Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by serge750 »

Interesting, QEC as a CATOBAR would be awesome to see ! as electo catapaults are a bit iffy ???? maybe STOBAR as you guys already do that with the Russian carrier & soon to operate IAC 1, I thought IAC 2 was going to be conventionally powered ? but if a nuke reactor could be made to work, go for it, always liked the idea of a smallish reactor for cruising then gas turbines for sprint speed. could this work in the indian navy?

Sorry im well of topic. maybe the offspring of project tempest could be capable of STOBAR ? as in the F35b is capable of a very short take of with full fuel & weapons. & not limited like the Russian/Chinese stobar planes.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Defiance »

Last I heard the Indian Navy binned naval Tejas in favour of TEDBF as the landing gear is so wide that it blocks the innermost pylons from carrying large stores or drop tanks

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/11/1 ... ter-tedbf/

I'd also be cautious about counting any AMCA-chickens before they've hatched. If HAL can't get something like Tejas right (which has been in the works since the 1980s) I wouldn't be so keen to say 'oh don't worry, we've got our 5th gen in the pipes, no dramas'.

User avatar
RSETH020
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 06 Mar 2018, 11:17
India

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by RSETH020 »

Defiance wrote:Last I heard the Indian Navy binned naval Tejas in favour of TEDBF as the landing gear is so wide that it blocks the innermost pylons from carrying large stores or drop tanks

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/11/1 ... ter-tedbf/

I'd also be cautious about counting any AMCA-chickens before they've hatched. If HAL can't get something like Tejas right (which has been in the works since the 1980s) I wouldn't be so keen to say 'oh don't worry, we've got our 5th gen in the pipes, no dramas'.
Wow you had quite a knowledge about indian aviation
1. Tejas mk1 will not be inducted,TEDBF is nothing but twin engine naval variant of tejas...NLCA mk2 was single engine but a bigger jet
2.Navy is still backing tejas program,tejas mk1 was seen as technology demonstartor

Regarding AMCA & delay in tejas,when india started tejas program,india didnt have any industrial base,it was started from scratch & target was to build a jet that would replace mig21(3rd gen,most advanced jet of its time),imagine africa wants to create tempest on its own to replace F35 in 10 years.Due to tejas project many technology have been created ,with AMCA india is not going to france or russia just to conduct wind tunnel test,we have that facility now,yes NAMCE is ambitious project but india is in better position now than in 1980s.


Also tejas was saved by HAL,so blaming them is absolutely wrong,HAL was a manufacturing partner in tejas program when it started,ADA ie Aeronautical Development Agency is the organisation that developed Tejas,it was in 2008 when kaveri engine was failed to create above 75KN thrust,govt wanted to pull the plug from project,at that time HAL took over the project,they made the induction possible by 2016.

A glimpse of Indian Aviation is required here.We have
HAL(Hindustan Aeronautics Limited),it is in line with Lockheed Martin, which is manufacturer & also do R&D for aircrafts & helicopters.HAL works strictly for military purpose
NAL(National Aerospace Laboratories ) ,it is in line with boeing ,which is R&D agency & facilitation organisation (ie provides wind tunnels,designingof aerospace components etc).NAL focuses more on civil aviation.NAL saras is one their program
DRDO LABS-DRDO is on lines with DARPA,it runs various labs & some labs like ARDE,DARL do R&D for aviation.DRDO also focuses on development of technology for various military applications
ADA(Aeronautical Development Agency) It is a nodal agency created in 1980s that bring various organisation of country into one umbrella,primarily created to do R&D & design & development of Tejas program

Also HF-Marut,developed by HAL(not ADA or other agency)(design & technlogy was made possible by help of german engg Kurt Tank) is the first jet of india(& Asia).It was a 2nd gen jet ,which participated in 1971 war also,when a 3rd gen marut was proposed,govt & IAF wasnt interested as they got mig21s,so marut program was closed & Tejas program was born in late 70s & early 80s with objective to create a jet completly by indian efforts(no foreign help) & replace mig21 in 1990s) or in 10 years.

Today lot of variants of tejas are doing rounds,but all are drawing major tech from LCA program
for Airforce
Tejas mk1(currently under production,16delivered,16under construction)
Tejas mk1A(83 jets proposal has been approved by govt,waiting for IAF to give order to HAL)-HAL developed it(2015-20,a little longer version of mk1 without any major change).
Tejas mk2 or Medium Weight Fighter-ADA is developing this & will be produced after mk1A is manufactured
AMCA-AdA is design incharge of this

For Navy
Tejas Navy mk1(single engine)(only as Tech Demo,developed by ADA)
Tejas Navy mk2 (single engine but bigger than mk1)(skipped)
TEDBF (twin engine)(DRDO & ADA will be doing development ,manufacturer is not decided yet)
NAMCA(ADA will develop after AMCA will be developed)

People associated with Tejas program created this website & update it as program is moving foward : https://www.tejas.gov.in/

Few videos of Tejas program


Last test of naval tejas ,night arrested landing


Coverage of Natgeo in 2000s of LCA



A view of pilot on HF Marut

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Just buy some of these for the RAF and tell them they are Tempests, they won't know the difference :D

Image

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by cky7 »

Ron,

All jokes aside, whilst I’d say we still hold a lead in fighter design/development over SK or any one in Asia, we (rest of Europe too) really do have to seriously get our fingers out or we will be a way behind the Asian big boys like SK and Japan who are doing a phenomenal job investing in R&D and IMO will be defence industrial giants by the early to mid 21st century that will have left us euros behind. Obviously the US will remain clear number one with China probably their new Russia/USSR in terms of opposing political block competition

Quick aside - personally despite some interesting sources stories around tic tac shaped vehicles buzzing navy aircraft, hybrid aerospace underwater vehicles, to the stars academy, senior members of the intelligence committee members being briefed on “a propulsion gap” that are in my view more likely to involve little yellow men than green/grey ones!! To clarify IMO the more likely answer here is some sort of disinformation or throwing off the scent campaign as despite that I’d absolutely love some of the other out theories to be true (wow that turned into a very long aside!!)

point being I don’t see China over taking or even matching the US For military tech in at least the next 30-40 years. Hell in my book unless the conflict was of a very specific type, that heavily suited China and home advantage, I’d say GW1 anhialation would be more likely than the questionably trained, overly reliant on centralised command and control and had no experience in modern combat Chinese forces is far more likely than them beating the US.

Finally, to return the original point and sort of do my cheat to keep my post on topic thing - SK and Japan will be guys in our position to the US number one during the Cold War/more recent times. European dominance is looking increasingly unlikely and getting in with these guys, who I see as being highly unlikely to not be long ahead of us by 2050 latest, might be our best bet of staying anyway relevant. European leaders are never gonna move from their PC liberal, agenda and continue treating anything defence related as a bad joke. Hanging onto the coat tails those taking up our old role maybe our best bet to get anything even half way relevant when talking of being involved in big time peer to peer fighting over future decades.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

How’s the Mitsubishi region jet going after Japan’s phenomenal Aerospace R&D effort. In aerospace North America and Europe are miles ahead.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

cky7 wrote:Ron,

All jokes aside, whilst I’d say we still hold a lead in fighter design/development over SK or any one in Asia, we (rest of Europe too) really do have to seriously get our fingers out or we will be a way behind the Asian big boys like SK and Japan who are doing a phenomenal job investing in R&D and IMO will be defence industrial giants by the early to mid 21st century that will have left us euros behind. Obviously the US will remain clear number one with China probably their new Russia/USSR in terms of opposing political block competition

Quick aside - personally despite some interesting sources stories around tic tac shaped vehicles buzzing navy aircraft, hybrid aerospace underwater vehicles, to the stars academy, senior members of the intelligence committee members being briefed on “a propulsion gap” that are in my view more likely to involve little yellow men than green/grey ones!! To clarify IMO the more likely answer here is some sort of disinformation or throwing off the scent campaign as despite that I’d absolutely love some of the other out theories to be true (wow that turned into a very long aside!!)

point being I don’t see China over taking or even matching the US For military tech in at least the next 30-40 years. Hell in my book unless the conflict was of a very specific type, that heavily suited China and home advantage, I’d say GW1 anhialation would be more likely than the questionably trained, overly reliant on centralised command and control and had no experience in modern combat Chinese forces is far more likely than them beating the US.

Finally, to return the original point and sort of do my cheat to keep my post on topic thing - SK and Japan will be guys in our position to the US number one during the Cold War/more recent times. European dominance is looking increasingly unlikely and getting in with these guys, who I see as being highly unlikely to not be long ahead of us by 2050 latest, might be our best bet of staying anyway relevant. European leaders are never gonna move from their PC liberal, agenda and continue treating anything defence related as a bad joke. Hanging onto the coat tails those taking up our old role maybe our best bet to get anything even half way relevant when talking of being involved in big time peer to peer fighting over future decades.
For all of the reasons above a many more is why I believe that we need to move away from being so intertwined with continental Europe and move back to our more traditional place of being able to intervene in Europe if need be but concentrate on global influence with the likes of the Anglo-sphere with it being spread globally.

With regards to tempest and the moves Japan and SK are making I’d suggest we push really hard to have them joy Tempest but make clear no sharing with the US with out our say so.
These 2 could be the final 2 keys needed to make Tempest a big success, giving both the volume of orders needed along with bringing in high tech high skilled partners all while opening up new markets.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:final 2 keys needed to make Tempest a big success
What keys are those?

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by cky7 »

SW1 wrote:How’s the Mitsubishi region jet going after Japan’s phenomenal Aerospace R&D effort. In aerospace North America and Europe are miles ahead.

I’ve read many of your posts on here before and it’s clear to me you have far greater involvement knowledge and experience in nearly all this field than myself so firstly I hope you’re happy to bear with me as my level extends only to passionate observer with no industry or forces experience. It’s still a topic that I’m really passionate about so Im fully prepared to accept occasions where you might tell me my being so far removed and only having media access means I’ll have to take your word/actual experience over here say. That said I hope my not being a pro isn’t a reason to no longer be taken seriously! :angel:

To clarify my last post - At this moment yes the U.K./Europe might be ahead but it seems to me that we’re nowhere near as far ahead as we were in the past with that gap having narrowed at an ever accelerated rate. Then when looks at the amount coming out of our relative defence industries (R&D spend, seemingly more, more ambitious projects from SK/japan - again ever accelerated in their favour) and the seriiusness with which they take their defence, the levels they’re prepared to spend at and scope of their ambition and public interest in their own defence I see very little to suggest they won’t have over taken us by 2050 which was the date I was perhaps a little In eloquently focussing on.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:final 2 keys needed to make Tempest a big success
What keys are those?
1 that they are both high tech high skilled nations that can bring tech to the program along with money in the design phase.

2 that they will have relatively large orders ( for nations out side of the US and China ) that would give the program a suitable orders needed to make it viable and bring down unit costs.

There are not really many other nations allied to the west that require new aircraft in this time frame that can bring the above 2 points that are not already signed up to other programs.

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by cky7 »

Jake1992 wrote: For all of the reasons above a many more is why I believe that we need to move away from being so intertwined with continental Europe and move back to our more traditional place of being able to intervene in Europe if need be but concentrate on global influence with the likes of the Anglo-sphere with it being spread globally.

With regards to tempest and the moves Japan and SK are making I’d suggest we push really hard to have them joy Tempest but make clear no sharing with the US with out our say so.
These 2 could be the final 2 keys needed to make Tempest a big success, giving both the volume of orders needed along with bringing in high tech high skilled partners all while opening up new markets.
/

The first paragraph I’m in wholehearted agreement with you on. My worry is that no matter how hard we wish that to be the case those in charge literally don’t give a shit about defence or those serving for us lives so we’re never gonna see the necessary investment and effort needed to make this a reality and have any genuine relevance.

Totally agree on the following two paras/points too but again have my fears. For as much as we’ve criticised the French for over rating themselves in terms of what workshare etc their experience etc entities them to, we are every bit as guilty. We go round NATO shouting about others not meeting their minimum 2% commitment yet we are only doing so through via what is basically statistical utter deception and take our defence no more seriously than many of those we seek to shame. Our politicians only interest us being able to bow tick and pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant. Were I a US taxpayer I’d deeply resent paying into NATO even just to protect the U.K. who for a l9ng time have not pulled our weight to anywhere near the level of the US yet still constantly come running for assistance when our understanding leaves us in embarrassing spots. For all our sniffyness about the French they’re well on course to be spending a lot more than us in the near future and once one removes BAEs golden gooose relationship with the US their defence sector is IMO bigger than ours.

I try to spend a little time on more international defence forums to gage opinions of folks from other nations with similar interests to ours and it’s quite clear we see things with blindingly rose coloured specs about our capabilities. Some can be discounted as butt hurt and biased but many others make very valid points of our over rating ourselves and U.K. products. Yes, we still come up with some very innovative and often world beating things but we nearly always never exploit them beyond their fairly niche initial incarnation and end up having them surpassed a few years later by a copy that someone else did exploit to its full potential. We need to be very careful we don’t go into negotiations with the likes of SK and Japan (as you say the perfect partners) doing what we accuse the French of and asking for unreasonable shares and over rating ourselves, not realising others don’t see us as quite the prize we see ourselves as. Of course the opposite is also true and we mustn’t sell our undoubted value short, but something tells me that won’t be the problem of those representing us. Nearly all of whom seem to have got Roosevelt’s ‘speak softly a d carry a big stick’ the wrong way round!!

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

cky7 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: For all of the reasons above a many more is why I believe that we need to move away from being so intertwined with continental Europe and move back to our more traditional place of being able to intervene in Europe if need be but concentrate on global influence with the likes of the Anglo-sphere with it being spread globally.

With regards to tempest and the moves Japan and SK are making I’d suggest we push really hard to have them joy Tempest but make clear no sharing with the US with out our say so.
These 2 could be the final 2 keys needed to make Tempest a big success, giving both the volume of orders needed along with bringing in high tech high skilled partners all while opening up new markets.
/

The first paragraph I’m in wholehearted agreement with you on. My worry is that no matter how hard we wish that to be the case those in charge literally don’t give a shit about defence or those serving for us lives so we’re never gonna see the necessary investment and effort needed to make this a reality and have any genuine relevance.

Totally agree on the following two paras/points too but again have my fears. For as much as we’ve criticised the French for over rating themselves in terms of what workshare etc their experience etc entities them to, we are every bit as guilty. We go round NATO shouting about others not meeting their minimum 2% commitment yet we are only doing so through via what is basically statistical utter deception and take our defence no more seriously than many of those we seek to shame. Our politicians only interest us being able to bow tick and pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant. Were I a US taxpayer I’d deeply resent paying into NATO even just to protect the U.K. who for a l9ng time have not pulled our weight to anywhere near the level of the US yet still constantly come running for assistance when our understanding leaves us in embarrassing spots. For all our sniffyness about the French they’re well on course to be spending a lot more than us in the near future and once one removes BAEs golden gooose relationship with the US their defence sector is IMO bigger than ours.

I try to spend a little time on more international defence forums to gage opinions of folks from other nations with similar interests to ours and it’s quite clear we see things with blindingly rose coloured specs about our capabilities. Some can be discounted as butt hurt and biased but many others make very valid points of our over rating ourselves and U.K. products. Yes, we still come up with some very innovative and often world beating things but we nearly always never exploit them beyond their fairly niche initial incarnation and end up having them surpassed a few years later by a copy that someone else did exploit to its full potential. We need to be very careful we don’t go into negotiations with the likes of SK and Japan (as you say the perfect partners) doing what we accuse the French of and asking for unreasonable shares and over rating ourselves, not realising others don’t see us as quite the prize we see ourselves as. Of course the opposite is also true and we mustn’t sell our undoubted value short, but something tells me that won’t be the problem of those representing us. Nearly all of whom seem to have got Roosevelt’s ‘speak softly a d carry a big stick’ the wrong way round!!
Completely agree with everything you’ve said here and it’s a said truth in so many ways. It seems to be the problem with most of Western Europe we included have become far too comfortable with the peace of the last 25 years under uncle sams bubble.

With regards to work share I wouldn’t damned more than our fair share but do believe we should make clear we will be lead on this project as we have started it and put the initial funding in to get it underway. My big concern over SK and Japan is there closeness to the US and them leaking tech info from the project to them. Yes the US is a close ally but I don’t believe any ally should get ote for free, they certainly wouldn’t allow it the other way round.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

cky7 wrote:That said I hope my not being a pro isn’t a reason to no longer be taken seriously!
Absolutely not. But I wouldn’t confuse large defence spending on predominantly US equipment purchases as closing a gap with the ability to design and certify aircraft.

The Japanese largely manufacturer on a build to print basis for primarily Boeing and Lockheed. The reason I raise the point of MRJ is it highlights the fundamental deference of the jump from component manufacture to certification and build of an aircraft independently. The fact they had several goes failed had to set up in Washington state got into more corporate IP issues and ended up having to buy CRJ to attempt to get there on a relatively simple regional jet.

What tempest really doesn’t want to turn into is yet another large multinational program with people joining purely for National work share and people you may have to end up handholding and as a result increasing program risk. Aerospace is a global business of global companies but there is only a handful with the corporate knowledge around aero, propulsion and sensor systems integration that you would want primarily to be involved with and there predominantly in North America and Europe.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by dmereifield »

How do you balance that against scale and affordability? If Tempest led to an actual aircraft, how many could the UK and Italy afford to purchase between them over the next 2-3 decades? Probably 200-250?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

dmereifield wrote:How do you balance that against scale and affordability? If Tempest led to an actual aircraft, how many could the UK and Italy afford to purchase between them over the next 2-3 decades? Probably 200-250?
How many do you need to buy? Sweden and France both have developed competent fighter aircraft with buys of less than 200 a/c. In the end cost is mitigated in a number of ways chiefly not everything is developed new. Example airframe or engine not both. Second could be evolution rather than revolution, heavily refreshed version of typhoon with loyal wingman and stand off weapons as an example. USAF and f15x another example.

Ultimately if your setting about designing a heavy tactical combat aircraft in a european context there’s really only two airforces with the same requirement FAF and RAF and two primes you’d want to work together to design it, Dassault and BAE.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:and two primes you’d want to work together to design it, Dassault and BAE.
Do I detect a contradiction of terms here? Will be interesting to see if the cross-pull will be any less in the Franco-German fighter project.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by inch »

Hope we don't ever work with the French .1) they don't need us and can do it themselves and 2) if we did end up working with them they would pick our brains take the ideas/know how what we know and then split away laughing ,they want to be top dog on program controling everything ,and to be fair we don't need them so no , Italy Sweden and UK and whoever else joins us be just fine thanks

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Ultimately this is why we don’t get as gd a value or the amount of equipment for the money we spend in European defence as a whole.

The USAF did not design build and field two a/c to preform the f15 role.

There is emotion and plenty of political and ego issues that would need to be overcome but it wasn’t always that way. Jaguar, puma and gazelle have served us well.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

The RAF had Jaguar, the USAF had F-16. The RAF had Puma, the US Army had Blackhawk.

Yeah European collaboration is the best.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:In the end cost is mitigated in a number of ways chiefly not everything is developed new. Example airframe or engine not both. Second could be evolution rather than revolution, heavily refreshed version of typhoon with loyal wingman and stand off weapons as an example. USAF and f15x another example.
Yeah, spend umpty billions buying something inferior to the F-35B's already in service.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

The problem isn’t collaboration that is needed really to make a project such as Tempest work, it’s more that these paneuropean projects never seem to work on budget on time and with out us giving too much.

What we’d get is the French demanding to be lead, the Germans demanding majority work share ( we’ve seen them lie about orders over and over to get this ) the Spanish wanting greater work share than what they put in and everyone wanting they’re national company to supply all the parts. It’s never works as there is too many “big fish” wanting their way.
There is also the added complexity of the french wanting it to be carried capable.

IMO we should run Tempest in a similar way to the F35 project with our selfs as leads, Italy as a tier one partner and Sweden, SK and Japan as tier two partners.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:The RAF had Jaguar, the USAF had F-16. The RAF had Puma, the US Army had Blackhawk.

Yeah European collaboration is the best.
Firstly Jaguar cost around half that of a F-16A was a ground attack aircraft only and a good work horse for the RAF second the the Puma is a fucking good bit of kit and again a good work horse for the RAF

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:IMO we should run Tempest in a similar way to the F35 project
I seriously hope we don’t run it like f35.


I wasn’t taking about a pan European project. A UK France only project.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:IMO we should run Tempest in a similar way to the F35 project
I seriously hope we don’t run it like f35.


I wasn’t taking about a pan European project. A UK France only project.
The F35 project had its faults but the set up of one leader and then a tier level of partners depending on what they bring to the project was a good structure to allow everyone to know where they stood.

Out of the European Possibilities, I believe France would be the worse to partner with on this.
While yes they would bring the most expertise out of the rest they would also bring the most problems.
1 - they wouldn’t be able to bring great finances like the Germans could
2 - they are a very controlling partner that always wants it their way and if not they leave, we’ve seen this numerous times.
3 - the fact that they want “their” 6th gen to be carrier capable just adds complexity and cost to the project that we don’t need. ( this was a big issue with theF35 trying to get multiple types out of a single design )
4 - they are one of the leading voices to keep us out of Galileo which to me shows how they are seeing us after brexit.

Italy is the much more natural and dependable partner from Europe, this along with what hopefully can be ideas of how to keep cost down brought by Sweden is a good mix. Only leaving order numbers and money that can be brought in from high tech high skill Eastern allies like Japan and SK.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Image

Not sure if this is behind a paywall or not:

Japan Could Pick And Choose Components From Tempest
Nov 29, 2019 Bradley Perrett | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Japan says it wants international collaboration in developing its Future Fighter for the 2030s, but it wants to lead the project despite limited experience in fighter development. And it aims at a fighter much larger than any operated by a western European country ; the U.S. is not offering a possible joint project.

That seems to leave only the choice of indigenous development, perhaps with help from a foreign technical partner.

Program flexibility offers a path to Japanese participation

Even the airframe could be different

Nevertheless, participation in the UK’s Tempest program may also be feasible. The Tempest project—which includes the Royal Air Force, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and MBDA—has a cooperation concept that leaves scope for Japan and other partners to use their own systems, weapons, propulsion and even airframes, says Air Commodore Daniel Storr, head of combat aircraft acquisition at the UK Defense Ministry.

The model described by Storr gives Japan the flexibility to choose the size of its own fighter. Though evidently not an objective, this mix-and-match approach also creates an opportunity for Japan to continue to claim development leadership—but also to save money by sharing systems.

The policy goal of running its own fighter program, stated in 2018, has looked like a big obstacle to Japan’s participation in the Tempest or the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project initiated by France and Germany. But if the Future Fighter shared only some features with Tempest, Japan could reasonably say it was leading its own program.

BAE Systems promoted the Tempest program at the DSEI Japan exhibition held in Tokyo fromNov. 18-20. Prospective FCAS prime contractors, such as Airbus, did not show their concept. Storr outlined the flexible model of cooperative development at an exhibition conference, but Japanese speakers at that event did not comment on the prospect of Japan joining Tempest.

In a Nov. 1 interview with The Financial Times, newly appointed Defense Minister Taro Kono seemed to play down the possibility of participation in a European program, saying Japan should explore all possibilities but needed to maintain interoperability with U.S. forces. Storr addressed that point, emphasizing that working with the U.S. was a high priority for the UK too.

Japan’s alternative to international cooperation is developing a fighter by itself with the technical help of a foreign company. Lockheed Martin is supporting the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X and BAE is helping the Turkish Aerospace Industries TF-X in such an arrangement.

By working with Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrop Grumman, Tokyo would partially compensate the U.S. for its expenditures in defending Japan. But the U.S. would gain little from technical support fees, and Japan is already committed to buying 147 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings as the aircraft to precede the Future Fighters.

The defense ministry has asked for the development of the Future Fighter to be launched in the fiscal year beginning April 2020. It is not clear whether that means mobilizing resources to commence full-scale development or taking some lesser step to firm up the commitment to create the aircraft.

For the past year, the government’s policy has been to launch no later than March 2024. However, Japanese companies, especially fighter builder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), are pushing for a launch as soon as possible. They want to transfer knowledge to young engineers from the older generation that developed Japan’s last fighter, the MHI F-2, which the Future Fighter will replace.

The UK does not want to commit to launching full-scale development of the Tempest before 2025, but its date for entry into service in 2035 meets Japan’s objective, which is sometime in the 2030s. Meanwhile, the FCAS program is aiming at 2040.

Sweden and Italy are cooperating with the UK during the current early stage of Tempest research, while Spain has joined France and Germany for FCAS work.

Like Storr, BAE has stressed the advantages of partners taking only as much of the Tempest as they want. “There is a range of different partnership models that can be considered,” says Andy Latham, who is working on the program. “Japan has some great technology that any partner can benefit from. Their avionics industry is pretty effective.”

The cooperation concept replaces the standard model, one in which partners spend years negotiating and compromising to define a design that all of them must accept. Instead, according to Storr, they can save time and money by agreeing to disagree—to the extent that each is willing to pay the extra cost of independent development and manufacturing of design elements.

The Japanese defense ministry’s studies point to a need for a very big fighter with an empty weight well above 20 metric tons (40,000 lb.), larger than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Superior endurance and internal weapon capacity are the key factors behind this choice.

No western European country has operated a fighter more than about two-thirds as big, but Storr said a large configuration for the Tempest cannot be ruled out. The mockup exhibited at the 2018 Farnborough International Airshow was bigger than the F-22.

Still, the UK and other European partners might want a much smaller fighter; concept designs that have not been shown are not as big as the mockup. But the concept for cooperation would allow for Japan to devise its own airframe while, for example, using the same engine and some weapons, software and avionics as other partners. The architecture of the software is intended to be open, accepting different programs easily.

Tempest researchers will consider which systems and capabilities will go into the fighter and which will be incorporated into the ammunition or an accompanying drone, which could be fully reusable or optionally expendable, Storr says. The FCAS program is taking a similar approach.

The Tempest will need great capacity for generating electricity, he says, and the weapon bay should be regarded as a payload bay, perhaps for holding additional fuel that would extend endurance on surveillance missions.

The Japanese finance ministry is insisting upon private investment in the Future Fighter program, in part to ensure contractors are fully incentivized to prevent failure. Contractors will be able to make money in civil programs from technology developed for the fighter, says the ministry, which is highly influential but does not have a final say.

“Judging from past program examples, it is clear that the Future Fighter program would bring a risk of a budget overrun and schedule slippage, but would also benefit the private sector,” the finance ministry said in an October presentation to the Council on Fiscal Policy, an advisory body.

“The government and private sector should invest funds and resources to build a failure-proof framework.”

Noting that MHI used technology from the F-2 program in its development and manufacturing of the outer wing boxes of the Boeing 787, the ministry says contractors can expect to gain similar opportunities for civil applications of technology from the Future Fighter program—so they should invest in it.

Post Reply