Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
From what Roper said:
"Digital engineering “isn’t a fluke, it’s not a point, it’s a trend. It is our future, and I’m excited to see where there trend goes, and hopefully, see it end that vicious circle that we have been trapped in for so long.”
[...]
He also reasserted previous comments that USAF will work to make the new model profitable, so companies don’t have to bet themselves on “must win” competitions and hope to recover their investment in production and sustainment."
"Digital engineering “isn’t a fluke, it’s not a point, it’s a trend. It is our future, and I’m excited to see where there trend goes, and hopefully, see it end that vicious circle that we have been trapped in for so long.”
[...]
He also reasserted previous comments that USAF will work to make the new model profitable, so companies don’t have to bet themselves on “must win” competitions and hope to recover their investment in production and sustainment."
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
i can see his point.
f35 if brought to a useful fleet size will be both sucking on RAF(and RN) procurement budget into the 2030's and performing some of those roles that make a fighter program expensive.
where is the money to buy a different aircraft that can "do the same stuff as the one we already have?"
of course, maybe the answer is to stick with 48 aircraft and 3 pretty marginal squadrons, providing just 1 sqdn on deck and surge of 2...
f35 if brought to a useful fleet size will be both sucking on RAF(and RN) procurement budget into the 2030's and performing some of those roles that make a fighter program expensive.
where is the money to buy a different aircraft that can "do the same stuff as the one we already have?"
of course, maybe the answer is to stick with 48 aircraft and 3 pretty marginal squadrons, providing just 1 sqdn on deck and surge of 2...
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
And in doing so waste the 3bn sunk into making the carriers able to carry them?
The most cost effective option all round is if this programme results in a stovl ucav, with the Americans fronting the development costs.
Point is: we've got to fill the carriers - either that or the RAF has sacrificed 3 squadrons of aircraft for nothing.
The most cost effective option all round is if this programme results in a stovl ucav, with the Americans fronting the development costs.
Point is: we've got to fill the carriers - either that or the RAF has sacrificed 3 squadrons of aircraft for nothing.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I listened to Justin Bronk of RUSI's comments on the F-35 and related matters to the Defence Selected Committee at the link below. Bronk was the only guest who came informed so I eventually skipped past the comments of the two older experts.
Bronk had a lot of good facts or points:
1. The UK would need to spend 3% of GDP on defence to do 10% of what the US can. The government must prioritize.
2. The UK spent £34 billion in today's money on Typhoon R&D in addition to the contributions of Germany, Italy and Spain. The budget is not there for Tempest to both be a manned fighter replacing the Typhoon for air policing purposes and a high end penetrator of highly defended air spaces. He recommends Tempest either be a straight Typhoon replacement without the air defence penetration capability or be an unmanned platform.
3. The RAF has a fleet of 140 Typhoons, of which 40 are operational at any one time. In a WWIII scenario with Russia, the RAF could get 70-80 ready for combat for that would break the entire system. Typhoons are supported on two large bases with plenty of civilian contractors. Supporting F-35s on a carrier is harder without the fixed base and contractors so there needs to be a higher ratio of total airframes to deployable-at-a-time airframes.
4. Not buying tons of F-35s will mean that F-35s are only for carrier strike and not for other operations against well defended countries. He mentions Algeria buying the S-400 and his belief that many countries in North Africa and the Middle East will be impenetrable by platforms other than the F-35 soon.
5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.
From this, the takeaway is to make Tempest less ambitious and buy more F-35s now so the RAF can be relevant in major operations over the next twenty years, in addition to building out carrier strike.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5 ... dd23350381
Bronk had a lot of good facts or points:
1. The UK would need to spend 3% of GDP on defence to do 10% of what the US can. The government must prioritize.
2. The UK spent £34 billion in today's money on Typhoon R&D in addition to the contributions of Germany, Italy and Spain. The budget is not there for Tempest to both be a manned fighter replacing the Typhoon for air policing purposes and a high end penetrator of highly defended air spaces. He recommends Tempest either be a straight Typhoon replacement without the air defence penetration capability or be an unmanned platform.
3. The RAF has a fleet of 140 Typhoons, of which 40 are operational at any one time. In a WWIII scenario with Russia, the RAF could get 70-80 ready for combat for that would break the entire system. Typhoons are supported on two large bases with plenty of civilian contractors. Supporting F-35s on a carrier is harder without the fixed base and contractors so there needs to be a higher ratio of total airframes to deployable-at-a-time airframes.
4. Not buying tons of F-35s will mean that F-35s are only for carrier strike and not for other operations against well defended countries. He mentions Algeria buying the S-400 and his belief that many countries in North Africa and the Middle East will be impenetrable by platforms other than the F-35 soon.
5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.
From this, the takeaway is to make Tempest less ambitious and buy more F-35s now so the RAF can be relevant in major operations over the next twenty years, in addition to building out carrier strike.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5 ... dd23350381
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Optimistically, I'd look to the inclusion of video gaming and other 'outsider' companies in the current Team Tempest. They bring unique software development, integration and management skills that, along with those brought in from motor sport, are easily transferable to many aspects of the project.Ron5 wrote:It's the software that's the gating factor these days. Not seen anything that will result in it being developed & supported any quicker.
If their role goes beyond user interface, and they are going to be able to share their wider experience, we might avoid some of the usual government software (as a service) procurement shibboleth...
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
That is the big question and partner nations will have a say. Or, their contributions will be solely towards the subsystems and the UK will end up shouldering the cost of an airframe, to house them, all by itself. Something that the prgrm was set up to avoid.military wrote:Tempest to both be a manned fighter replacing the Typhoon for air policing purposes and a high end penetrator of highly defended air spaces.
Hard to fault that logic. Then again the USMC claims to be able to do forward basing of the same version (the B) using bare-base facilities?military wrote: Typhoons are supported on two large bases with plenty of civilian contractors. Supporting F-35s on a carrier is harder without the fixed base and contractors so there needs to be a higher ratio of total airframes to deployable-at-a-time airframes.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Not sure the Americans ever will do 'bare base' facilities.
Didn't they have maccies and KFC in afghan?
Didn't they have maccies and KFC in afghan?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
The prgrm has had its ups and downs, The AF part of it evolved from Bare Base to BEAR ( the Marines have their own arrangements) and here is some history (& metrics) for it:Roders96 wrote:Not sure the Americans ever will do 'bare base' facilities.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... s/bear.htm
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:military wrote:
5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.
a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
It leaves carrier ops as RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air.jedibeeftrix wrote:the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:military wrote:
5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.
a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?
FAA fight the naval battle, RAF do the rest.
-
- Member
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
with triple hatted planes?Roders96 wrote:It leaves carrier ops as RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air.jedibeeftrix wrote:the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:military wrote:
5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.
a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?
FAA fight the naval battle, RAF do the rest.
under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.
with 75 planes, and four squadrons...
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
By triple hatted do you mean swing role or overstretched?jedibeeftrix wrote:with triple hatted planes?Roders96 wrote:It leaves carrier ops as RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air.jedibeeftrix wrote:the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:military wrote:
5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.
a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?
FAA fight the naval battle, RAF do the rest.
under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.
with 75 planes, and four squadrons...
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Makes sense; note the timeframe, meaning these would all be in service simultaneously, not attrition or airframe hours replacementsjedibeeftrix wrote:70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.
- 2 sqdrns for strike carrier, and one on the carrier doing littoral duty
In where carrier air is the last of the three, and the RAF (other airwings) would need upgraded Typhoons (a la Tempest, but incremental)jedibeeftrix wrote:where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?
- so without recourse to USAFE/ Luftwaffe's Tornado/Hornet force we would be in a hurry to get those upgrades introduced
Let's go back to what was required from F-35jedibeeftrix wrote:with triple hatted planes?
1. as stealthy as a Nighthawk
2. can carry the load of a Hornet (SH wasn't there, at the time)
3. can accelerate like an F-16 (but missiles will do the turning; and you will get the first shot in any case)
That makes three; whether the hat trick criterion is met, well, there was already a response for that angle
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I thought some may have learned from the carrier thread about fantastic rhetoric and realities but obviously not.
-
- Member
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
both.Roders96 wrote:By triple hatted do you mean swing role or overstretched?jedibeeftrix wrote: with triple hatted planes?
under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.
with 75 planes, and four squadrons...
if we look at recent reports of sticking with 48 and 2-3 sqdns, they're basically going to live on a carrier (and do a poor job cos they're so stretched).
I was thinking:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Let's go back to what was required from F-35jedibeeftrix wrote:with triple hatted planes?
1. as stealthy as a Nighthawk
2. can carry the load of a Hornet (SH wasn't there, at the time)
3. can accelerate like an F-16 (but missiles will do the turning; and you will get the first shot in any case)
That makes three; whether the hat trick criterion is met, well, there was already a response for that angle
CEPP
Strike (SDSR10 absorbed the FCAS budgetline)
SEAD
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I definitely agree, it looks like it all hinges on the ucav, whatever it may be.jedibeeftrix wrote:both.Roders96 wrote:By triple hatted do you mean swing role or overstretched?jedibeeftrix wrote: with triple hatted planes?
under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.
with 75 planes, and four squadrons...
if we look at recent reports of sticking with 48 and 2-3 sqdns, they're basically going to live on a carrier (and do a poor job cos they're so stretched).I was thinking:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Let's go back to what was required from F-35jedibeeftrix wrote:with triple hatted planes?
1. as stealthy as a Nighthawk
2. can carry the load of a Hornet (SH wasn't there, at the time)
3. can accelerate like an F-16 (but missiles will do the turning; and you will get the first shot in any case)
That makes three; whether the hat trick criterion is met, well, there was already a response for that angle
CEPP
Strike (SDSR10 absorbed the FCAS budgetline)
SEAD
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Affordability, including that you can "afford" to lose some... not often factored into the force mix calculations these daysRoders96 wrote: all hinges on the ucav, whatever it may be
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Not sure it stretches past the available budget, sadly.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Thoughts arising from the US 2020 Virtual Air, Space & Cyber Conference four days ago Dr Roper revealed the USAF had a flown a NGAD, Next Generation Air Dominance, combat aircraft demonstrator which had “broken a lot of records.”
Dr Roper an advocate for digitally engineered a/c that can break the current 10-15 development year cycle and tens of $billions in cost eg F-35, so as to return to the 50's era enabling equivalent number of a/c to the century series of US fighters. A lot of unknowns with NGAD demonstrator as little info released, manufacture, cost, design and build time etc
The digitally engineered Boeing/Saab T-7 came in below half the cost USAF had provisionally budgeted, contract awarded Sep 2018 and understand first production a/c delivery due in 2023, an example of a new paradigm with digitally engineered a/c?
So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.
Dr Roper an advocate for digitally engineered a/c that can break the current 10-15 development year cycle and tens of $billions in cost eg F-35, so as to return to the 50's era enabling equivalent number of a/c to the century series of US fighters. A lot of unknowns with NGAD demonstrator as little info released, manufacture, cost, design and build time etc
The digitally engineered Boeing/Saab T-7 came in below half the cost USAF had provisionally budgeted, contract awarded Sep 2018 and understand first production a/c delivery due in 2023, an example of a new paradigm with digitally engineered a/c?
So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
If the US is claiming to be heading down the route of new fighter designs ever 5 years or so it wouldnt be the the UKs commitment to f35 numbers that I would be worried about it would be theres.NickC wrote:So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Would agree except think Lockheed lobby so strong in Congress that pork barrel politics will ensure future US buys of F-35.SW1 wrote:If the US is claiming to be heading down the route of new fighter designs ever 5 years or so it wouldnt be the the UKs commitment to f35 numbers that I would be worried about it would be theres.NickC wrote:So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
If you read the announcement carefully, the US has flown a full size model aircraft, hardly the same as what anyone would view as a prototype. 95% Trump inspired hype, he's got all the services announcing all kinds of fantasy crap as if it were real.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
NickC wrote:The digitally engineered Boeing/Saab T-7 came in below half the cost USAF had provisionally budgeted, contract awarded Sep 2018 and understand first production a/c delivery due in 2023, an example of a new paradigm with digitally engineered a/c?
They somewhow go together as the whole combo of F-35 being better AND cheaper is predicated on the TOTAL quantities in service.SW1 wrote:new fighter designs ever 5 years or so it wouldnt be the the UKs commitment to f35 numbers that I would be worried about it would be theres.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Airforce Magazine, "Roper Reveals NGAD Has Flown, But Doesn’t Share Details"Ron5 wrote:If you read the announcement carefully, the US has flown a full size model aircraft, hardly the same as what anyone would view as a prototype. 95% Trump inspired hype, he's got all the services announcing all kinds of fantasy crap as if it were real.
"The Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance combat aircraft, intended to complement or succeed the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role, has already flown, having been rapidly prototyped through modern digital design, Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper revealed Sept. 15"
What's your definition of a prototype, depends on how long is your piece of string, you might be right but please supply source and if you have a beef suggest you take it up with Dr. Roper the USAF Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
The NGAD has rec'd substantial prior year classified funding and we can now see where some of the money was spent, the FY-21 budget requests ~ $1 billion in FY-21 and ~ $7.4 billion through to FY-25.
PS FWIW in my post only said it was demonstrator
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
And if they are following the Boeing/SAAB techniques, the prototype will be far nearer the finished article that has historically been the case. The same also goes for avionics and other on board systems, not just the airframe and engines.NickC wrote:"The Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance combat aircraft, intended to complement or succeed the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role, has already flown, having been rapidly prototyped through modern digital design, Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper revealed Sept. 15"