Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[SW1]

Are you thinking of a close coupled canard or maybe something like viggen?

Are you wanting the canard just to balance high aoa performance with cruise performance or to achieve maximum lift or max range in the overall design or to have an effect in the area rule of the platform. Canards can affect all areas of aircraft perform given its placement to the wing in the vertical and longitudinal position

[Ron5]

From Flight

Tokyo weighs options for overseas participation in ambitious F-X future fighter programme

Greg Waldron By Greg Waldron29 October 2020

As Tokyo advances its ambitious F-X future fighter programme, it must weigh a number of factors – including concerns around intellectual property (IP) and ease of upgrade – as it decides which nations to partner with for the effort, according to two leading airpower experts.

Under current plans, the clean-sheet F-X is set to replace the Mitsubishi F-2 sometime in the 2030s. But for Tokyo, perhaps the most vexing issue is its choice of partner; the country’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) has previously consulted with the UK and USA over participation in the programme.

But both potential partners bring something different to the table. Speaking during a panel discussion hosted by Japan’s International Security Industry Council, Takayoshi Yamazaki, president of consulting firm Global Security Corporation, stressed that a major priority for Tokyo on the F-X is flexibility around upgrades and modifications.

“As I understand it there are no black boxes in a Japan-UK collaboration and we can have 100% satisfaction in terms of freedom of upgrades and modifications, and also freedom to export,” he says. “I think that this got a lot of interest from the Ministry of Defence and ATLA.”

But an independent effort, or one pursued jointly with the UK, could have implications for the fighter’s interoperability with US forces, a key driver of Washington’s interest in the F-X programme.

However, fellow panelist Brian Burridge, chief executive of the UK-headquartered Royal Aeronautical Society and a former Royal Air Force Air Chief Marshal, contends that interoperability is not necessarily about common airframes, but about training and doctrinal alignment. He points out that in the 2003 invasion of Iraq British and American forces used different aircraft types, but were able to work as a team owing to joint training initiatives.

Technology development poses another thorny issue: while both Japan and the UK have advanced aerospace sectors, they may lack expertise in certain areas. This can make it challenging for partners to attain parity in negotiations related to joint programmes.

Burridge, citing past international programmes and the current UK-led Tempest development, notes that while technology can be purchased “off the shelf”, the intellectual property (IP) remains with the vendor. On the other hand, local development of the capability can prove costly and time-consuming.

“The lesson we learned in the UK is that spreading the cost by bringing in greater expertise [from partners] is the right place to be on that spectrum,” he says. “We generate the IP together and you all have access to the intellectual property – you spread the cost of development and you enrich your industry.”

Burridge suggests that relevant industrial know-how exists well outside traditional defence contractors, citing Japanese industry’s strength in designing video game interfaces.

Another consideration for F-X will be flexibility. Yamazaki says that new technologies, such as in directed energy weapons and manned-unmanned teaming, will come to the fore over the F-X’s likely 30-year-plus lifespan.

“Perhaps our neighbouring countries might fly clouds of more than 100 drones,” he says. “Manned aircraft would be used against manned aircraft, drones against drones. What kind of equipment would we have to have to counteract this?

”I think that a lot of attention needs to be given to the area of expandability. The F-X is expected to be a rather large aircraft, so various kinds of equipment could be added to it. An expandable fighter… that’s what we should try to be striving for.”

Yamazaki, a former general in the Japan Air Self-Defence Force (JASDF), has a strong background in aircraft development, having been involved in several indigenous programmes including the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft, the C-2 tactical transport, and upgrade work for the F-2. He also helped establish the research and development vision for the F-X programme.

An all-new aircraft is consistent with the JASDF’s philosophy which calls for operating three separate fighter types. The service’s current fleet mainly comprises Boeing F-15Js – of which 98 are being upgraded to a ‘Super Interceptor’ standard – Lockheed Martin F-35As, and F-2s.

Yamazaki believes that the JASDF’s range and payload requirements, including the carriage of the 5m (16ft)-long Mitsubishi Heavy Industries ASM-3 supersonic anti-ship missile, mean that F-X will be larger than the Lockheed F-22; the US airframer initially proposed a version of that fighter, which included capabilities from the F-35, for the F-X effort.

“The answer of Lockheed Martin to the [request for information] has been reported, but it looks like it mostly becomes a question of needing enough space for a large fuel tank and a sufficient number of missiles,” he says. “It looks like F-X will be quite a large aircraft.”

Foreign collaboration on the programme is tentatively scheduled to begin in Japan’s next fiscal year, which runs from 1 April 2021. A prototype is expected by 2024, with testing to commence in 2027 and full rate production in 2031.

He adds that in the early days of F-X it was industrial ambitions – not threat assessments – that drove the programme.

“For many years it’s been a dream to do a project that would involve all parts of the fighter including the engine and it is a national project,” says Yamazaki.

[ArmChairCivvy]

An expandable fighter… that’s what we should try to be striving for.

T-31 philosophy taking hold?

JASDF’s range and payload requirements, including the carriage of the 5m (16ft)-long Mitsubishi Heavy Industries ASM-3 supersonic anti-ship missile, mean that F-X will be larger than the Lockheed F-22

Indian AF Sukhois with BrahMos anti-ship missiles were an odd-one-out fighter concept (save for Norway's rqrmnt for a long-legged fighter with stealthy internal carry of JSMs), but not so anymore

[inch]

Thought Japan had totally dismissed joint development of fighter with UK and decided it's interests better trying up with USA for help with fighter?, which I wasn't surprised with choice being USA heavily invested in Japan and USA would put too much pressure to bare on Japan to let it go with anybody else except USA . although I can see the merits of a UK/Japan/ Italy/Sweden tie up , mainly for numbers bought all 4 nation's even if system of systems , because I don't think the Japan / USA design,USA will be buying any of whatever planes get built only Japan will be getting them ,USA will be developing their own even more advanced aircraft to want a inferior product so to speak ,but as in all things i could be wrong

[Lord Jim]

They might not be interested in joint development of a plane, but Tempest is more about systems, which they may be interested in still.

[Roders96]

If their pilot interface is anything like the PlayStation 10 or whatever it will be, I imagine it will be good to have onboard.

[TheLoneRanger]

The full roadmap for Tempest as yet, will not have been mapped out, given the need to develop some of the core systems such as the new engines, airframe and a new fly by wire for the platform, operating systems(do we know what they will use?) for the mission computers, etc. Therefore the programme carries massive risk interms of programme failure if delays in some of the 6th generation systems start building up.

To de-risk the programme, and to get units on the flight line before it reaches the cross-hars of being cancelled(there is a real risk of this right now given the current economic conditions, and the snake oil of joining the EU programme to "save costs.."), would not an approach that adopted a modular concept that first developed a 5th Gen version of Tempest(ie new airframe, new engine but 5th generation avionics and no systems of systems) be the best approach? One that decouples the 5th gen elements (and 6th gen - which seems to be becoming the systems of systems, loyal wingman, directed energy weapons, etc ) from the 6th generation items de-risk the programme?

In an ideal world, having a 6th generation platform rolled on the projected schedule would be the optimal solution, but the projected long gestation period runs a higher risk of the entire programme being cancelled, versus a modular path that would allow for progressive upgrades to 6th Generation standard ?

The days of having a platform, doing one mid-life upgrade and then running down its 30year service life are pretty much over, we are now in the era of iterative development and delivery, and maybe we should use that opportunity to revisit what we consider 5th and 6th generation items and the development roadmap towards the 6th generation goal?

[ArmChairCivvy]

operating systems(do we know what they will use?) for the mission computers

Of course we will use ADA as the F-35 prgrm set 'the' standard

a modular path that would allow for progressive upgrades to 6th Generation standard ?

That path is there, but perhaps Tiffie (nor Gripen) will not quite become 6th Gen though they sit on that path

[TheLoneRanger]

ADA would be the programming language and not the operating system, (and kind of suprised they wont switch to C++ if that is true about ADA, it is 2020 now!). Despite it's issues which are understood and can be managed, it brings a lot quantum of productivity tools with it that the ADA ecosystem wont have, which will help with speed of development and costs and longterm sustainment of the software by adopting more mainstream tools, versus a boutique ecosystem.

I am still curious about the operating system, whether it will be a derivative of linux, or a home grown variant of an RTOS(Real Time Operating System). Does BAE have its own operating systems ?

If the Tempest programmes wants to manage costs, then it has to accept the usage of modern software development tools and methodologies as the plane will at its core, be inherently software driven, alongside the stated new modern hardware manufacturing processes. Not sure ADA, fits that bill, even though it has been around, everything for it has to be built upwards, versus of the shelf products.

Does anyone know what the host operating system for the Typhoon? What do modern jets use? I know the JEFF(JF17) uses C++ with a linux based operating system.

This is quite interesting as far as the F35 programme goes, they have adopted C++ using Harris Corp F-35 ICP, all running with in Green Hills RTOS called INTEGRITY-178B ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software and https://www.ghs.com ).

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/09 ... ply-chain/
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/27/harris-lm-icp/

I did a bit of digging, and found this :

"Much of the F-35's software was developed in C and C++ programming languages, while Ada83 code from the F-22 was also used; the Block 3F software has 8.6 million lines of code.[105][106] The Green Hills Software Integrity DO-178B real-time operating system (RTOS) runs on integrated core processors (ICPs); data networking includes the IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel buses."


Willl the Tempest base its computer and Operating system on the same model ? The UK doesnot have much in the way of home grown computer CPU development capacity and Operating systems, as they have either all been sold off or fell by the wayside in the history of time.

[ArmChairCivvy]

ADA would be the programming language and not the operating system, (and kind of suprised they wont switch to C++ if that is true about ADA, it is 2020 now!).

you got my joke,
as C++

brings a lot quantum of productivity tools with it that the ADA ecosystem wont have, which will help with speed of development and costs and longterm sustainment of the software by adopting more mainstream tools, versus a boutique ecosystem.

Talking about boutique, ADA was picked as 'perfect' by the DoD, but not everyone else needed perfect and hence the base you can recruit from is about as wide (and as old) as the Masters of Cobol when the Millennium came around, and no-one actually knew how the old (backend) systems were running.

But keep digging, all those questions are the right questions
- all the answers. though, might not be in the 'public' domain

[Roders96]

ADA would be the programming language and not the operating system, (and kind of suprised they wont switch to C++ if that is true about ADA, it is 2020 now!). Despite it's issues which are understood and can be managed, it brings a lot quantum of productivity tools with it that the ADA ecosystem wont have, which will help with speed of development and costs and longterm sustainment of the software by adopting more mainstream tools, versus a boutique ecosystem.

I am still curious about the operating system, whether it will be a derivative of linux, or a home grown variant of an RTOS(Real Time Operating System). Does BAE have its own operating systems ?

If the Tempest programmes wants to manage costs, then it has to accept the usage of modern software development tools and methodologies as the plane will at its core, be inherently software driven, alongside the stated new modern hardware manufacturing processes. Not sure ADA, fits that bill, even though it has been around, everything for it has to be built upwards, versus of the shelf products.

Does anyone know what the host operating system for the Typhoon? What do modern jets use? I know the JEFF(JF17) uses C++ with a linux based operating system.

This is quite interesting as far as the F35 programme goes, they have adopted C++ using Harris Corp F-35 ICP, all running with in Green Hills RTOS called INTEGRITY-178B ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software and https://www.ghs.com ).

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/09 ... ply-chain/
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/27/harris-lm-icp/

I did a bit of digging, and found this :

"Much of the F-35's software was developed in C and C++ programming languages, while Ada83 code from the F-22 was also used; the Block 3F software has 8.6 million lines of code.[105][106] The Green Hills Software Integrity DO-178B real-time operating system (RTOS) runs on integrated core processors (ICPs); data networking includes the IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel buses."


Willl the Tempest base its computer and Operating system on the same model ? The UK doesnot have much in the way of home grown computer CPU development capacity and Operating systems, as they have either all been sold off or fell by the wayside in the history of time.

Have to say on that last point - it may be informative for you to look into Arm Holdings - foreign owned yes but the IP is mainly UK based and they design most of the chips in the known world.

[Caribbean]

INTEGRITY-178B

Runs on ARM chips as well.

Also runs on the 64-bit Power chipset - as currently used by IBM mid-range business systems (and not a lot else, these days) Rather amusing to think of the successor to the AS/400 flying a 6th gen combat aircraft.

[Caribbean]

Oops - double post

[ArmChairCivvy]

Rather amusing to think of the successor to the AS/400 flying a 6th gen combat aircraft.

Why's that... W2000/ Millennium was (?) the BAE go-to for our nuclear subs?

[Caribbean]

Why's that... W2000/ Millennium was (?) the BAE go-to for our nuclear subs?

True - but at least Win 2k/ME had a GUI - almost no-one seems to have moved on from green-screen on the AS/400/ iSeries side, even though it's capable of it

[TheLoneRanger]

Very interesting comment about the ARM processor range. Yes, the IP is still British owned(though it does look like SoftBank will sell it to NVIDIA shortly) and with Apple switching over to ARM for its mainstream laptop and desktop range, the instruction set for ARM will get more support and coverage over time. The intensive data and signal processing will be done by custom processors like ASICs, DSPs(or FPGAs programmed to act as DSPs), so the CPU core would be managing multple streams of data to form a co-ordinated picture of the battlespace. Well within the ARM CPU capabilities for sure given the multicore architecture that is prevelant these days.

In the old days, you could always turn around to someone like Logica(now owned by CGI... boooo!!!), who had a military division and ask them to generate an OS for you on commerical terms from the ground up as the basis for Intellectual Property that you can own, but the driving force now around using COTS components, including OS's really must be the future ( PS.. is it true that the Rafale uses Windows CE ?? ). The only company in the world developing a from scratch green field operating system is Google( Google Fuchsia -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia ) as it takes so long and is so expensive to do so.

An interesting followup :

UK AWACS uses LynxOS RTOS
https://militaryembedded.com/avionics/computers/616
http://www.lynuxworks.com/

As a side note question for me, the Typhoon has a very sophisticated FBW, but who owns the IP to it? The EAP programme which was the predecessor to the Typhoon had a full authority FBW and I guess that BAe will still own the IP on that, but then the Germans forced things to redo things again and insisted on a new FBW to be developed where they were the lead, just so that they could learn from it i guess..

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2003/06/0 ... es-finest/

"A digital flight control system (DFCS), developed by UK’s BAE Systems and EADS Germany, provides a high degree of automatic control."

Who owns the IP of the new FBW for Typhoon? How does the ownership of intellectual property for the Typhoon work? Does BAe have IP rights over the FBW which could be used as the basis for the Tempest ?? Maybe BAe will decide to develop a new one from scratch if they feel confident about it and want to own the IP on it and decouple themselves from the EU led programmes in the future.

[Roders96]

I believe SoftBank is Japanese which makes Arm Japanese by that logic.

But the company remains firmly anchored in the Silicon Roundabout / Oxford / Cambridge triangle and it's talent remains there with it.

If who owned it was important - we'd still be using GNI instead of GDP!

[ArmChairCivvy]

If who owned it was important - we'd still be using GNI instead of GDP

Guess what... that's what the EU uses; so that moving production over the borders does not get to be seen as a bad thing.

Not saying from Bavaria to Bangladesh, but say Slovenia.

[Jensy]

"Team Tempest News"

More than 70 key industry and Government representatives from across Northern Ireland have engaged with Team Tempest and the Royal Air Force on opportunities to help develop the UK’s next generation of combat air technologies.

Hardly groundbreaking news... but a lovely new render of Tempest to enjoy (analyse to death)!



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

[Ron5]

Thanks for the new image but pretty it ain't

[SKB]

Thanks for the new image but pretty it ain't

Says the Yank who's country designed and built this monstrosity, the Boeing X-32....

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

[inch]

Must admit it doesn't look 6th gen ,more like 5th gen to my untrained eyes , think there will be a lot more snazzy astheticaly looking designs out there to follow around the world ,time will tell and yes I know 6th might be all the engine tech /electronic package etc inside and it's capabilities, but still eh

[SW1]

What’s a 6th gen aircraft supposed to look like? Or even a 5th gen one for that matter

[ArmChairCivvy]

What’s a 6th gen aircraft supposed to look like?

The angle (concept art, viewed from above) immediately reminded me of this https://www.aerosociety.com/media/10069 ... 7777777777

FOAS (concept) also https://www.aerosociety.com/media/10068 ... 4444444446
looks like a cousin - no X-wing though

[Jensy]

Thanks for the new image but pretty it ain't

Beauty always in the eyes of the beholder!

I happen to think it looks rather tasty. Almost like a miniature Vulcan with some YF-23 heritage and a hint of the Tonka around the cockpit...

From what I've seen of "Das Mirage" (FCAS) I'd say we've got the better looking competitor. Would be interested to see the rumoured Lockheed design that's already flying too!

What’s a 6th gen aircraft supposed to look like?

The angle (concept art, viewed from above) immediately reminded me of this https://www.aerosociety.com/media/10069 ... 7777777777

FOAS (concept) also https://www.aerosociety.com/media/10068 ... 4444444446
looks like a cousin - no X-wing though

There are a great many flaws with the way we categorise fighters into generations and the separation between each. Assuming that 6th Gen is going to be revolutionary in every aspect might be a bit overly ambitious.

The gulf between 3rd and 4th generation was far more to do with avionics and optimisation for the kind of missions intended (low-level/high-level), than actually pushing back the boundaries. Likewise with the divide between 4th, 4+ and 4.5 generation fighters (even heard mention of 4.75 gen). There is a huge increase in the capability of the systems, deserving of another generation but not such a sizeable difference in performance.or design between a legacy F-15C and a brand new F-15SA.