Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[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.

Why has it already misfired?

Boeing right now needs profit making programs, lost too much money recently.

[Lord Jim]

It was 's novel approach to engineering and design that enabled the Bid to be so low not the usual bid low and recoup the cost later. The other entrants did that and were still beaten by quite a margin. It has also allowed the two prototype built to be virtually the final product and has drastically reducing the test programme, cutting months or even years off it. The SAAB system was developed during their JAS-39E programme in order to cut costs and reduce development time, both things that Tempest need. The other entrants are still baffled as to how the SAAB/Boeing bid could undercut them so much and have been coming up with all the usual reasons basing them on their own past practices.

[Meriv9]

In the EF topic there was a discussion on the size and it was mentioned on how both Italy and Sweden don't need a big plane. IMHO considering that Yugoslavia is no more and probably sooner or later Serbia is going to enter NATO, i would say we need something more sea oriented, long distance, two seated since it is going to have drone swarm control role.

[Ron5]

It was 's novel approach to engineering and design that enabled the Bid to be so low not the usual bid low and recoup the cost later. The other entrants did that and were still beaten by quite a margin. It has also allowed the two prototype built to be virtually the final product and has drastically reducing the test programme, cutting months or even years off it. The SAAB system was developed during their JAS-39E programme in order to cut costs and reduce development time, both things that Tempest need. The other entrants are still baffled as to how the SAAB/Boeing bid could undercut them so much and have been coming up with all the usual reasons basing them on their own past practices.

Your opinion is not shared by many this side of the pond. And it's extremely unusual for suppliers to large Pentagon projects to bid "no profit". Whoever told you that is very uninformed.

That's a polite way of saying you are talking out ya ass.

[Lord Jim]

Oh I never said that SAAB/Boeing didn't place a bid that would bring them a profit, but according to many this side of the pond, it was SAABs revolutionary tools that enabled them to make a bid which took into account the greatly reduced developmental costs they would incur compared to the other bidders, who obviously didn't have access to SAAB's tools. And yes they built two full spec prototypes before even being awarded the contract because of these tools, that have allowed the developmental and acceptance flight programme to be accelerated as most of the initial sorties were not required. So a combination of Boeings manufacturing muscle and SAAB's intellectual abilities have delivered a plane at a far cheaper cost then the other bidders could possibly try to, whilst still making a profit, so both of them and the USAF all win and so should the TEMPEST programme which should use an evolved versions of SAAB's tool kit. The other bidders are simply scratching their collective heads and wondering how they did it, as none of the accepted bidding practices would have enabled them to produce such a low bid. Those are what the other companies tried and ended up flat on their collective arses.

[Pseudo]

Oh I never said that SAAB/Boeing didn't place a bid that would bring them a profit, but according to many this side of the pond, it was SAABs revolutionary tools that enabled them to make a bid which took into account the greatly reduced developmental costs they would incur compared to the other bidders, who obviously didn't have access to SAAB's tools. And yes they built two full spec prototypes before even being awarded the contract because of these tools, that have allowed the developmental and acceptance flight programme to be accelerated as most of the initial sorties were not required. So a combination of Boeings manufacturing muscle and SAAB's intellectual abilities have delivered a plane at a far cheaper cost then the other bidders could possibly try to, whilst still making a profit, so both of them and the USAF all win and so should the TEMPEST programme which should use an evolved versions of SAAB's tool kit. The other bidders are simply scratching their collective heads and wondering how they did it, as none of the accepted bidding practices would have enabled them to produce such a low bid. Those are what the other companies tried and ended up flat on their collective arses.

In that case, I'm assuming that the Swedes are only in Tempest as technology partners because they're expecting to be able to use their rapid development tools to build either an advanced Gripen variant or a new single engined aircraft equipped with Tempest technologies at a relatively low cost.

While an entirely separate lower end aircraft initially sounds like a negative for Tempest sales, I doubt that there are many countries that would be in the market for Tempest that would drop in entirely for a lower end option. That said, I could see some countries maybe going for a high-low option, Brazil for instance might be persuaded to buy Tempest because of its commonality with whatever upgrades its Gripens get where it would otherwise have left a large combat aircraft as an aspiration. Though that logic works both ways and I could imagine some of the smaller gulf states buying the Swedish aircraft where they might have bought Tempest. Either way, the UK will get a share of the work and any commonality of systems should hopefully make upgrades more affordable. Though maybe I'm just an insane optimist.

[SW1]

tempest is a system of systems approach, it’s not just a manned a/c but also weapons, podded systems and unmanned systems.

we may or may not develop a new manned a/c tailored to UK requirements but it doesn’t mean major subs like seats, helmets, cockpit displays, radars/engines ect could not be used in another a/c designed to meet the needs of another country.

[Jensy]

While an entirely separate lower end aircraft initially sounds like a negative for Tempest sales, I doubt that there are many countries that would be in the market for Tempest that would drop in entirely for a lower end option. That said, I could see some countries maybe going for a high-low option, Brazil for instance might be persuaded to buy Tempest because of its commonality with whatever upgrades its Gripens get where it would otherwise have left a large combat aircraft as an aspiration. Though that logic works both ways and I could imagine some of the smaller gulf states buying the Swedish aircraft where they might have bought Tempest. Either way, the UK will get a share of the work and any commonality of systems should hopefully make upgrades more affordable. Though maybe I'm just an insane optimist.

That's the dream right there, maybe with the 'son-of-Gripen' eventually replacing F-35.

Ignoring all the terrifying economics and foreign competition, one issue that Tempest seems to have to overcome, if it is to become an export success, is the vastly different size and range requirements of likely partners and customers.

Japan (on the off-chance they don't buy American) clearly wants a large almost F-111 sized monster to operate and loiter over the Pacific. I'd say the RAF, RAAF and RCAF are all rather keen on this scale as well, Italy and Sweden (due to geography) less soo.

Not to sound like a talking BAE brochure... but Tempest should ideally be 'airframe-agnostic', with the sensors, powerplant and weapons capable of being integrated into airframes that are suited to the customer's requirements.

In the way that Gripen was once (briefly) considered, by BAE, as a mid-way product between Hawk 200 and Typhoon, perhaps we need a 'Tempest lite', with reduced but still substantial UK involvement. This would offer prospective customers not only two different products with common components and software but also a somewhat more cost effective means of operating split fleets.

From an industrial perspective we could theoretically maintain 30-50% workshare in each aircraft all for less than the cost of developing a single one. Meanwhile we'd be providing greater workshare to our partners and splitting the development costs with the economies of scale brought by the common elements of each aircraft. Almost the JSF concept but without the (not so-)common airframe.

[Ron5]

tempest is a system of systems approach, it’s not just a manned a/c but also weapons, podded systems and unmanned systems.

we may or may not develop a new manned a/c tailored to UK requirements but it doesn’t mean major subs like seats, helmets, cockpit displays, radars/engines ect could not be used in another a/c designed to meet the needs of another country.

Sounds good but count me as skeptical. "System of systems" has been around for donkeys. I think without an airframe to tie together all these wonder Tempest systems, they'll fizzle out.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'd say the RAF, RAAF and RCAF are all rather keen on this scale as well

RCAF is especially interesting. As you say, Tempest (as conceived in illustrations) is what they would need, but the current competition is shaping differently.

Except that F-35 is a hot potato, a Boeing an industrial (the Bombardier debacle) no-no... so only Gripen out of the three might make it thru
- and if there is a promise that it will be a cousin (in commonality) to a future option that is bigger/ longer legged, then all good

[Ron5]

I'd say the RAF, RAAF and RCAF are all rather keen on this scale as well

RCAF is especially interesting. As you say, Tempest (as conceived in illustrations) is what they would need, but the current competition is shaping differently.

Except that F-35 is a hot potato, a Boeing an industrial (the Bombardier debacle) no-no... so only Gripen out of the three might make it thru
- and if there is a promise that it will be a cousin (in commonality) to a future option that is bigger/ longer legged, then all good

I don't understand why Typhoon has been barred form the Canadian competition yet Gripen is allowed. Makes zero sense to me. Anyhow if Typhoon is barred, won't Tempest be as well?

[SW1]

tempest is a system of systems approach, it’s not just a manned a/c but also weapons, podded systems and unmanned systems.

we may or may not develop a new manned a/c tailored to UK requirements but it doesn’t mean major subs like seats, helmets, cockpit displays, radars/engines ect could not be used in another a/c designed to meet the needs of another country.

Sounds good but count me as skeptical. "System of systems" has been around for donkeys. I think without an airframe to tie together all these wonder Tempest systems, they'll fizzle out.

It has and some examples would be meteor missile of gripen, typhoon, rafaele for example or the super hornet engine being used by the gripen e with some single engine modifications. A loyal wingman uav for example probably doesn’t care if it’s raf sentinel, a typhoon, a gripen, an f16 a superhornet or an f35 that it is for formatting with. There’s other targeting pods and sensor systems this applies to as well.

The most important thing going fwd I would say is countries want and demand they have the sovereign access and capability to integrate what they want onto the fastjet platform they are spending a lot on to aquire.

I'd say the RAF, RAAF and RCAF are all rather keen on this scale as well

RCAF is especially interesting. As you say, Tempest (as conceived in illustrations) is what they would need, but the current competition is shaping differently.

Except that F-35 is a hot potato, a Boeing an industrial (the Bombardier debacle) no-no... so only Gripen out of the three might make it thru
- and if there is a promise that it will be a cousin (in commonality) to a future option that is bigger/ longer legged, then all good

I don't understand why Typhoon has been barred form the Canadian competition yet Gripen is allowed. Makes zero sense to me. Anyhow if Typhoon is barred, won't Tempest be as well?

Typhoon wasn’t barred, the decision was taken not to bid it as it was considered the requirement documents were weighted in the favour of a certain participant.

[NickC]

Janes article 26th Aug "Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) has published a notice inviting foreign companies to engage with its project to develop next-generation fighter aircraft."

Thought design looks similar to Tempest

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, looking much like.

Do the wings look like that or was the CGI operators previous task to do the Phantom (still in service)?

[Ron5]

The most important thing going fwd I would say is countries want and demand they have the sovereign access and capability to integrate what they want onto the fastjet platform they are spending a lot on to aquire.

Really? As a general statement, I doubt that very much. Can the UK integrate what it wants onto the F-35Bs it purchased? Does Saudi Arabia integrate stuff onto its Typhoons?

Typhoon wasn’t barred, the decision was taken not to bid it as it was considered the requirement documents were weighted in the favour of a certain participant.

What does that mean? Which aircraft is the pre-chosen one? Do tell.

By the way, press reports here have the US objecting to a Typhoon sale north of its border.

[SW1]

The most important thing going fwd I would say is countries want and demand they have the sovereign access and capability to integrate what they want onto the fastjet platform they are spending a lot on to aquire.

Really? As a general statement, I doubt that very much. Can the UK integrate what it wants onto the F-35Bs it purchased? Does Saudi Arabia integrate stuff onto its Typhoons?

Typhoon wasn’t barred, the decision was taken not to bid it as it was considered the requirement documents were weighted in the favour of a certain participant.

What does that mean? Which aircraft is the pre-chosen one? Do tell.

By the way, press reports here have the US objecting to a Typhoon sale north of its border.

It can’t. Which is partly why tempest has become a runner. It’s also why we are seeing japan, Korea, turkey and the like all pursuing there own designs. Even if you look at the marketing in certain recent tenders full transfer of IP has been running theme.

On typhoon and Canada you can read it here https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airbus ... -1.5265665

In a statement, Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said she accepted Airbus's decision.

"We understand that participation in this competition represents a significant commitment for suppliers, and we respect this business decision," she said. "We would like to thank the U.K. Government and Airbus Defence and Space for their participation and thoughtful feedback during this process."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD intelligence security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.

It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."

[ArmChairCivvy]

press reports here have the US objecting to a Typhoon sale north of its border.

How naughty; I thought Canada was sovereign? And it had traded in so much of that sovereignty already, just to have the FTAs - the limited edition in 1989 and improved one in 1994 (until Trump worsened - practically unilaterally, though it was called a negotiation - those terms that were meant to be binding)

[Ron5]

The most important thing going fwd I would say is countries want and demand they have the sovereign access and capability to integrate what they want onto the fastjet platform they are spending a lot on to aquire.

Really? As a general statement, I doubt that very much. Can the UK integrate what it wants onto the F-35Bs it purchased? Does Saudi Arabia integrate stuff onto its Typhoons?

Typhoon wasn’t barred, the decision was taken not to bid it as it was considered the requirement documents were weighted in the favour of a certain participant.

What does that mean? Which aircraft is the pre-chosen one? Do tell.

By the way, press reports here have the US objecting to a Typhoon sale north of its border.

It can’t. Which is partly why tempest has become a runner. It’s also why we are seeing japan, Korea, turkey and the like all pursuing there own designs. Even if you look at the marketing in certain recent tenders full transfer of IP has been running theme.

On typhoon and Canada you can read it here https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airbus ... -1.5265665

In a statement, Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said she accepted Airbus's decision.

"We understand that participation in this competition represents a significant commitment for suppliers, and we respect this business decision," she said. "We would like to thank the U.K. Government and Airbus Defence and Space for their participation and thoughtful feedback during this process."

Airbus decided to withdraw after looking at the NORAD intelligence security requirements and the cost it imposes on companies outside of North America.

It also said it was convinced that the industrial benefits regime, as written in the tender, "does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make."

Canada is already receiving industrial benefits from the F-35 program even though it cancelled the order. Perfectly reasonable that these benefits can be allowed as part of the offsets if an American aircraft is chosen. Who would have a problem with that?

As for Typhoon, putting Airbus in charge of the marketing was clearly the first mistake. What idiot decided that? Clearly a five eyes company (Bae) should have been lead.

And the publicly announced reason that Typhoon withdrew isn't the whole story by a long shot.

[SW1]

I would of thought airbus was the lead industrial participant because they were in the process of taking control of the CSeries program at the time.

[J. Tattersall]

Canadian liberal governments have previously cancelled foreign aircraft purchases (EH101 in the 1990s, F35 recently) and then reinstated them (EH101) at greater overall cost.

Let's see what happens with F35.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Shephardmedia had this yesterday:
" Lockheed Martin officials said on 3 September that they are looking to work closely with Polish industry to create an aircraft to act as ‘wingman’ UAV support for fighter aircraft such as the F-35A Lightning II.

The UAV will have a stealthy design — potentially a flying wing similar to the RQ-170 Sentinel HALE UAS — but much of the design work will be frozen until Polish and US requirements become clearer.

The US scrapped plans to replace the MQ-9 eight years ago but in June the DoD issued an RfI to ‘research potential solutions for the Next Generation UAS ISR/Strike platform [and] potential follow-on programme’. IOC is planned for Q3 FY2031 with initial deliveries beginning in Q4 FY2030. "
together with an image where the UAV looks just like B-2 (without a scale factor from which to figure out its size)

[topman]

And the publicly announced reason that Typhoon withdrew isn't the whole story by a long shot.

What is the whole story?

[Ron5]

And the publicly announced reason that Typhoon withdrew isn't the whole story by a long shot.

What is the whole story?

Need to know old bean?

PS the US regards Canada as its exclusive rights customer. We're not going to allow a non-US aircraft. Wait and see.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We're not going to allow a non-US aircraft. Wait and see.

Did a good job with the one that was their own

[SD67]

tempest is a system of systems approach, it’s not just a manned a/c but also weapons, podded systems and unmanned systems.

we may or may not develop a new manned a/c tailored to UK requirements but it doesn’t mean major subs like seats, helmets, cockpit displays, radars/engines ect could not be used in another a/c designed to meet the needs of another country.

Sounds good but count me as skeptical. "System of systems" has been around for donkeys. I think without an airframe to tie together all these wonder Tempest systems, they'll fizzle out.

Totally agree. Without an airframe to hang it around the whole thing will fizzle regardless of how good the technology is.

Very interested to find out what exactly SAAB’s involvement is. I don’t buy the idea that they’re only looking for technology insertion into Gripen E/F. For starters there’s the question of whether Gripen will still be in production and relevant in 2035? Maybe as an interim step to de-risk the tech but not as the central aim of their participation.

I suspect there’s probably a bigger game and the Swedes are keeping quiet about it for the moment - potentially due to domestic political reasons - neutrality etc. A single engined “Tempest light”, production by SAAB, 40-50% UK content, that would be very interesting