Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by jimthelad »

The Iskander is more of a threat based in Kalingrad.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by seaspear »

Im not sure if there is a thread for development of new technology but is there any news on this project?
https://www.janes.com/article/90375/uk- ... t-aircraft

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 »

topman wrote:More often than not the only thing you get with less is less.
Very true, but can anyone actually see the next SDSR resulting in a increase in Defence spending that will even fill the current gap in the Equipment programme or meet the increased wages bill? Another £1Bn or so will not cover these let alone any of the aspirations the Government or Service Chiefs may have.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by topman »

Lord Jim wrote:
topman wrote:More often than not the only thing you get with less is less.
Very true, but can anyone actually see the next SDSR resulting in a increase in Defence spending that will even fill the current gap in the Equipment programme or meet the increased wages bill? Another £1Bn or so will not cover these let alone any of the aspirations the Government or Service Chiefs may have.
Then we will have to budget accordingly rather than become a bunch of financial incontinents.

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 »

jimthelad wrote:The Iskander is more of a threat based in Kalingrad.
Depends on the target set:
- EDIT: trying the link again
- OK, does not work, so another one https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/10 ... 537502.jpg

Only one "small" step would complete the denial of access strategy (defensive in nature... no wonder Sweden is making the NATO co-operation closer: https://i1.wp.com/euromaidanpress.com/w ... =960%2C582
- this latter one is throwing SAMs into the same equation, without a critical assessment of their effective range, though

Go over to offensive counter-air (and what we will need the Tempest for, as a counter to counter ;) ), which is where we started and the Mig31 with its range, speed and especially ceiling makes for an ideal platform, for launching.
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 »

topman wrote:Then we will have to budget accordingly rather than become a bunch of financial incontinents.
Things could become very uncomfortable for the MoD, removing items form the Equipment Plan to fill the £2Bn a year hole and making savings elsewhere in the budget to cover the increased wages bill. And it the Government isn't willing to reduce our commitments and aspirations then thigs are going to get to the point of almost falling apart. How this cold affect Tempest is anybody's guess as the budget is not that much at present, but any planned increases could well be deferred as more immediate issues are dealt with.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by topman »

Hopefully it will get very uncomfortable, that way we'll have to make level headed realistic decisions.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

topman wrote:Hopefully it will get very uncomfortable, that way we'll have to make level headed realistic decisions.
So off the shelf buy of the f-22 replacement then.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by jimthelad »

the latest versions are likely to be significantly longer legged I am led to believe.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by inch »

Not sure if the Americans would sell us their latest hi tech f22 ron5 just like they wouldn't sell the f22 at the time ?

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by inch »

F22 replacement I ment ,soz lol

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

You have to say please.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Cooper »

jimthelad wrote:the latest versions are likely to be significantly longer legged I am led to believe.
An attempt to bring the Japanese on board?

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 »

jimthelad wrote:the latest versions are likely to be significantly longer legged I am led to believe.
Without that the "P" in PCA (an attribute to the US F-X) is not feasible.

So that's the first starting point (most others have presumably been drafted, but the value trades are still to be done).

From value to cost: A study presented to US Congress, The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet, attempted to calculate how much government would have to put aside for the Penetrating Counter Air project.

The figure came back as $300 million, a piece.

And Congress has been told it needs a fleet of at least 414 of the ultra-advanced jets. For the moment the memory does not serve what was the original F-22 target, before the production was stopped (and thirty+ of the production run are like our tiffie Tr1... not easily - without rebuild, that is - upgraded).
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

So how much is the current price of the latest and greatest Typhoon?

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Cooper »

Ron5 wrote:So how much is the current price of the latest and greatest Typhoon?
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
jimthelad wrote:the latest versions are likely to be significantly longer legged I am led to believe.
From value to cost: A study presented to US Congress, The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet, attempted to calculate how much government would have to put aside for the Penetrating Counter Air project.

The figure came back as $300 million, a piece.
Now how much are those B-21 Raiders going for again?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

Jensy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
jimthelad wrote:the latest versions are likely to be significantly longer legged I am led to believe.
From value to cost: A study presented to US Congress, The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet, attempted to calculate how much government would have to put aside for the Penetrating Counter Air project.

The figure came back as $300 million, a piece.
Now how much are those B-21 Raiders going for again?
Aiming for $500m per unit so around £375m but can’t see them really coming in at that

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by cky7 »

Is the worry about something too long legged that it’s gonna make it too costly to buy/run? I think really long range ought to be one of things we have pretty high on the wish list and would be sad to see our future fighter have considerably less than PCA unless of course the US do something really radical with the range (like strategic) that we’d just never have the call to use. Ok for the wayward aircraft part of QRA task one could say no need for much longer legs, but with the Russians claiming to have or be developing some really long range air launched systems (eg that air launched Iskander) would it be a smart policy to aim to intercept further and further out? Hit the archer not the arrow, especially when we’ve not got any ABM defence and when I look at the cost of any potential systems that could fill the role along with their from my limited understanding dubious effectiveness I don’t see any hope of us ever being able to afford to buy anything in big enough numbers to change this. Also if we’re looking at something that’s gonna replace Typhoon then it has to be able to air superiority, OCA and DCA and some strike. IMO (though I’m happy to admit it comes along way from having anywhere near enough info to present as anything other than opinion based on what I read!) for the time period in question really long range is gonna be nearly essential.

On the F35 numbers discussion I got to agree with Ron, we go round slamming all the euros for massively cutting their numbers and going back on their purchase commitments, we can’t do that then think it’s ok to go from promising 158(or whatever initial promise was) to just 48 or 52. There’s no way they’ll swallow that without some sort of payback and I don’t blame them. Even if it’s depressingly just 158 over the life of the production run with never more than 50 in service (disgrace IMO), we have to stick to our commitment, the software issue is a valid complaint but a separate one. Perhaps if we had a little more value to the US as a hard power partner who can really make a difference for them then they’d actually take us serious on this sort of thing. Whilst we’re in the state we are though, from a US POV I’d be thinking who do these guys think they are? Ok we’re close mates, but so are the Australians and Japanese and we’re buying no more than them, why do we think we should get special treatment when we don’t bring anything to them they can’t get from another mate?

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

cky7 wrote:Is the worry about something too long legged that it’s gonna make it too costly to buy/run? I think really long range ought to be one of things we have pretty high on the wish list and would be sad to see our future fighter have considerably less than PCA unless of course the US do something really radical with the range (like strategic) that we’d just never have the call to use. Ok for the wayward aircraft part of QRA task one could say no need for much longer legs, but with the Russians claiming to have or be developing some really long range air launched systems (eg that air launched Iskander) would it be a smart policy to aim to intercept further and further out? Hit the archer not the arrow, especially when we’ve not got any ABM defence and when I look at the cost of any potential systems that could fill the role along with their from my limited understanding dubious effectiveness I don’t see any hope of us ever being able to afford to buy anything in big enough numbers to change this. Also if we’re looking at something that’s gonna replace Typhoon then it has to be able to air superiority, OCA and DCA and some strike. IMO (though I’m happy to admit it comes along way from having anywhere near enough info to present as anything other than opinion based on what I read!) for the time period in question really long range is gonna be nearly essential.

On the F35 numbers discussion I got to agree with Ron, we go round slamming all the euros for massively cutting their numbers and going back on their purchase commitments, we can’t do that then think it’s ok to go from promising 158(or whatever initial promise was) to just 48 or 52. There’s no way they’ll swallow that without some sort of payback and I don’t blame them. Even if it’s depressingly just 158 over the life of the production run with never more than 50 in service (disgrace IMO), we have to stick to our commitment, the software issue is a valid complaint but a separate one. Perhaps if we had a little more value to the US as a hard power partner who can really make a difference for them then they’d actually take us serious on this sort of thing. Whilst we’re in the state we are though, from a US POV I’d be thinking who do these guys think they are? Ok we’re close mates, but so are the Australians and Japanese and we’re buying no more than them, why do we think we should get special treatment when we don’t bring anything to them they can’t get from another mate?
In a word yes range costs money if you are planning an a/c with low observable characteristics that has to be a fighter because your in for a big aircraft. The main requirement here will likely be range from a tanker there is potential for engine efficiency to help but you may need to trade off raw performance it depends exactly how much further you wish to go with a given payload. However another consideration will be how long the poor sod has to sit in a fighter cockpit, typhoon pilots have done sorties of over 8 hrs in length but I’m sure the pilots weren’t up to much after they got back.

Bloodhound replacement has been gapped for years in theory a type 45 can provide defence to the uk mainland, like it did to Cyprus a few years back. However land based aster maybe of great benefit at home and to deployed forces.

workshare on f35 was not based on order commitments, it was based the percentage of funding each country provided during the development phase. The UK provided the most and such at the beginning uk companies had a big share of the work. As time has gone on more countries came on to the program uk work has moved to other countries and to RR and BAE’s US divisions and development works have concluded in some areas. The other thing to bare in mind the USAF is not buying 1700 f35s the replace about 800 f16 and there not about to expand that much, there more interested in b21 and f22/f15 replacement.

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by cky7 »

SW1,

Thanks for the reply, gives me plenty to think on. typhoon pilots doing 8 hours - even from the simple perspective when you think about TACOs on vehicles and how long one is supposed to do a less strenuous task like driving without taking a short break that suddenly seems like a hellish flight! With the future seeming to point towards more tasks for the pilot with controlling unmanned partners and an increasing focus on things like EW and data/info gathering/sharing, how would you say the balance in shaping up for the pilots of tomorrow? Obviously there’s the continuing switch doing to managing if that makes any sense? Can things like AI take up enough of the strain to allow one person to operate to full potential over longer missions? Could there be a danger in over tasking one person? The more I think about it, the more it seems like the next fighter is gonna be something more analogous to a fighter AWACS. I’d guess speed and altitude are still gonna be important for BVR missiles, but as you say other bits of traditional fighter performance may be traded away. I certainly don’t see any need for anything anyway beyond typhoon, from everything I understand we’ve pretty much reached the limit on what can be done with a living person still in the cockpit already. I wonder whether the unmanned wingman could evolve from something simple that is tailored for a specific task and then added to with additional variants - even one that could handle all the high kinetic stuff and shoot the meteors at high speed/altitude being cued by the manned aircraft? Maybe even one day get into a turning fight if forced to. It’s hard to know what’s sci-if and what’s actually realistic and even then the more I think about it the more and more it sounds unaffordable :(

On the f35, I take your point about work share/tier 1 in return for upfront investment, if we can get away with spinning that we’ll have got the deal of the century on the f35. I think our problem is more with us going for the STOVL variant and the USMC. A cut of near a 100 is a bigger percentage for what is otherwise their program and my impression was they sort of thought we owed them after them (along with USN) having helped us keeping up to date with skills in areas we gapped. You lose a few from the A with the USAF and virtually every other export it’s less of percentage of the overall number. Their worry will be how the hell will they ever get anything after the lightening. Would us buying that many fewer make the STOVL engine more expensive per unit and all the other problems that go along with a small production run? I guess they’ve got 2 new carriers they’ll be able fly a squadron or 2 each from to make up for it?! :angel: :D

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 »

cky7 wrote:The more I think about it, the more it seems like the next fighter is gonna be something more analogous to a fighter AWACS. I’d guess speed and altitude are still gonna be important for BVR missiles, but as you say other bits of traditional fighter performance may be traded away.
Not far off as I see it, except that it can be a network rather than an all-in-one (physical) a/c.

Why not have a B-2 like highly stealthy plane, with an intercontinental range/ endurance as a hub and then robo-fighters (rather than 'wingmen') doing circuits around it, at a distance?

The Valkyrie is already doing test flights in the US and the development of the system under Defence Project 6014 Phase 1 (Loyal Wingman Advanced Development Programme) in Australia with Boeing is also due to get to that phase during this year.
- and then moving on, to test how a manned platform would operate in conjunction with between four and six vehicles in operational service.

According to DefenceNews the Airpower Teaming System is a semi-autonomous multi-mission system, capable of carrying (unspecified) weapons and able to be controlled from either a ground control station or from the platform it is escorting.
- so comms between the hub and the wingmen in orbit would only occasionally be needed, not negating the stealthiness
- and when needed can be directed and in that way stealthy

According to Boeing data, the aircraft is 38 feet long and will have a range of 2,000 nautical miles. It will be capable of ‘fighter-like’ performance and fitted with on-board sensors to enable it to perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic warfare roles.
- and as there is no pilot, with the need for a comfort break, the range could be a couple of orbits, touching with a tanker at the furthest point away from the likely threat sector
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)

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

In a word yes range costs money if you are planning an a/c with low observable characteristics that has to be a fighter because your in for a big aircraft. The main requirement here will likely be range from a tanker there is potential for engine efficiency to help but you may need to trade off raw performance it depends exactly how much further you wish to go with a given payload. However another consideration will be how long the poor sod has to sit in a fighter cockpit, typhoon pilots have done sorties of over 8 hrs in length but I’m sure the pilots weren’t up to much after they got back.

Bloodhound replacement has been gapped for years in theory a type 45 can provide defence to the uk mainland, like it did to Cyprus a few years back. However land based aster maybe of great benefit at home and to deployed forces.

workshare on f35 was not based on order commitments, it was based the percentage of funding each country provided during the development phase. The UK provided the most and such at the beginning uk companies had a big share of the work. As time has gone on more countries came on to the program uk work has moved to other countries and to RR and BAE’s US divisions and development works have concluded in some areas. The other thing to bare in mind the USAF is not buying 1700 f35s the replace about 800 f16 and there not about to expand that much, there more interested in b21 and f22/f15 replacement.[/quote]

A quick question as you seem to be well informed - what is the thinking between linkage of Tempest and the Typhoon OSD?

Some Tempest coverage has talked about "Typhoon retiring from 2040", but that's not wholly correct is it? Aren't Batch 1 going out of service in the 2020s?

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:what is the thinking between linkage of Tempest and the Typhoon OSD?

Some Tempest coverage has talked about "Typhoon retiring from 2040", but that's not wholly correct is it? Aren't Batch 1 going out of service in the 2020s?
The thinking is described by the man in charge

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.aero ... ion/%3famp.

“The RAF had said it intends to use the Typhoon as a testbed for technology in its future sixth generation fighter jet, the Tempest.

The Tempest is being developed by a consortium including: the UK Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo and MBDA.

Air Chief Marshal Michael Wigston has said in order to shorten development times in Tempest production. The aircraft is planned to be introduced into RAF ranks in 2035, replacing the Typhoon.”

The tranche 1 typhoon osd was extended at sdsr15

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Thanks, makes sense

Post Reply