Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[Meriv9]

Going back the the RAF next manned platfrom, BAe is far more integrated in the USA than europe and possibly BREXIT will exacerbate this. Whilst a european UCAV is likely to have a UK contribution, isn't more likely that we will continue to follow the US considering we are more in sync with their timeframe for the next platfrom the France or especially Germany?

Same as us, so for that reason i would say let's diversificate.
Going again with the US would be investing to much in them, at least for us not Anglosaxons like you, plus they just elected Trump wild card and we don't know how will be the situation in 20 years.

At the same time do you see the french and the germans skipping completely the 5th generation, land the 6th, with the French attitude ("we are willing to allow the UK to enter in the project...") and german spending that in 2022 will be less than now? I don't.

Being in a similar situation i would say, lets wait, lets focus on the unmanned sector for now or consider the Japanese or Turk option. If Russians are going to collaborate with the Turks then it would be better if it is us, at least we could cut the logistic support in case the situation goes sour.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/te ... -interest/

[ArmChairCivvy]

german spending that in 2022 will be less than now? I don't.

Something does not match there (with the megaprojects: manned fighter, eurodrone, new MBT...).

On the other hand, RE "Viktor Kladov, director of international cooperation and regional policies at Rostec, a Russian defense conglomerate, told press at the Eurasia Airshow in Antalya, Turkey, that his company would prepare a proposal for cooperation with Turkey on aircraft engines. “We could supply an engine,”
the PAK-FA is still waiting for the new engine, to go truly into production .

The Franco-German project would give a boost to the further development of ". The Rolls-Royce EJ200 engines from the Eurofighter [THAT] have already been tipped as the powerplant ..." though I seem to remember to have read somewhere that the tech transfer has been quietly blocked?

Which then leaves not only Turkey in a pickle "Three U.S. Senators Move to Block F-35 Transfers to Turkey (excerpt)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/.../th ... sfers-to-t...
[BUT]
Apr 26, 2018 - -- would also have major repercussions on F-35 operations in Europe, as Turkey is the designated F-35 engine..."

[ArmChairCivvy]

As for the above, I think what Gaby put on twitter
"UK F-35 engine maintance heading to Norway's depot as soon as it stands up
8:33 AM - 3 May 2018 "
has been muted (but not made official) in the UK Defence Committee several months ago.
- too early to dig into those "dry" minutes, to refresh my memory

[shark bait]

Going again with the US would be investing to much in them

That sounds about right. Need to avoid the Germans, and would do well to avoid another US dominated project, so its leaving options a little thin on the ground.

[Meriv9]

I wouldn't say thin.

It has passed 30 years from TF start the world economy has changed.

Europeans economies like polish or spanish ones have become more relevant.
We have the swedish
But mostly I would try with the asians. Korea, Japan and Singapore.

It would be nice to write South Africa, Brasil, India or Turkey but sadly we know we cant.

[shark bait]

Korea, Japan and Singapore; sure sounds good on paper, but an industrial collaboration on this scale is unprecedented with any of those nations.

A next gen combat aircraft is a bloody complex project to start working together on, and doing so comes with a shit load of risk. I don't think we have the appetite for introducing that much risk into a £15 billion+ project.

There is talk of developing a new missile with Japan, that's a much more comfortable project to test the waters on.

[Jake1992]

Korea, Japan and Singapore; sure sounds good on paper, but an industrial collaboration on this scale is unprecedented with any of those nations.

A next gen combat aircraft is a bloody complex project to start working together on, and doing so comes with a shit load of risk. I don't think we have the appetite for introducing that much risk into a £15 billion+ project.

There is talk of developing a new missile with Japan, that's a much more comfortable project to test the waters on.

Is it really any more risky than doing said project with the French and Germans ?
Yes we've collaborated with them on such projects in the past but they have both been far from good partner.

The Germans lie through there teeth to get large work shares then back off from the plege after they get what they want, about destroying the project in the prosse.

The French stay in till they get the tech transfers and info they want then run off to do they're own from what in effect is stollen tech info.

Neither of them seem like any less risk than the Asian partners put forward, the only other partner I'd like to see added to that list would probs be Italy

[Timmymagic]

The Germans lie through there teeth to get large work shares then back off from the plege after they get what they want, about destroying the project in the prosse.

The French stay in till they get the tech transfers and info they want then run off to do they're own from what in effect is stollen tech info.

I think everyone is aware of these points. Germany did end up having to pay compensation regarding Typhoon, but it does add another layer of complication. The other issue is the divvying up of sales territories. With the exception of the Italy/Kuwait deal the other partners have been utterly useless in securing Typhoon export orders, with the exception of dumping their own unwanted T1's on other nations.

[shark bait]

At least we know what do expect from the French, Germans and US.

There are also significant cultural differences that need to be overcome. Such a big project really isn't the best place to start working these things out.

[Luke jones]

Surely America would be the best bet. The French and Germans will just be a ball ache from start to finish.

[Jake1992]

At least we know what do expect from the French, Germans and US.

There are also significant cultural differences that need to be overcome. Such a big project really isn't the best place to start working these things out.

So we know the Germans will try to get the most out while putting the least in and threaten to being down the whole project if they don't get there own way ( typhoon , atlas )

We know the French will pretty much rob us of tech and knowlage then leave the. Project on deaths doors while they go off and do there own thing ( typhoon, horizon class )

Neither of these sound like good partners, just because we know what to expect ( getting screwed ) doesn't mea it's better than taking a risk with some one new.

They US does seem like least risk option out of the lot, the only problem is we would always be a Jr partner in any project which is alright for some but not the best route for every major project.

There definetly are risks with the Asian partners but to me it seems the best route with a 6th gen

[Ron5]

Of course some in the US think the UK is doing exactly what you are saying Germany & France have done in the past i.e. lied about F-35 orders to get massive work shares, and access to US F-35 stealth technology for its own programs.

A bit tongue in cheek but nevertheless.

[Meriv9]

So the problem reside in the work relationship between us Europeans and the Asians.

Then the answer IMHO is Singapore. They have the skill both to manage us westerns and them.

Being Singapore quite small we could assign it the specific job to "make it work" between UK/ITA and KOR/JAP.

[Lord Jim]

Being only a junior partner in a large US programme still could give UK industry a fairly large amount of work. Other countries like Japan could be interested, as well as some of those who are currently part of the F-35 programme. Given the shrinking size of European air forces, I don't think the order book from these is going to be big enough. The idea of a programme run by the French and paid for by the Germans may not appeal to many, especially as they will no doubt want the major work share for themselves. The situation could well be one where the F-35 (F-16) is the legacy platform, the Europeans try to sell their new platform FCAS (Eurofighter/Rafale) but the US and partners also have their latest toy in the wings PCA (F-35). Cost will be higher and with smaller numbers purchased Europe is going to find it a difficult moving forward.

How much more did the Eurofighter programme cost compared to the Tornado? If you use the same increase ratio for the FCAS compared to Eurofighter it might be possible to roughly gauge the cost of developing a European platform.

[shark bait]

Surely America would be the best bet. The French and Germans will just be a ball ache from start to finish.

They US does seem like least risk option out of the lot, the only problem is we would always be a Jr partner in

UK input is insignificant to the US.

The UK got a disproportionately good deal out of the F35, I don't expect that will happen a second time, and it will be the end of British military aerospace. (national industry, not BAES PLC).

More importantly any autonomous aircraft is a software development project. For a drone to work, the RAF and industry need to have people on the ground who have full design authority to modify and iterate the software as required. We do not need to have some technology protection bullish getting in the way of our operations.

[sunstersun]

UK helped design da F-35. Get perks for that I guess. Idk if someone can confirm, but someone told me a lot of the STOVL data/tech came from the UK

[ArmChairCivvy]

a lot of the STOVL data/tech came from the UK

Indeed. But the tech behind the supersonic STOVL Yak was also licensed (much earlier); the problem with that one was that it could go supersonic, but had trouble lifting any weapons.

[shark bait]

The Qinetiq harrier was used to develop the control system for hovering. Up until that point it was a very intense maneuver, but now its suppose to be easy, just pointing the joystick and let the systems do all the hard work. It always amazes me how composed an F35 looks in hover.

[SKB]

The Qinetiq harrier was used to develop the control system for hovering. Up until that point it was a very intense maneuver, but now its suppose to be easy, just pointing the joystick and let the systems do all the hard work.

VAAC: Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control

[sunstersun]

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/20 ... apability/

[inch]

maybe its uk not wanting to go down the road of sharing all the uk tech on future combat drone fighter then france going there own way and pulling out taking what they learned from us ....good

[Timmymagic]

d design da F-35. Get perks for that I guess. Idk if someone can confirm, but someone told me a lot of the STOVL data/tech came from the UK

F-35 was also beneficial to both parties in that otherwise the UK may have gone off on it's own and developed its own capabilities (like Replica exhibited).

To be honest you have to wonder if there are any regrets about not choosing the MDD/Northrop/BAe offering for the JSF competition (I don't think anyone mourns the Boeing offering). I suspect many in the programme office feel the same...

[jedibeeftrix]

We know the French will pretty much rob us of tech and knowlage then leave the. Project on deaths doors while they go off and do there own thing ( typhoon, horizon class )

Ahem, Boxer and Horizon spring to mind...

[Timmymagic]

Ahem, Boxer and Horizon spring to mind...

To be fair in Horizon the UK was absolutely right to walk.

Boxer though was inexcusable. But at least we only walked right at the end, when we'd paid for most of the development....

You could add Trigat as well. Although with the German experience with PARS 3 it looks like we were well out of it...

[shark bait]

As we are all aware, surveillance drones end up armed.

Sounds like a reasonable approach, introduce a low observable intelligence drone, and then develop the more complex combat abilities in a later block.

What is really important is getting a platform in the air, and then develop the software for different roles on top. No reason why the UK and France couldn't build a common hardware platform, then develop their own software for their own roles.