Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
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:Superhornet for Canada based mainly on cost (though you can never rule out the Canucks just pushing the whole thing to the right again)
I'm in line: they will buy planes/ spares now from OZ. Then perhaps do the same from the Swiss
... and if the Swiss delay again and update not just the engines, but also the mission computers ( like the USMC is doing) - with the one from SH.
Then 8-) they will buy those planes off the Swiss hands; when the latter finally make a 'move'. Many plebiscites later :)
SD67 wrote:BAEs in country industrial footprint tips the balance.
What's that?
SD67 wrote: A surprise win for Typhoon in Finland. F35 rules itself out on operating cost, so they go for the best air defence option
Doubt it as Typhoon is lacking (relative to the others in the race) in offensive counter-air.
Timmymagic wrote:thats not an issue as most bases will easily have enough HAS and Hangarage for the available fleet.
Scramble-ready was a 'modern' proverb, referring to the maintenance intensity more generally (including skin care for the more delicate designs 8-) )
NickC wrote:ntermediate RBM
Is that the same as TBM (Theatre Ballistic)?
- if so, we also need an added new (small) letter to indicate those types that are only ballistic to the apogee of the flight path, and then start to manoeuvre so as to make calculations for their interception more difficult
NickC wrote:Sweden seems to be the exception that bought Patriot in 2018 for ~$3 billion with the latest PAC 3 MSE missiles
As for HAS and protected hangarage, not really.
- they had already made the selection, and then counted their money (with a better specced shopping list)
- the number of batteries went down by 25% ( from 4 to 3), so
- that covers Stockholm, Gotland and the AF central command centre (only)
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SD67 wrote:BAEs in country industrial footprint tips the balance.
What's that?
Partnership with Patria on Hawk upgrade and support + Land400 bid
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SD67 wrote: A surprise win for Typhoon in Finland. F35 rules itself out on operating cost, so they go for the best air defence option
Doubt it as Typhoon is lacking (relative to the others in the race) in offensive counter-air.
What, with Storm Shadow, Paveway IV, Brimstone pkus SPEAR 3 to come?

of course its all guesswork.

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 »

Thx, I can see now what you meant
SD67 wrote:Unread postby SD67 » 12 Mar 2021, 15:38

ArmChairCivvy wrote:


SD67 wrote:
BAEs in country industrial footprint tips the balance.

What's that?



Partnership with Patria on Hawk upgrade and support + Land400 bid
Hawk is pretty much history (of course on-going), but v much supplanted by the Boeing twin-tail period since
- and to add some 'Continental Spice' being the Scandi-centre of Excellence for the HN Industries maintenance arrangements)

Land400 was lost (and BAE did a similar thing for the USMC with a competing Italian product).
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 »

My money would go on the JAS-39E/F together with the SAAB AEW platform. They end up with more bang for their bucks, commonality with a natural ally, production in country, and a platform designed for dispersed operations and servicing by conscripts, both of which are fairly important to Finland even if these criteria are not part of the competition as this would certainly eliminate the F-35 of the bat.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:commonality with a natural ally, production in country, and a platform designed for dispersed operations and servicing by conscripts, both of which are fairly important to Finland
[ - ]even if these criteria are not part of the competition as this would certainly eliminate the F-35 of the bat.
I was steadily reading... until I got to the :lol: 'even if'
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 »

Well can you see F-35s being able to operate effectively with minimum logistics and conscript personnel for extended periods? I haven't seen the actual criteria the Finns put out but having any of the above as part of them would put the F-35 in an awkward position. Imagine the Q&A after LM's briefing to the Finnish Air Force when the latter start asking question on the subject. Uncomfortable silence anyone. :D

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

I agree re F35, that would be an interesting conversation.

But is Finland really going to settle on an aircraft which is effectively half a Superhornet, as a frontline air defence fighter for the next forty years, right next door to you know who.

I'd also question the idea that Finland and Sweden are natural allies. The Finns have been fighting the Russians for a century, Sweden is not even a member of NATO. My brief experience is that Finns are much harder, very blunt and demanding

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well can you see F-35s being able to operate effectively with minimum logistics and conscript personnel for extended periods? I haven't seen the actual criteria the Finns put out but having any of the above as part of them would put the F-35 in an awkward position. Imagine the Q&A after LM's briefing to the Finnish Air Force when the latter start asking question on the subject. Uncomfortable silence anyone. :D
I meant that you landed such a killer blow - actually a jab, a punch and a left hook :) all in one - that I burst out laughing
... perhaps the emoji did not convey that in the right way
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 »

SD67 wrote:I'd also question the idea that Finland and Sweden are natural allies. The Finns have been fighting the Russians for a century, Sweden is not even a member of NATO. My brief experience is that Finns are much harder, very blunt and demanding
During the Winter War Swedish "volunteers" including air force units fought with the Finns against Russia though under finish colours and markings.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:During the Winter War Swedish "volunteers" including air force units fought with the Finns against Russia though under finish colours and markings.
Those folks took their kit back with them (there were losses of planes), but history often omits the fact that there were so many supplies of weapons and ammo from 'official' Sweden that not all of it could come off production lines - but was stripped out of the Swedish army units
- when WW2 then followed for real, the army was initially in bad shape and being enveloped by German forces from three sides, an invasion had turned into a real possibility

Back to the modern day: defence industrial co-operation is a fact. E.g. there is a state-to-state agreement on co-operation with corvette design (another :) reason for the Finnish frigates to be called corvettes), and when the Visby replacement design - already authorised - emerges, we will get to see the extent of it. Beyond the Pohjanmaas having many Swedish weapon systems.
- the demi-brigade assigned by the new defence plan to protect the Stockholm area will be driving around in AMVs

The longevity of the newest Gripen has been doubted, but the Tempest co-operation (on sub-systems) pushes up the probability of another generation coming around... in due course
- who would buy a plane that will not be refreshed over its service life?
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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

We are committed to investing in the future of our Combat Air Strategy... Tempest is the future of that sector with over 1800 highly skilled engineers and programmers already involved."


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 get the impression sometimes that TEMPEST is more a skills/job retention scheme that a programme to actually deliver a new platform to he RAF.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:I get the impression sometimes that TEMPEST is more a skills/job retention scheme that a programme to actually deliver a new platform to he RAF.
The same could be said of nearly every RAF combat aircraft since Jaguar. No shortage of offers from the US to purchase everything off the shelf since the 60s, from Blackhawk through to the cutting edge of the F-117 or even A-12 Avenger II.

Some governments prioritise the bottom line cost, some the Industrial benefits, some our relations with the US, very few (if any) put the needs of the RAF first.

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:throughh to the cutting edge of the F-117 or even A-12 Avenger II.
Now that you mentioned cutting edge - as also Tempest is positioned - I've been wondering how the prgrm will be run contractually. There is a book about how it all went wrong with A-12
The $5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding , which raises the ongoing debate around the appropriate use of contract types: firm-fixed price (FFP) development contracts and cost-reimbursement contracts.

The book has been discussed on the Defence Acquisition University pages, so one day we will get to see how within Tempest these contract forms were 'picked and matched':
" Under a FFP development contract, requirements are stable, prices are fixed, the technologies are mature, and contractors have the capability to absorb necessary costs. With a cost-reimbursement contract, requirements are less defined, costs and technical integration issues are undetermined, and the U.S. government collaborates with contractors on a cost-share ratio basis at a pre-established cost ceiling.
The author notes that senior-level Navy leadership had a fundamental misunderstanding of the two contract types believing they awarded a cost-reimbursement contract when they, in fact, awarded the winners of the A-12 contract to the McDonnell Douglas-General Dynamics team with a FFP development contract. This misunderstanding proved detrimental where
- the Navy neither defined its requirements nor addressed the immature stealth technologies, aircraft weight challenges, and composite materials designed for the A-12. Simultaneously,
- the contractor team could not absorb the massive cost overruns in their attempt to employ those untested technologies. "

In the Tempest story there will be many more than two characters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam ... pPc_Q.jpeg talking about the 'fine mess'.
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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote:Some governments prioritise the bottom line cost, some the Industrial benefits, some our relations with the US, very few (if any) put the needs of the RAF first.
The needs of the nation should be put first and the government defines them to get elected.

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:Now that you mentioned cutting edge - as also Tempest is positioned - I've been wondering how the prgrm will be run contractually. There is a book about how it all went wrong with A-12
The $5 Billion Dollar Misunderstanding , which raises the ongoing debate around the appropriate use of contract types: firm-fixed price (FFP) development contracts and cost-reimbursement contracts.
It's amazing how little seems (on the surface) to have been learned from both A-12 and Commanche, on either side of the Atlantic with regards procurement or contract design.

Similar experiences closer to home with Nimrod and Astute have demonstrated their folly, to both prime and govt. Whether it was hyperbole or not, I seem to rember a BAE director suggesting that their experiences made them debate leaving the UK sector entirely and moving to the States (can interpret that a number of ways....)
ArmChairCivvy wrote: " Under a FFP development contract, requirements are stable, prices are fixed, the technologies are mature, and contractors have the capability to absorb necessary costs. With a cost-reimbursement contract, requirements are less defined, costs and technical integration issues are undetermined, and the U.S. government collaborates with contractors on a cost-share ratio basis at a pre-established cost ceiling.
The author notes that senior-level Navy leadership had a fundamental misunderstanding of the two contract types believing they awarded a cost-reimbursement contract when they, in fact, awarded the winners of the A-12 contract to the McDonnell Douglas-General Dynamics team with a FFP development contract. This misunderstanding proved detrimental where
- the Navy neither defined its requirements nor addressed the immature stealth technologies, aircraft weight challenges, and composite materials designed for the A-12. Simultaneously,
- the contractor team could not absorb the massive cost overruns in their attempt to employ those untested technologies. "
It might be naive, but I have a perverse hope that an aircraft derived from Tempest (it's probably going to called Tempest) will not be at the cutting/bleeding edge of the aeronautic arts, at least not at delivery. The purported upgrade path and proving/integration of technologies on Typhoon is sensible, though does seem to have echoes of Type 23 -> Type 26 promises from a decade ago.

What concerns me is the shrinking size of the fast-jet fleet, the majority of which is expected to be replaced by 'Tempest'. Down to 107 Typhoons does not really offer much hope or scale for integration.

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: I seem to rember a BAE director suggesting that their experiences made them debate leaving the UK sector entirely and moving to the States
While there is a 'Chinese Wall' between the US defence biz and the rest of the company (never seen a word describing how it operates), the fact that 100 top managers were summoned to vote on the demerger idea reflects a gross misunderstanding, as if the company is constituted in a partnership from, without shareholders
... the UK Gvmnt soon reminded not only of shareholders in general, but the Golden Share in particular
Jensy wrote:echoes of Type 23 -> Type 26 promises from a decade ago.
The fact that new weaponry was ordered for the first three new ships did not in any way include a hint that the transfer idea was dead - but it did include a clue in the way that no new 'tails' were ordered, along with the rest of the weapon& sensor systems.
- one could trace the time line from the above announcement, to the official unveiling of the 8 of the real stuff and five 'lighter' frigates.

I put much store re: the fast deployment of Tempest modules in the fact that Saab, with its agility, is involved. Though the size of the airframe they will be working with may make some 'modules' N/A.
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)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the UK Gvmnt soon reminded not only of shareholders in general, but the Golden Share in particular
UK Government Golden Share in BAE went many, many years ago...

But it could be re-surrected..and they know it.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:the UK Gvmnt soon reminded not only of shareholders in general, but the Golden Share in particular
UK Government Golden Share in BAE went many, many years ago...

But it could be re-surrected..and they know it.
The government Maintains a single golden share in BAE so it cannot be bought over by a foreign owner.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Caribbean »

Timmymagic wrote:UK Government Golden Share in BAE went many, many years ago...
The golden share in BAA went in 2012 (and Qintetic before that), but I think the golden share in BAE still exists, though they did allow a change to the Articles of Association (relating to a foreign national as Chairman) relatively recently (in 2019, I think, though could be wrong on that year).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote:allow a change to the Articles of Association (relating to a foreign national as Chairman)
Was it the ex CEO or Chairman who was sent to Kazakhstan (chair of the sovereign investment fund and of the flag carrier)? No change of citizenship though, so this was not a come-back ploy
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Was it the ex CEO or Chairman who was sent to Kazakhstan (chair of the sovereign investment fund and of the flag carrier)? No change of citizenship though, so this was not a come-back ploy
Can't remember, but I think they wanted the ability to select a foreign national, then went ahead and selected a Brit anyway
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SKB »

Boris visits Tempest at BAE Systems Warton


(10 Downing Street) 22nd March 2021


(Forces News) 22nd March 2021
Boris Johnson has told Forces News "we have to take some brave decisions" and recognise that parts of the kit used by UK forces need to be modernised "to move forward".

However, when asked about possible cuts to troop numbers in the British Army, the Prime Minister neither confirmed nor denied reports.

He was speaking ahead of the Defence Command Paper's publication.
Boris is still yet to 'cut' his hair. :mrgreen:

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by jonas »

Jeremy Quin speach at RUSI on future combat air :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... mmediately

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 »

And this is the key to keeping developmental cost down and speeding up said programme. Hopefully it will also be applied to both ground and naval programmes in future.

"By virtually designing a digital version of a physical aircraft, they’ve been able to use their high-performance computers to put it through its paces and work out how it performs. Getting this right will slash costs and testing time to a game-changing extent. This is transformational."

If it works for aerospace with the most demanding Def Stans. then the other domains should easily adapt.

Post Reply