Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[ArmChairCivvy]

need to fight for its place in the government’s upcoming Integrated Review of the nation’s future foreign policy and defense posture

and hopefully that posture will be steadier than what we have been observing - leaving i.a. the army fleets with mass obsolescense - as the plane will be eating massively into budgets over

in 2026-50

, ie. the opportunity cost will be si high that the impact will be felt across all services.

15% share in the Lockheed Martin F-35 program is expected to net £35 billion over the life of the program, while its share in Typhoon has brought in another £28.2 billion.

“The combat air sector has contributed on average 80% of defense exports, so it has been a very successful sector

While I applaud the figures, in Typhoon's case jumping in the figures to the very high share of exports knowingly omits the fact that a big part of that number has already shown up in imports
... but if one is in promotion mode, overstating the case is allowable, I guess

[ArmChairCivvy]

and hopefully that posture will be steadier than what we have been observing as the plane will be eating massively into budgets over

To continue with that thought, in the IR context, good logic sometimes works well backwards - does not make the result 'back to front' .
So how should the posture be defined... clearly has a bearing as to what kind of assets will be most relevant and useful. So let's defuse POM (might befit Brit defence posture particularly well?)
- markets: Europe (Article IV) vs. MEA vs. Asia further 'out' as for focus
- operations (preferred type): deter peer-to-peer (leaving nuclear deterrence out as the last line of defence, for now) vs. quick interventions vs. lasting stabilisations vs. peace keeping (the preceding alternative could also have the 'peace making' caption for it... perhaps moving it a tad towards interventions (that turn out to be anything but 'quick')
- product (assets in inventory). Not to make this too long, lets be simplistic: combat air mainly focussed around F-35 or Tempest (note 'mainly' in that). Regardless of how Tempest will turn out, it will not fly off carriers. Hence the mix that we go for will have ramifications across the whole (POM) posture. Assuming that we won't be 'just' posturing but are ready to back words up with a relevant capability

[Lord Jim]

Tempest could be very good for the economy, especially as its introduction into service will coincide with many nations looking to replace their 4th and 5th generations platforms and may not want to look towards the F-35 and the USA. Some other may have decided earlier to skip 5th Generation platforms altogether. Obviously its main competitors with be the French (with a little contribution from both Germany and Spain beyond their money) and the US 6th Generation platforms for the USAF and USN.

The need to maintain the Skills within BAe and other smaller companies including the supply chain, should put a virtual ring fence around Tempest as the lessons from our AFV industry are plain for all to see at present. Seed money should be forth coming in the IR for the programme to continue much as it is now, with the big decision being (pushed back) made at the next review in five years.

[ArmChairCivvy]

pushed back[)to be] made at the next review in five years.

Hence the mix that we go for will have ramifications across the whole (POM) posture.

Are you not concerned about pushing also the ISD back, thereby leading to a 'default' fleet with a higher component of F-35s?
... and thereby pushing up the unit costs of the smaller Tempest numbers required; and may be endangering the whole Biz Case, which seems to be 'the' topic of the day

[Lord Jim]

From what I understand of the "New" way of running aircraft design and development, like SAAB followed when working on the Rad Hawk for the USAF, once funding is in place and the green light is lit things should move forward far faster than previously. In the mean time a further five years of R&D into the various systems that could become part of any Tempest platforms as well as used in upgrades to the Typhoon and Gripen will only further smooth out the next stage. Remember the first two Red Hawk airframes built were basically the finished article and drastically cut down the planned flight test programme. Obviously a far more complicated platform like Tempest is going to take far more computer modelling, but the USAF seem to be already doing this with their 6ith Generation fighter platform so the process is definitely feasible and possible.

[ArmChairCivvy]

further smooth out the next stage

Definitely, but ceteris paribus the later you start, the later will the finish (=ready for service) be.

First flight for the competing Franco-German (-Spanish) a/c in 2025 must be (?) complete fiction... targeted in-service dates (that one and Tempest roughly the same).

[Defiance]

The SCAF prototype is not a prototype, it's a demonstrator. If you piece together the Government/press pieces, it's the guts of a Rafale (powered by M88) in a black pointy airframe (even the config will be TBC) and will be rolled out with a lot of fanfare, but lacking any sort of substance.

They accused Tempest of rushing things, yet they pretend they will have a 'prototype' fifteen years before it enters service? That's not a prototype, it's a very expensive prop

If the UK started doing what SCAF are doing, I would call it a waste of money

[ArmChairCivvy]

Even if this is accurate
https://www.defenseone.com/business/202 ... er/169408/
it's a Skunk Works ring-fenced project, so the BAE/ LM tie-up around F-35 would not (?) count towards any sharing
- will it be available to buy off the shelf
- Japan found out with F-22 (and took a different route)

[Lord Jim]

Definitely, but ceteris paribus the later you start, the later will the finish (=ready for service) be.

That is the point I was trying to make, with new practices and technology, adding five years to the front end doesn't mean the whole programme gets pushed five years further down range, with the final product entering service to the original timetable, and with less cost and risk along the way.

[Ron5]

Definitely, but ceteris paribus the later you start, the later will the finish (=ready for service) be.

That is the point I was trying to make, with new practices and technology, adding five years to the front end doesn't mean the whole programme gets pushed five years further down range, with the final product entering service to the original timetable, and with less cost and risk along the way.

Wouldn't be hard to beat the snails pace of Typhoon development even without the new technologies. So hardly "ceteris paribus". Smoother politics plus faster development technology will add up.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"ceteris paribus". Smoother politics

Nothing else "changed" was referring exactly to the political decision making, evidenced e.g. by timing of MG. So move it by, say, 5 yrs and you will have given up all that tech advantage.
- so avoid the 'minus' and go for the plus... as always, we are in violent agreement

[Ron5]

A new to me image of Tempest from Bae shown with USAF Skyborg

[Timmymagic]

A new to me image of Tempest from Bae shown with USAF Skyborg

It's a rather odd image for BAE to use for a US contract win. Was it one they'd mocked up for the UK already? Or was the Tempest CGI the only '5th generation' airframe they had available to use (prevented from using the more realistic F-35 imagery as LM is the prime?)?

[Ron5]

A new to me image of Tempest from Bae shown with USAF Skyborg

It's a rather odd image for BAE to use for a US contract win. Was it one they'd mocked up for the UK already? Or was the Tempest CGI the only '5th generation' airframe they had available to use (prevented from using the more realistic F-35 imagery as LM is the prime?)?

Odder than that are the cockpits on the unmanned aircraft

[Pseudo]

A new to me image of Tempest from Bae shown with USAF Skyborg

It's a rather odd image for BAE to use for a US contract win. Was it one they'd mocked up for the UK already? Or was the Tempest CGI the only '5th generation' airframe they had available to use (prevented from using the more realistic F-35 imagery as LM is the prime?)?

Odder than that are the cockpits on the unmanned aircraft

If I'm not mistaken (and I might well be) aren't they the very early concepts for F/A-XX?

[Ron5]

Ignoring the weird Skyborgs, I am quite taken with the Tempest's looks. The engines being rather wide apart presumably indicates a weapons bay between them. The tails persist presumably indicating a desire to retain good maneuverability at the expense of stealth. Nice big nose for a nice big radar. Big overall.

[Roders96]

I'd be very interested to see a delta design that incorporates canards into the very front of the wing, flush with the rest of the body.

On the supposed skyborg above, this would be directly behind the cockpit where the wing merges with the centre of the ucav.

Could provide alot of agility when needed, alot alot of stealth when not.

[Pseudo]

I'd be very interested to see a delta design that incorporates canards into the very front of the wing, flush with the rest of the body.

Wouldn't that basically be a leading edge root extension?

[Roders96]

I aren't too sure on the lingo I have to confess!

However, from my quick Google, I believe the difference may be the pivot point of the control surface.

Towards font of the surface for the canard, other otherwise.

[SW1]

If you don’t have a vertical tail longitudinal stability is always an issue when manoeuvring particularly from transonic speed and above or if there is an asymmetrical load distribution being carried.

[topman]

I'd be very interested to see a delta design that incorporates canards into the very front of the wing, flush with the rest of the body.

On the supposed skyborg above, this would be directly behind the cockpit where the wing merges with the centre of the ucav.

Could provide alot of agility when needed, alot alot of stealth when not.

Or do you mean basically a big slat? Are you thinking of something part of the wing itself or separate?

[Roders96]

Separate but (almost) flush with the wing when not needed. A canard, with its pivot point in its front half.

Both leading edge root extensions and slats are connected to the wing, with the pivot point at the back.

The canard wouldn't be part of the wing, but Infront of it, and flush with it when manouvreability is not needed - though they would not be connected (apart from through the centre airframe).

[topman]

If it is flush with the wing, I don't see how you get much maneuverability if it's that close to the wing?

[Roders96]

It's only flush when it's not in use. Alter the pitch +/- 0degrees from the pitch of the wing and it would stop being flush.

[topman]

Is there a picture or video of what you are thinking of?