Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Roders96 »

SD67 wrote:My .02 Euro worth is that the synergies between civilian and military sectors of aerospace and shipbuilding are overstated. Over the last two decades we've had basically zero commercial shipbuilding, yet we've delivered Astute, CVF and Type 26 and are back in the export game. Conversely we have a world beating commercial vehicle industry but seem to have lost armored vehicle production.

Military requirements tend to be niche, I doubt that the success or failure of Tempest will have much impact on Airbus UK.
They are definitely limited and not a two way street. If a country has a successful commercial industry it will make amphibious, RFA and carriers cheaper.

But having lots of naval yards propped up by a defence budget will not turn you into South Korea.

Don't know the last airliner with a jet engine, either.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote:My .02 Euro worth is that the synergies between civilian and military sectors of aerospace and shipbuilding are overstated. Over the last two decades we've had basically zero commercial shipbuilding, yet we've delivered Astute, CVF and Type 26 and are back in the export game. Conversely we have a world beating commercial vehicle industry but seem to have lost armored vehicle production.

Military requirements tend to be niche, I doubt that the success or failure of Tempest will have much impact on Airbus UK.
Having worked on civil and military programs in the U.K. I would disagree. Many of the people who worked on the U.K. portion of f35 went on to work on a350,a220 and some are now going back to typhoon. More than that there is now quite a lot of movement between the aerospace sector and nuclear submarines. The computer systems used to design them are largely similar and skill set of design, systems integration and test are what benefit the most from these intertwined programs not to
mention budgets.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote:Conversely we have a world beating commercial vehicle industry but seem to have lost armored vehicle production.
Quite a flip from being world leaders in armour ,,, and stuffing Monday lemon Anglias and Escorts down the throats of the only people that would buy them; those who were fooled into EFTA
SD67 wrote: success or failure of Tempest will have much impact on Airbus UK.
I agree, but wonder what Airbus thinks of trading their battle, for the one of those who belong to the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) :?:
Roders96 wrote:Don't know the last airliner with a jet engine, either.
There are people here in the know, but FlightGlobal makes 'the end' to be the 2001 Xmas 'present' and in those days there was no TOBA for bridge building:
"The cancellation of the Avro RJX marks the end of 52 years of continuous jet airliner manufacture in the UK, which began with the de Havilland Comet in 1949.The RJX traces its origins back to the four-engined HS146, which was launched in 1973 as a jet replacement for regional turboprops. A year later, the world recession forced HS to cancel the programme, only for it to be revived as the BAe 146 in 1978.Since then the company has lost a fortune on the regional jet, including setting aside £1 billion for restructuring in 1992. An attempt to sell off part of the activity to Taiwan Aerospace failed, as did a tie-up with ATR. BAe has delivered 385 aircraft (219 146s and 166 RJs) and has four more RJs to complete. This total excludes RJX orders. At the time of launch, the RJX programme was expected to cost BAE Systems and its partner Honeywell around $100 million to develop.
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:Many of the people who worked on the U.K. portion of f35 went on to work on a350,a220 and some are now going back to typhoon. More than that there is now quite a lot of movement between the aerospace sector and nuclear submarines.
That 100% explains why I mentioned 'bridge building' e.g. as evidenced in TOBA (and not in other cases: the pause in SSNs caused highly qualified people, happy with their 'then' 33k salaries to move to the City with triple salaries... guess if any came back, regardless how close to their hearts the work that they had been doing)
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:Many of the people who worked on the U.K. portion of f35 went on to work on a350,a220 and some are now going back to typhoon. More than that there is now quite a lot of movement between the aerospace sector and nuclear submarines.
That 100% explains why I mentioned 'bridge building' e.g. as evidenced in TOBA (and not in other cases: the pause in SSNs caused highly qualified people, happy with their 'then' 33k salaries to move to the City with triple salaries... guess if any came back, regardless how close to their hearts the work that they had been doing)
Quite a lot of the investment banks heavily recruit from the field of engineering as that is where they find plentiful math skills and can train them in there own brand of accounting.

The commercial replacement of RJ is the a220 with significant amounts designed and manufactured in the U.K.

Were commercial car and vehicle and armoured meet in on development of technology, drive trains and the like and so shared R&D investment can lead to innovations for both without the need for MoD to invest in it all themselves. You can see benefits from the french project scorpion.

And if you want an naval example you can look at how commercial expertise in France and Denmark have resulted in benefits to mistral and the design that is now type31.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Jane's have reported that a MoU to develop Tempest was signed on December 21st between Italy, Sweden and the UK:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... of-tempest
Describing the Future Combat Air System Cooperation (FCASC) MoU as “crucial for the balance of military and industrial capabilities at the European and global level”, the ministry said the agreement defines “the general principles for co-operation on an equal basis between the three countries comprising all activities including research, development and joint concepting necessary for governments to acquire an advanced air system to replace Eurofighter”.
Some (on defence Twitter) are taking this as an indicator that Sweden is now committed to Tempest the platform and not merely the system of systems. If this were the case, it's a serious boost to the programme and the potential number of platforms to be ordered.

Also reporting on the story is Italy's START Magazine, which has some fascinating speculation on why industrially, SCAF and Tempest would not be easy to combine into a single programme (article in Italian so most will need a translator):

https://www.startmag.it/innovazione/leo ... pest-fcas/

Particularly of interest were:

- the Italian perspective on past German involvement;
- additional complexity of SCAF being carrier capable;
- Tempest having a perceived lead over SCAF already;
- Leonardo bridging the gap between the UK/Italy;
- BAE and Dassault unlikely to come to workshare agreements.

Online
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

From what's out there it appears to be the real deal. An MOU to develop a Future Combat Air System, not just research into technologies.

Personally I've always thought the Swedes are looking for more than just technology to insert, though that may be part of the bridge. Do they really want to be dependent on Gripen in 2050 given their proximity to you know who? Great news, roll on 2025

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Defiance »

When the real deal comes you can bet your boots they will make the point loud and clear, it won't be left up to interpretation of the wording

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

SD67 wrote: Personally I've always thought the Swedes are looking for more than just technology to insert, though that may be part of the bridge. Do they really want to be dependent on Gripen in 2050 given their proximity to you know who? Great news, roll on 2025
I suspect you're right about the Swedes. However collaborating on a combat jet is quite a new (though inevitable) reality for them to face. Gone some of the distance with Boeing on the T-X/Red Hawk but this is still uncharted waters for the best part of half a century. No doubt they want to take things slowly and carefully, having seen the Eurofighter's troubled development history.

In terms of Gripen to 2050, the NG will still be relevant but their 70 odd legacy Gripen will need replacing well before then.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:collaborating on a combat jet is quite a new (though inevitable) reality for them to face. Gone some of the distance with Boeing on the T-X/Red Hawk but this is still uncharted waters for the best part of half a century.
Well, yes. The fact that they kept building the engines in-country for so long testifies for that. Don't want to be cut off, like some time back, when they had to keep shipping iron ore and ball bearings to Germany, in order not to be totally cut off (or invaded).
- but I think that they have seen the most synergistic part of the of the fighter business to be systems/EW, for A. cutting across other areas like Saab Kockums, and B. being of the highest export potential (like BAE & Kongsberg riding on the coat tails of F-35)
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Lord Jim »

Don't forget the trips by Mosquitoes to Sweden and back to also collect high quality ball bearing made by us. Planes had no markings or armament but it appears were also never caught by the Luftwaffe either.

As for Gripen and a possible replacement, the Viggen and Gripen almost broke the bank with their programme costs though the latter has done better due to exports. To replace the Gripen I do not think Sweden can afford a solely national project this time around.

J. Tattersall

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: As for Gripen and a possible replacement, the Viggen and Gripen almost broke the bank with their programme costs though the latter has done better due to exports. To replace the Gripen I do not think Sweden can afford a solely national project this time around.
Quite likely true, and then who to collaborate with, UK-Italy, or Germany-France-Spain? Lots of words written recently by (mainly EU internationalist) think-tanks about how there can be only one 6th gen combat aircraft in Europe (together with tut-tutting against the UK who they've never liked). However I do say to myself if you're a medium sized European country who needs a new jet in the 2050s then you'd probably quite like to have a competitive choice of a couple of European aircraft plus an American offering.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by NickC »

Yesterday Tom Kington of c4isrnet reporting on what appears to be a new briefing by Leonardo chief engineer Tim Bungey on the plans for the Tempest radar MFRFS, Multi-Function Radio Frequency System, providing 10,000 times more data than current systems, a step up from the new Typhoon ECRS Mk2 which £317 million development contract only signed last September.

A few quotes
"The TRMs in the array are formed into groups, and the signals received by each group are fed to a receiver which digitalizes the data before passing it to the radar’s processor // Leonardo is working on miniaturizing the receivers so they can be moved up into the nose and integrated within the antenna, cutting out the need for a coaxial cable. The data emerging from the receiver must still travel to the processor, but by now it is digital and can flow down fiber-optic cables, reducing data loss. // Miniaturized receivers can digitalize the signal within the antenna much earlier in the receive chain // Digitalizing the data closer to the array means more data can be received and transmitted, the data can be more flexibly manipulated, and there is more potential for using the radar as a multi-function sensor such as for data linking and for electronic warfare // There is also a second advantage to miniaturized receivers many more can be installed, meaning each one handles fewer TRMs // By achieving that, together with supporting wider bandwidths, you can generate significantly more data, giving greater flexibility for beam steering and multi-function operation"

From <https://www.c4isrnet.com/home/2021/01/1 ... -revealed/>

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: As for Gripen and a possible replacement, the Viggen and Gripen almost broke the bank with their programme costs though the latter has done better due to exports. To replace the Gripen I do not think Sweden can afford a solely national project this time around.
Quite likely true, and then who to collaborate with, UK-Italy, or Germany-France-Spain? Lots of words written recently by (mainly EU internationalist) think-tanks about how there can be only one 6th gen combat aircraft in Europe (together with tut-tutting against the UK who they've never liked). However I do say to myself if you're a medium sized European country who needs a new jet in the 2050s then you'd probably quite like to have a competitive choice of a couple of European aircraft plus an American offering.
There are people in the UK who actually believe in the UK and what we can achieve, who have helped to kick start the Tempest programme and which now has some international partners involved has a good chance of success.

However, there are EU collaborators and sympathizers in the UK civil service, goverment and establishment who blindly promote and pursue the interests of the EU no matter the cost and harm they cause to the UK and our interests. There will be a battle to keep Tempest alive for the next 15+ years as a UK initiative until the programme establishes real facts on the ground that are difficult to rollback.

The first flying prototype could well be that milestone. The first to get there will have the greatest chance of surviving as the argument will become to "pool" resources on a "successful" programme, and the runner up will have a harder time to survive.

BAe needs to get a prototype up and running soon and before FCAS as it did with the EAP Prototype, that was it will be in the controlling seat. BAe needs to get Tempest to form a connection with the UK population and therefore raise the barrier over which the EU collaborators and sympathizers in the UK civil service, goverment and establishment have to jump over to cancel the programme infront of the UK voters.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Lord Jim »

As with so many things these days a lot depends on how much Governmental funding will be available and when. France sees FCAS as a National Prestige programme and will keep pumping money into it which will also mean the Defence Aerospace manufacturing sector will be protected in France. Germany will also continue to ensure funding to maintain its manufacturing and technology base.

The question is will the UK be willing to spend what it is going to take to bring Tempest to fruition? We cannot rely on finding partners beyond the few who are already on board and so financial planning needs to be based on that fact. Tempest is going to be expensive, some costs may be reduced through the use of modern and innovative engineering solutions, but without Tempest reaching maturity we will loose a vast portion of out aviation manufacturing capability probably for good.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

TheLoneRanger wrote: However, there are EU collaborators and sympathizers in the UK civil service, goverment and establishment who blindly promote and pursue the interests of the EU no matter the cost and harm they cause to the UK and our interests.
+
TheLoneRanger wrote:raise the barrier over which the EU collaborators and sympathizers in the UK civil service, goverment and establishment have to jump over to cancel the programme infront of the UK voters.
[INSERT an advert break, to keep it from coming too repetitive: Let's storm our Capitol... ohh, we don't have one. Even the American cousins misread the coordinates for the target: https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/0bD-sYwaVEg ... oster.webp] normal programming continues...
Lord Jim wrote:Tempest is going to be expensive
How much? £ 35 bn in today's money?
2 QEs =6, an airwing (not just a token one) twice that ==18bn in all, take twice that = Tempest
- BTW, I support the prgrm
- let's just not forget the sense of proportion. Money doesn't grow on trees, though Sunak is working overtime on that one
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Lord Jim »

I support the programme as well I just worry that it will, like so many programmes, slow down to a snails pace as the funding becomes restrictive. I hope I am wrong.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Defiance »

Tempest builds on a poster-child industrial sector the UK Govt claims to support - High tech, globally competitive, internationally successful.

These are things they claim to value in their vision for a 'global Britain', if they piss this golden opportunity up the wall then they have scored an own-goal of epic proportions. But then again, the Tories don't have a good record of doing anything else these days.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

One of the key benefits of the Tempest programme, is the value add of new engine technology we will develop which will help keep Rolls Royce as one of the premier engine makers in the world.

There is a lot of direct and also indirect benefit in the programme, that goes beyond the actual platform itself, so you can see why some countries would be keen to see the Tempest Programme fail entirely and why we must be laser focussed on its success.

Online
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: +

Lord Jim wrote:Tempest is going to be expensive
How much? £ 35 bn in today's money?
2 QEs =6, an airwing (not just a token one) twice that ==18bn in all, take twice that = Tempest
- BTW, I support the prgrm
- let's just not forget the sense of proportion. Money doesn't grow on trees, though Sunak is working overtime on that one
Which is 2-3 billion a year over the likely life of the program, ie exactly what we’ve been spending on combat air for decades.
It’s a bargain, even without considering exports and industrial spin-offs. Successor will be finished by the mid 2030s, what are the competing priorities?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote:Successor will be finished by the mid 2030s, what are the competing priorities?
A lot of biggies (along with the thread topic moving into volume manufacturing) piling up sometime around 2040
- I listed them in the medium helos replacement context,
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=1059&start=25#p120647
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)

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

How much? £ 35 bn in today's money?
2 QEs =6, an airwing (not just a token one) twice that ==18bn in all, take twice that = Tempest
- BTW, I support the prgrm
- let's just not forget the sense of proportion. Money doesn't grow on trees, though Sunak is working overtime on that one

If the French can supporto the FCAS programme with a reluctant German partner, then we can support the Tempest programme, and look to derisk with both Sweden and Itay onboard.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Lord Jim »

Possibly, but unlike FCAS, Tempest doesn't have German Bankers supporting it. It is going to come down to the Political will to spend the necessary money if Tempest is going to result in the platform everybody wants including me.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by serge750 »

I still think (& hope) project tempest will come to fruition as surely it would be a dumber ( than usual ) decision to cancel such a UK project rather than buying another US lead or Euro airframe


You never know the french may alienate the germans by demanding things like majority production etc so the germans may jump ship.... :lol:

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Lord Jim wrote:Possibly, but unlike FCAS, Tempest doesn't have German Bankers supporting it. It is going to come down to the Political will to spend the necessary money if Tempest is going to result in the platform everybody wants including me.
German bankers are irrelevant to FCAS. The programme is goverment funded by both France/Germany and now Spain, and when you look at the track record of german involvement in military programmes, it is hardly a selling point, now is it.

German involvement is guranteed to kill of any military programme they are involved in if you go by history. They are a poor industrial partner in military development programmes. Both Germany and France are as bad as each other, I dont see the FCAS programme ending in anything, other than tears..

Post Reply