UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
cky7
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby cky7 » 20 Feb 2020, 23:30

Ron,

Aye I can see France pulling something like this but to be fair they’ve been looking into the manned/unmanned teaming thing for at least a decade now. My point was that they’re pretty savvy operators and i can see them getting design lead on the manned aspect and still getting a decent share of the tech on any unmanned wingman through MBDA and Thales. This arrangement will especially suit them when one looks at the theme on the unmanned wingman seems to be heading at least initially to the classic Northrop style krank kite that’s hardly cutting edge and something they can afford to let the Germans build alone without losing too much industrial capacity to be able to build something the same alone. The key part here will be the different suites of payloads allowing it to carry out different types of missions all of which I’ll be willing to bet a French firm has st lest as strong hand in. As much as we’d like to believe the U.K. is number 2’, in terms of what they’ve done alone it’s really France who sits behind the US. As I mentioned with the third dimension that killed TSR2 the UKs only reslistic hope of being heavily involved in a true world beating 6th generation system is hope our number cutting on f35 hasn’t done us too much damage and hope the US will cut us a deal as good as they did with JSF, daydreams aside we gave up our chances Of doing something like this along time ago. Of course with enough backing we could in slime fantasy scenario do it but anyone here really see any U.K. GOVT going back on what they’ve done since the 1960s and all of a sudden start putting the money and commitment into defence it would take to turn back the clock now?

Lord Jim,

The BAC Lightening was the 1950s hence why I said since the 50s. Early design work on that (akin to tempest today) started nearly 70 years ago, hardly anything that can be used to justify Britain’s ability to build a 6th generation fighter is only a decade ahead of Poland being able to claim they could independently design such a thing because Of the PZL.50 (I know I’m exaggerating here but the point stands we tend to forget how long ago it is since we did something like this alone). Money and political will is exactly what I’m referring to us not having when talking about TSR2s missing third dimension. It was said that the TSR2 had the other two absolutely perfect but lacked the all important third and hence for the final time lost the lead we had been gradually losing as the worlds best aircraft designers since 1957 forever. Every successive govt has proven since that we will never again have thus third dimension of political will, commitment and money and I unfortunately just don’t see a single shred of evidence to suggest this is going to change, if anything I think things are only getting worse all the time :oops: :silent: :thumbdown: it doesn’t matter how great any projects other dimenions are (if you believe some TSR2s were years ahead of anyone else in the world), without this its all a mute point.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 21 Feb 2020, 16:36

Ignoring first off that Aerospace is a global business and all those primes involved in any of the programs are multi nationals, Who’s building a future air combat system on there own?

There is collaboration going on across the board, the main question is if it’s sensible to have two roughly comparable developments happening in Europe at the same time, yet again it probably isn’t, and the only people who think it’s a gd idea for the US to have a monopoly on future western fighter design is the US.

Unless the government changes its mind IR35 employment changes in April is going to have a major effect on getting resource for supporting this program and many other uk military contracts BAE are quite concerned.

cky7
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby cky7 » 21 Feb 2020, 20:29

SW1,

Firstly, let me acknowledge I don’t have the weal world understanding and view of the how things are actually done that you do so apologise if at times I come across as amateurish.

I acknowledge also that with such a globally connected and enormous industry and project s there are gonna be very totally domesticated produced and designed products, with only the US being of designing and building tomorrow’s fighter and system of systems completely independently and even they may increasingly source some elements from close allies.

My original point was about the difference in how we like to think we are seen by the rest of the world and how they actually do see us. For national pride reasons if nothing else I don’t want to surrender our ability to develop a next generation fighter to the US but real world reality means in order to see that happen there’s gonna have to be some very grown up and humbling decisions and compromises to be made. We’ve all stated that previous multinational programs have gone wrong cos too many folks demand so many different things the aircraft needs to be leading to massive cost over runs and over complications. The only alternative to this is let one nation become the design lead, perhaps in return for the other being design lead elsewhere. At times noses will have to be out of joint when nations are told someone else is better in a certain field than them. When we look at who has actually produced the most modern top end fighters independently, like it or not France has a better claim than us here. As stated our problem was never technical capability but political will (a la my TSR2 comments). Are Europe really grown up enough and getting on well enough to do this?
Despite wishing we could retain an independent British capability has this ship already sailed. As with Europe we’re really only looking at retaining an 8ndustrial capability, the funds for which maybe better used for backing the commercial sector as let’s face Europe is never gonna have capability, will or balls to take on any serious peer foe without the US. Our defence policies and governments treatment of their defence capabilities make this patently obvious. Hard pills to swallow, very hard.
But in these post brexit days are we better off throwing our lot in totally with the US. To be honest it’s lower block. I’d prefer to be part of over all. I wish we could retain some national independence but think this ship sailed a while ago and see no way any current or future govt will put in the money, sacrifice and commitment to give us back our indoependence and ability to not have to rely on the cousins or large overly expensive European coalition projects that we will never be able fo use to their full potential without US legs to hide behind.
If only more people, knew this defence might actually be something voters cared about....I

SD67
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SD67 » 21 Feb 2020, 21:15

cky7 wrote:SW1,

Firstly, let me acknowledge I don’t have the weal world understanding and view of the how things are actually done that you do so apologise if at times I come across as amateurish.

I acknowledge also that with such a globally connected and enormous industry and project s there are gonna be very totally domesticated produced and designed products, with only the US being of designing and building tomorrow’s fighter and system of systems completely independently and even they may increasingly source some elements from close allies.

My original point was about the difference in how we like to think we are seen by the rest of the world and how they actually do see us. For national pride reasons if nothing else I don’t want to surrender our ability to develop a next generation fighter to the US but real world reality means in order to see that happen there’s gonna have to be some very grown up and humbling decisions and compromises to be made. We’ve all stated that previous multinational programs have gone wrong cos too many folks demand so many different things the aircraft needs to be leading to massive cost over runs and over complications. The only alternative to this is let one nation become the design lead, perhaps in return for the other being design lead elsewhere. At times noses will have to be out of joint when nations are told someone else is better in a certain field than them. When we look at who has actually produced the most modern top end fighters independently, like it or not France has a better claim than us here. As stated our problem was never technical capability but political will (a la my TSR2 comments). Are Europe really grown up enough and getting on well enough to do this?
Despite wishing we could retain an independent British capability has this ship already sailed. As with Europe we’re really only looking at retaining an 8ndustrial capability, the funds for which maybe better used for backing the commercial sector as let’s face Europe is never gonna have capability, will or balls to take on any serious peer foe without the US. Our defence policies and governments treatment of their defence capabilities make this patently obvious. Hard pills to swallow, very hard.
But in these post brexit days are we better off throwing our lot in totally with the US. To be honest it’s lower block. I’d prefer to be part of over all. I wish we could retain some national independence but think this ship sailed a while ago and see no way any current or future govt will put in the money, sacrifice and commitment to give us back our indoependence and ability to not have to rely on the cousins or large overly expensive European coalition projects that we will never be able fo use to their full potential without US legs to hide behind.
If only more people, knew this defence might actually be something voters cared about....I


No disrespect, but I think this is a load of defeatest nonsense.

Firstly, the idea that we haven't built anything since TSR2 is just false. The Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft. Rolls Royce based engine, Marconi based radar, EAP based airframe. The fact that we built it as part of a consortium and were generous in the workshare arrangements was a conscious choice and partly driven by cold war politics and the need to keep NATO together. But at the end of the day we have 37.5% of a production run that will likely top out around 800, France has 100% of a run of 190.

Since Typhoon we've also designed and built a significant chunk of F35 which will keep manufacturing skills fresh. We have two very good partners on Tempest with the possibility of more down the line. There's no reason we cannot do this in fact apart from Successor I can't think of a single defence program I'd rank above it.

Oh and there's another point - not sure the Americans have an alternative program we can join. Can we bet our long term security on Trump being an anamoly? How do you know there's not another three isolationists lining up behind him? Big gamble there

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 21 Feb 2020, 22:56

Cky7

If you google company’s like ARA, or cobham or qinetiq you can see the sort of program uk companies below the obvious have been involved with. There’s a lot of institutional knowledge,

The area which is hardest to retain unless you have new designs is systems integration. The lesson ultimately isnt about leading or whatever, a successful program will be achieved by following long held engineering practice of actually meeting design definition prior to production not pretending too. This set against a) not developing in particular an airframe and engine new at the same time and b) a realistic set of requirements that aren’t dreamt up by space age thinkers with no idea of cost eg Mach 2 from a cabbage patch.

cky7
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby cky7 » 22 Feb 2020, 01:33

SD67 wrote:
No disrespect, but I think this is a load of defeatest nonsense.

Firstly, the idea that we haven't built anything since TSR2 is just false. The Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft. Rolls Royce based engine, Marconi based radar, EAP based airframe. The fact that we built it as part of a consortium and were generous in the workshare arrangements was a conscious choice and partly driven by cold war politics and the need to keep NATO together. But at the end of the day we have 37.5% of a production run that will likely top out around 800, France has 100% of a run of 190.

Since Typhoon we've also designed and built a significant chunk of F35 which will keep manufacturing skills fresh. We have two very good partners on Tempest with the possibility of more down the line. There's no reason we cannot do this in fact apart from Successor I can't think of a single defence program I'd rank above it.

Oh and there's another point - not sure the Americans have an alternative program we can join. Can we bet our long term security on Trump being an anamoly? How do you know there's not another three isolationists lining up behind him? Big gamble there


A lot of the problem here mate is down to my poor communication skill I think. I’ve absolutely no doubt we have or could reclaim the technical ability to build a future fighter fighter and system of systems alone. I don’t however for one second believe any foreseeable U.K. GOVT will ever provide the money and long term commitment needed to do such s thing.

Typhoon, whilst having a heavy British DNA is not an essentially British aircraft. That’s just nationalism getting a little too carried away. I might go as far as to say that in my view we were the best designers of the bunch but discounting everyone in the manner you did is unfair and untrue, the design of Typhoon is far more similar to germany’s TFK90 than the EAP or any of the pre eurofighter designs. We made mistakes by not fully understanding the canard delta design at the beginning and clearly in the end decided the TFK90 was the most workable for some reason (though I prefer EAP and twin tail close coupled BAE design meself). Other nations did bring some valuable skills to the table rather than us just generously letting them have a awrkshare. The radar is clearly Marconi as the biggest player, but others had a fair claim to more involvement in some of the flashy ECM and other IT systens. rolls Royce are globally recognised as world leaders in engine design. The engine is one of the only things we didnet have to spend ages messing around on so I’ll agree there 100

This is all academic though, once again the U.K.govt hadn’t the money, courage or commitment to go it alone. France did and produced an aircraft that ion some ways out performs Typhoon and in others lags behind it, but overall there not much between them.

Very few British design skills outside of rolls Royce and some at BAE (but not the aircraft design ) were being kept sharp by f35. A lot more British skills in the area you’re talking about were kept ul through the cancekked ASTOVL.

I guess I’m trying to add a dose of realism, our govt want to spend the minimum possible to avoid bad headline and silll never care enough to lead a program or even to do something as big as Typhoon ess for the time. Really hope I’m wrong but just look at the state of things and tell me why I lfught be more optimistic, I see tonnnes of skill bo investment.

Yes, trump et al is a big gamble but we can’t fight a peer without the Americans regardless of how many euro partners we find. No one in NATO can have a serious peer fight without them. So it’s s gamble, it’s oir only real choice,

cky7
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby cky7 » 22 Feb 2020, 01:41

SW1,

Thanks for the info, Will do some more research :) my initial impression still edges towards us having no internion of being sole design lead as others as had mentioned or hoped for. It still looks to me like partnership of workshare for numbers bought or go in with the US as the only hopes

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Feb 2020, 06:52

SD67 wrote: But at the end of the day we have 37.5% of a production run that will likely top out around 800, France has 100% of a run of 190.

Since Typhoon we've also designed and built a significant chunk of F35 which will keep manufacturing skills fresh.


I wonder if anyone has turned/ can turn the above to revenues (sovereign argument vs. continuous revenues, to keep the industry and skills alive, can be at odds and thereby need careful balancing... something that is called a 'judgement call'. And who'se gonna make it on our part: just look at the carousel of ministers in and out at the MoD :?: )
- so 15 % for the F-35?
- and to Typhoon's 37.5% the 40 from contemporaneous Gripen (Note: the Swedes want to continue as part of the Tempest 'family, so that's their call on the revenues vs. how much of sovereign capability is enough)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Feb 2020, 10:12

Keeping an eye on the competition, from today's DID
"A contract for the first phase of the program to build the main aircraft of the Future Combat Air System was awarded last week. It covers the plane's propulsion system, data architecture and simulation environment, the German Defense Ministry said. Airbus, MTU, Safran and Dassault are the lead contractors. Plans for the program include development of a Next-Generation Weapon System whose components include remote carrier vehicles known as "swarming drones" and a sixth-generation fighter plane intended to be ready by 2035 to replace current Rafales, Eurofighters and F-18 Hornet planes. The plane and drones are expected to work in tandem."
- so if the project will be delivered 5 years late, Spain will still be flying Hornets in 2040

Any guesses on vectoring (which for the Typhoon's engine has not progressed)?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3963
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Feb 2020, 15:42

Flying the F/A-18s out to 2025 is still pushing it, given their current age. They are probably going to be the oldest Hornets flying, though Canada could give them a run for their money.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Feb 2020, 17:02

Lord Jim wrote: though Canada could give them a run for their money.


I think Switzerland will snatch Silver, before their Bronze
- all the three mentioned hiding behind somebody else's air defences, so as long as two a/c can be kept on Quick Alert (like Iran's Tomcats) then all will be 'fine'

Funnily enough, of the next-gen a/c the best fit for Canada (air defence over the vast expanses of their North) would be the Su-57
... perhaps they are waiting for that one to be re-engined?

Ares
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 19:19
Location: Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Ares » 05 Mar 2020, 18:18

Well, my dream is over fellow gentlemen. Looks like our government decided to be a good puppet of the US yet again. Too bad. :sick:

The Japanese government has begun to coordinate with the U.S. and Japan in developing the next fighter jet to be introduced by the Air Self-Defense Forces in the mid-2030s. In joint development, Japan will bear most of the development costs in order to maintain the "Japan-led" policy. Therefore, it maintains an advantage to develop critical parts and to freely modify aircraft in the future. At the same time, the relationship with Britain, which has a plan for a new fighter jet, is only technical cooperation. The decision will be made officially within the year.

The government was choosing development form in one of (1) the domestic (b) international co-development (3) the existing machine. The focus was on which to choose, since last summer, when the joint development was put forward and the U.S. or the U.K. held full- U.S. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and U.K. BAE Systems have been nominated to be linked, and they have been given information on what development is possible.

Behind the set direction of joint U.S.-Japan development is the deepening of the partnership between the U.S. Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military. The number and content of joint U.S.-Japan drills are expanding, and advanced tactical network functions need to be shared with the U.S. military. The Defense Ministry has less interoperability (interoperability) with the U.S. in its proposal for the concept of the next fighter jet, which was presented in late 19. The number of freedom staring at the upgrading of future combat was also a top priority.

Under the U.S.-coordinated initiative, the Self-Defense Forces will seek to cooperate on the premise that it will build new fighter jets for the U.S. forces operate. The U.S. side does not adopt a mixture of existing machines previously shown. It guarantees freedom of innovation by paying most of the development costs to Japan. Japan is responsible for the mission system, which controls radar, sensors and electronic warfare equipment, which is the primary function of fighter jets. One U.S. company to link is not limited to one.

The form of joint development with the UK is not taken, but it complements technology. In Britain, plans to develop a new fighter jet called the Tempest are under way, and the joint development of Japanese fighter systems and electronic equipment has been explored. However, the joint development of the U.S., Japan and the U.S. decided that the U.S.-Japan alliance could not maintain its superiority and decided to reduce it to technological cooperation. They present the range of technologies that can be provided in mutual development projects and are presupposing each other.

Japan's defense industry will be joined by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Toshiba and IHI. The companies have begun research on the high-powered small radar that can detect stealth jets and high-powered engine in the mind of mounting on the next fighter jet. Specifically, the Department of Defense packages the details of which companies are responsible for the part of the gas. Defense Minister Taro Kono stresses that "freedom of future innovation is also a very important thing to secure a degree of freedom in improving capabilities."

Some twists and turns are expected until the final decision. A development plan was developed in the 1980s. The F2 fighter was originally scheduled to be developed by Japan. However, the U.S. took the initiative due to the impact of the U.S.-Japan trade friction. As a result, the design of the part of the period, which is classified to the fighter jet, is not open to Japan, and the number has become a gas that cannot be freely counted.

U.S. President Trump is also reportedly interested in plans to develop the next fighter jet. The U.S.-Japan staff will continue to make adjustments until the end of the year to finalize their final policy on development costs and manufacturing share.

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO56 ... 0A3PP8000/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Mar 2020, 19:17

Ares wrote:Japan is responsible for the mission system, which controls radar, sensors and electronic warfare equipment, which is the primary function of fighter jets.


The translation is contradicting itself in parts, but this is interesting (from the POV of "only technical" co-operation).

inch
Member
Posts: 708
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby inch » 05 Mar 2020, 20:15

Can someone explain to me what all that means in simple terms Cos just read that and what are they saying lol,? Is it the us designing the jet and Japan building the mission systems in it ? And Japan and the us agreed that they not going to do anything with the tempest team ,is that about the size of it ?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 05 Mar 2020, 21:42

Shocked I tell u shocked

An English version
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Aerosp ... -US-not-UK

inch
Member
Posts: 708
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby inch » 05 Mar 2020, 23:32

Was Japan ever really going to pick the UK over us in reality I think not , Japan just got too much American skin in the game defending the country and the us tech no how that the UK was never going to get a look in only as a bargaining chip to get better terms from the americans.and as much as I don't like it they probably made the right choice all things considered with their defence and strategic needs folks ,but still a unhappy face for tempest effort.bet France and Germany happy tho Cos they probably thinking the UK will have to join the French lead operation in reality

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Mar 2020, 04:04

So other sensors than radar (US currently trailing on IRS?) and/or EW up for grabs?

The pity is that there seemed to be perfect parallelism in time scales "Deployment of the new jets is now slated for the mid-2030s" but as I've seen that rather aggressive for Tempest (we can now take 5 yrs more), perhaps it was the Japanese requirement driving the statement in the first place?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3963
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Mar 2020, 08:10

The radar alone will definitely be of interest to many others. A small compact airborne radar and the associated technology would be of great benefit to use in land and sea based platforms as well as the next generation AWACS platforms. How the US will look upon this technology and how they limit accessibility to it will be interesting. How many in the Pentagon will remember the technology the USSR gained from Japan in the 1970s and 1980s, now replace the USSR with China which has a major intelligence network within Japan and its high tech industries.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Location: Korea North

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Cooper » 06 Mar 2020, 08:58

FFS, the pathetic defeatism on display in this thread is just that, pathetic.

Tempest is about keeping alive a fully sovereign capability alive in dozens of areas related to high tech military aerospace for decades to come and keeping hold of tens of thousands, proabably hundreds of thousands of jobs and expertise that once lost, will be gone forever.

The economics of the endeavour are of a secondary concern.

Project Tempest never was, or ever has been, reliant on Japan becoming part of the developer nations to proceed.

..and we sure as fuck won't join the French/German FCAS project.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 06 Mar 2020, 16:56

inch wrote:Can someone explain to me what all that means in simple terms Cos just read that and what are they saying lol,? Is it the us designing the jet and Japan building the mission systems in it ? And Japan and the us agreed that they not going to do anything with the tempest team ,is that about the size of it ?


Japan is building and designing it with a US partner. Basically it's F-2 Part 2. The first time around the Japanese tried to build F-2 as the prime but ran into trouble, the US then took the lead which also meant that they had control over aspects of it. The Japanese are in many respects trying the same approach again, the US will be a junior partner. Sounds a little like the Turkish/UK deal on steroids...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3963
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Mar 2020, 18:45

Remember at present the UK only has one true partner in the Tempest programme, Italy, whilst Sweden hovers at the edge of the programme, unwilling at present to fully commit. Having Japan on board would have added both technical and financial mass to the programme. At present it is looking into the next generation of equipment that could be used on a next generation platform or in updates to say the Typhoon. The former is far less likely that the latter to be the end product of Tempest and the level of funding required to go down that route is far greater then what has been promised and remember the recurring theme developing in defence, that there are already a large number of higher priority programmes that are unfunded, and unless new money is injected into the Defence Budget, we are going to see some programmes cut this time around in order to endure those with the highest priority have adequate funding.

I personal cannot see a next generation platform emerging, if at all, until the early 2040s at best, with the Typhoons soldiering on well past their announced OSD, and far fewer F-35s being purchased than originally planned.

Whether the Franco/German programme is any more successful will probably depend on just how much the French are willing to throw money at it given they are driving the requirements needed. Don't forget that Germany also might get cold feet down the line as the cost rises and throw a spanner in the works like they did in the Eurofighter programme.

So I see Tempest being in two distinct parts, the first the technology demonstrator programme which has already started with limited funding and the second being a new aircraft which is at present only conjecture and totally unfunded in the Equipment plan, which it would already have to be to meet the current timetable.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 06 Mar 2020, 19:40

Lord Jim wrote:and far fewer F-35s being purchased than originally planned.


It's looking like the long predicted backing away from '138 through the lifetime of the programme' is about to happen...

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1758
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby bobp » 06 Mar 2020, 19:48

Timmymagic wrote:It's looking like the long predicted backing away from '138 through the lifetime of the programme' is about to happen...


Hope though that the number doesn't stop at 48

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 06 Mar 2020, 21:18

bobp wrote:Hope though that the number doesn't stop at 48


Got a feeling it might...

72 would be good, 90ish would be the most we could possibly hope for. 138 is for the birds though.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Mar 2020, 03:42

Cooper wrote upthread, in his own style, what the Tempest prgrm is about :thumbup: .

The SDSR will have to formulate the rationale that sits in the difference between these numbers:
" bobp wrote:
Hope though that the number doesn't stop at 48


[and Timmymagic then]
Got a feeling it might...

72 would be good," When the choice of plane was defended, it was not for carriers (their credibility) only, which is the 48 number.

It was also about RAF Alpha Strike/ First Day of War (we last had that in Libya, and had to call Uncle Sam), which at the minimum means SEAD/DEAD as without any such capability another key mission - interdiction, as opposed to CAS - will go down the toilet.
- add in the early years of OCU, which partly (when talking about a/c numbers) then can transfer planes to the attrition reserve and sensible rotation of the fleet, to evenly distribute the flying hours and thereby the expected life of the fleet, in calendar years
... so that's the 72 number

Hard to see a red line run through any of those activities/ capabilities?


Return to “Royal Air Force”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests