qualification firings at Langford Lodge in Northern Ireland. Firings were made at two speeds (280 kts and 450 kts), using two different classes of mannequin. The class 1 mannequin represented a lightweight female pilot in summer flying gear, while the class 6 mannequin represented a heavy male pilot in winter kit.



The first firing was made on 31 March 2022, at 280 kts, with a second following on 28 April at 450 kts. Another 280 kt firing was achieved on 23 June and the final 450 kt test was undertaken three months ahead of schedule at the end of June.

Jackonicko is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.