Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[shark bait]

- Suggested RAF/RN to stop procuring F-35 after 70,
- 70 considered a 'credible minimum order',
- Funds to be channeled into Typhoon upgrades and Temptest.

Certainly better than the split A/B idea.

That should be enough for 4 operational squadrons of F35b which is about the sweet-spot IMO. That means you could sustain 2 squadrons with each carrier, or have enough to support ground operations and still have a squadron for a carrier.

[Timmymagic]

With Saab's involvement in developments for future fighter technology with the UK, its worth noting this potential EW payload that Saab are proposing to Finland as part of their HX Fighter Programme. Sounds a lot like the Spear-EW or MALD-J. Its in its early days at present, no idea if its dependent on the Gripen's selection as part of the HX Programme in order to be realised.

Saab Group Press Release

Saab’s offering to Finland includes advanced Electronic Warfare systems, comprising of a newly developed Electronic Attack Jammer Pod and a decoy missile system.

Saab’s offering to Finland for the HX fighter procurement includes both the fighter jet Gripen E/F and the GlobalEye Airborne Early Warning and Control System.

As part of Gripen’s E/F Electronic Warfare capability, Saab now reveals the development of a new decoy missile system, the Lightweight Air-launched Decoy Missile. The decoy missile and the new Electronic Attack Jammer Pod, which Saab started flight testing in 2019, will ensure that Finnish pilots will be protected from enemy radars and missiles.

The new decoy missile will be a highly capable stand-in jammer for the most demanding missions. It will act as a force multiplier as it reduces the number of missiles and aircraft required to complete a mission. The decoy missile can jam or create false targets for acquisition, tracking, fire control and airborne radars.

“Our offering to Finland, combining Gripen E/F and GlobalEye as force multipliers, will protect Finland’s people and borders, by delivering both comprehensive situational awareness and a true deterrence effect.

“The decoy missile, that we present today, will constitute a strong addition to Gripen E/F’s built-in electronic attack capabilities.The payload of the new decoy missile is to a large extent developed in Finland and this will strengthen our offer to Finland even further,” says Jonas Hjelm, Senior Vice President and Head of Saab Business Area Aeronautics.

The development of the new decoy missile means that Saab will expand its Saab Technology Centre in Tampere, Finland with more highly skilled employees. Saab has already established a deep technical partnership with Aalto University, where more than 10 research projects are ongoing within the areas of advanced sensors and artificial intelligence.

[Defiance]

Personal suspicion is EAJP & LADM is tagged with 'all of this could be yours ..... you just need to pay to make it be a reality'

Have these systems been seen elsewhere yet?

[Timmymagic]

Personal suspicion is EAJP & LADM is tagged with 'all of this could be yours ..... you just need to pay to make it be a reality'

Have these systems been seen elsewhere yet?

Jammer pod has already been flight tested last year and is definitely a thing, its going to go into production as the Swedes will buy it themselves. The LADM though might be as you describe. Saab has a long history in airborne countermeasures, but I'm not sure if they've ever developed an expendable RF decoy before, so they might be starting from scratch to a degree. But if they keep it simple though (gliding rather than powered) it shouldn't be a major technical challenge for them

The interesting thing is once you've developed a shape, flight tested it, drop tested it, integrated it to an aircraft its then a comparatively small job to convert it to a small munition (if you keep it simple i.e. no Brimstone/Spear level of sophistication in the sensors) for either laser guidance or GPS guidance. The Gripen currently lacks a small munition, and its something that is lacking from Saab's product lineup and the Swedish Air Forces inventory (which is looking a little bereft at new developments recently).

[SW1]

Sounds like the saab arexis systems that’s been in development for sometime for gripen. Was offered for integration on typhoon to customers as well which along with brite cloud and spear ew and globaleye you could see how a development path to a future air system may develop between Sweden, saab and a like minded country were consideration for risk reduction and budgets may go hand in hand.

[Timmymagic]

But if they keep it simple though (gliding rather than powered) it shouldn't be a major technical challenge for them

I should add that expendable RF decoys from fighter aircraft dispensors are rather rare. There's only 5 that I know of. 3 from the US, only 1 of which is still in service (and is getting on in years) 1 from Aselsan of Turkey which I'm not sure has progressed past mockups and the new Leonardo Britecloud, which seems to be the only really moden one in existence, with even the US looking to trial it. It might be that Saab with a countermeasures market share to protect have seen the arrival of Britecloud as a threat that they must respond to.

[Timmymagic]

Sounds like the saab arexis systems that’s been in development for sometime for gripen.

I think Arexis is more a system that is installed on the aircraft direct, similar to the Rafale's Spectra or Typhoon's Praetorian DASS. The EW pod is an optional bit of kit to the Arexis system that provides electronic attack and more powerful jamming than the onboard systems can provide.

[SW1]

might be that Saab with a countermeasures market share to protect have seen the arrival of Britecloud as a threat that they must respond to.

Think Saab are involved as partners on britecloud.

[Timmymagic]

Think Saab are involved as partners on britecloud.

Only so far as its compatible with their launchers and is offered with Gripen as a package, they have have no involvement with the actual countermeasure.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Interactive 3D

https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/team-tempest/tempest/

Is it just me or do the weapons bays not look particularly big?

I wouldn’t read a whole lot into the graphical representations of such things at this stage.

Oh, yeah. The whole thing might end up looking a lot different, just making an off-hand comment.

Though I've just noticed it has under-wing SRAAM side-bays, so there's a bit more than I first thought. Depending on the depth of the ventral bays there might be enough room for eight Meteors with something along the lines of the F-35's Sidekick, and 8 x Meteor's and 2 x ASRAAM's would be a pretty fearsome loadout.

Given the size of the aircraft depending on how you integrate the landing gear and engine inlet ducts you could in theory end up with a bomb bay of buccaneer size.

Make it rotating (like they did with B-52s, with a massive increase in ordnance - not weight) which, coincidentally, is what MBDA is saying they are working on for 'the competition

the UK Government surely wouldn't want to (officially, overtly) partner with SA?

I wonder which country was added, as an afterthought, onto the Typhoon 'strategic' steering board? The same one that said that they would not buy any if there wasn't an even rudimentary A2G capability coming with it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Article by Tim Robinson regarding Tempest

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/tempest-fugit/

A great article, as per usual.

If there is going to be a test bed flying by the time of Main Gate, I will count this as the second (major) success in getting more industry 'skin in the game':
"Leonardo is also the prime contractor for a Boeing 757, to be converted by 2Excel, which will serve as a flying avionics, sensors and systems testbed for the Tempest programme and which is expected to be flying in the mid-2020s."

[ArmChairCivvy]

digital prototyping will not help one iota. I see he also hypes or repeats the hype of someone else, the merits of parallel development and test. Aren't a lot of folks slamming that part of F-35 development?

A whole lot different with digital twins vs. building prototypes in metal (pre-production a/c en-masse ) and then sending them back for expensive mods
- Saab's experience gets mentioned, but I believe RR has done the same for a while - at engine level only, though

[ArmChairCivvy]

Personal suspicion is EAJP & LADM is tagged with 'all of this could be yours ..... you just need to pay to make it be a reality'

Have these systems been seen elsewhere yet?

+

It might be that Saab with a countermeasures market share to protect have seen the arrival of Britecloud as a threat that they must respond to.

The first mention (about Finland HX competition, before these quotes) clearly is a response (with everything Saab's got in the desk drawer) to the boxes that Growler can tick - but they hadn't, until the mentioned additions.

[Lord Jim]

If SAAB bring along the design and testing tools they used for the new USAF trainer then the development of the TEMPEST will be a whole different ball game compared to Typhoon of the F-35. Together with the Leonardo flying avionics test bed the project should be able to deliver a prototype that is for all intents and purposes the finished article and will result in a much reduced testing schedule, and save substantial time and money. This is probably the core aim of the TEMPEST programme, to be able to deliver an affordable platform.

[SW1]

Design and testing tools used in aerospace are pretty standard across the board that isn’t were delays and difficulties tend to arise in that part of the process.

It’s generally the data management and product lifecycle management systems where the real problems lie. Designed largely by IT people they get less and less intuitive more clunky and have many unwieldy processes to go thru to get things signed off and released.

You also have to accept that many sub manufacturers particularly machine shops are not able to process and inspect model based definition, this for a number of reason becomes difficult from a skills and access point of view which can cause duplication of information which can lead to problems in the life cycle management systems. Having said that this has improved over the last while as supplier dealing with airbus and Boeing has transitioned to support their new programs particularly (787, a350 and a220). But it far from universal or smooth even for them.

[Caribbean]

It’s generally the data management and product lifecycle management systems where the real problems lie. Designed largely by IT people they get less and less intuitive more clunky and have many unwieldy processes to go thru to get things signed off and released.

The way it works is that the "IT people" actually write what the client says they require. The major issue is that, very often, the client doesn't understand their own requirement. After many years of writing software, I can guarantee that, no matter how often you go over a point, no matter how well you document it, no matter how often you do a client walk-through, to clarify what the client really wants, the first thing that you hear when software goes into user acceptance testing is "oh - that's not what we meant!" or "well, we've changed our minds" or "it's not supposed to work that way". That is usually followed by a lot of finger-pointing and a grumpy silence when you point to the bit in the system design document which shows that the developers have given them exactly what they signed off.

Unfortunately, clients usually aren't prepared to re-engineer their business processes - they simply want an automated version of what they have always done. Believe me, when you look at the clunky and frankly, often illogical business processes that the client insists that you write into the software (because that's the way they've always done it), you try very hard to suggest that certain processes could be dropped, because they are no longer appropriate or needed.

As for IT development processes, well, if they aren't fit for use, then change them! The funny thing is, that when I started programming many moons ago, the complaint was that the software development process wan't rigorous enough and that it should be treated as an engineering discipline. Now that there is far more rigour in the process, and a great deal of effort has gone into developing processes that are closer to those used in traditional engineering, all you get is complaints about how the processes are unweildy and not fit for purpose.

[SW1]

It’s generally the data management and product lifecycle management systems where the real problems lie. Designed largely by IT people they get less and less intuitive more clunky and have many unwieldy processes to go thru to get things signed off and released.

The way it works is that the "IT people" actually write what the client says they require. The major issue is that, very often, the client doesn't understand their own requirement. After many years of writing software, I can guarantee that, no matter how often you go over a point, no matter how well you document it, no matter how often you do a client walk-through, to clarify what the client really wants, the first thing that you hear when software goes into user acceptance testing is "oh - that's not what we meant!" or "well, we've changed our minds" or "it's not supposed to work that way". That is usually followed by a lot of finger-pointing and a grumpy silence when you point to the bit in the system design document which shows that the developers have given them exactly what they signed off.

Unfortunately, clients usually aren't prepared to re-engineer their business processes - they simply want an automated version of what they have always done. Believe me, when you look at the clunky and frankly, often illogical business processes that the client insists that you write into the software (because that's the way they've always done it), you try very hard to suggest that certain processes could be dropped, because they are no longer appropriate or needed.

As for IT development processes, well, if they aren't fit for use, then change them! The funny thing is, that when I started programming many moons ago, the complaint was that the software development process wan't rigorous enough and that it should be treated as an engineering discipline. Now that there is far more rigour in the process, and a great deal of effort has gone into developing processes that are closer to those used in traditional engineering, all you get is complaints about how the processes are unweildy and not fit for purpose.

In general my finger pointing at IT people is generally pointed towards IT people who you specify as the client IT people. They champion the introduction of these systems in the first place, generally based around the precedence of it new and it will save money it generally does neither. They generally seem to have little understanding of the how an engineering office works and how a engineering office integrates with the shop floor.

I generally find things are much slower to progress now than 15 years ago, the length of time to do the actual work hasn’t changed if anything it’s now quicker but that it now takes days of an engineers time to get thing pushed thru product management systems. Some of the old optegra systems are far superior to what’s on offer now.

[Ron5]

For fun ..

[serge750]

I do love the wing arrangement ! the cockpit looks rather large for the body in the first 2 pictures,

I also wonder how much "the wingmen" will cost compared to the (wo)manned plane

The fantasist (dreamer) in me says that it looks as though there could be a lift fan hatch behind the cockpit ala F35 & in the wings

[bobp]

Great pictures, now we just need to build.

[ArmChairCivvy]

there could be a lift fan hatch behind the cockpit ala F35 & in the wings

Where will the laser go then

all you get is complaints about how the processes are unweildy and not fit for purpose.

You mean not Agile ?

the core aim of the TEMPEST programme, to be able to deliver an affordable platform.

Well, yes, Saab's real experience will be a bonus and using a digital twin a declared goal, but the other major goal is Pyramid:
- the "APIs" have already been delivered to development partners
- this is the key to how you will get the good stuff onto existing airframes, too. Spiral development, rather than massive (=rebuild) MLUs.

[NickC]

Well, yes, Saab's real experience will be a bonus and using a digital twin a declared goal, but the other major goal is Pyramid:
- the "APIs" have already been delivered to development partners
- this is the key to how you will get the good stuff onto existing airframes, too. Spiral development, rather than massive (=rebuild) MLUs.

Pyramid - Reminds me of 2016 article in Flightglobal "Gripen E flight slips into 2017 as Saab puts software first"

" to fully qualify its distributed integrated modular avionics (DIMA) design to commercial standards prior to first flight"

"Likened to a smartphone app, DIMA will enable Saab to swiftly develop and integrate new functions on the Gripen E without touching the jet’s flight critical software. The company has already proven that it can develop software, test it in the simulator and fly it the next day, says Ydreskog. More than 500h of rig testing and flights using Saab’s 39-7 Gripen demonstrator have beaten expectations for stability, he adds."

[Lord Jim]

Reading up on the entry SAAB together with LM submitted to the USAF's Advanced Trainer Programme which they won, they have developed some very advanced design and engineering tools to allow they to produce a fully operational prototype first time, shaving substantial time of the flight test programme and deliver on time and well under the budget set by the USAF. This is a game changer in aircraft design and development raising the possibility of significantly reduce developmental costs, as well as reducing the cost per airframe.

[Ron5]

Reading up on the entry SAAB together with LM submitted to the USAF's Advanced Trainer Programme which they won, they have developed some very advanced design and engineering tools to allow they to produce a fully operational prototype first time, shaving substantial time of the flight test programme and deliver on time and well under the budget set by the USAF. This is a game changer in aircraft design and development raising the possibility of significantly reduce developmental costs, as well as reducing the cost per airframe.

Boeing/SAAB won because its bid was so much lower than the others. But most folks put that down to Boeing putting in an "at cost" price and banking on expensive future support to generate profits. A gamble which probably has already misfired.

[dmereifield]

Reading up on the entry SAAB together with LM submitted to the USAF's Advanced Trainer Programme which they won, they have developed some very advanced design and engineering tools to allow they to produce a fully operational prototype first time, shaving substantial time of the flight test programme and deliver on time and well under the budget set by the USAF. This is a game changer in aircraft design and development raising the possibility of significantly reduce developmental costs, as well as reducing the cost per airframe.

Boeing/SAAB won because its bid was so much lower than the others. But most folks put that down to Boeing putting in an "at cost" price and banking on expensive future support to generate profits. A gamble which probably has already misfired.

Why has it already misfired?