Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[dmereifield]

I mean costing more than expected, not more than an F22. It is no longer the affordable aircraft it once wanted to be, this is something tempest should try and correct (again).

Honest question, how can you expect a 6th gen aircraft (whatever that is) to be built in the UK in relatively small numbers (ca. 150-500, depending on who joins the programme) to cost less than a 5th gen aircraft built in high numbers (3000-4000 units)? Surely there is no way tempest can be built for ca. $80 million or less? As an interesting reference point, how much is the Typhoon costing the MoD per unit?

[sunstersun]

I mean costing more than expected, not more than an F22. It is no longer the affordable aircraft it once wanted to be, this is something tempest should try and correct (again).

Honest question, how can you expect a 6th gen aircraft (whatever that is) to be built in the UK in relatively small numbers (ca. 150-500, depending on who joins the programme) to cost less than a 5th gen aircraft built in high numbers (3000-4000 units)? Surely there is no way tempest can be built for ca. $80 million or less? As an interesting reference point, how much is the Typhoon costing the MoD per unit?

Flyaway is like 105 mil.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/a ... July06.pdf


ignore the rafale numbers they're wrong.

[SKB]

Bigger population = bigger economy.

The UK's population, currently 65m is predicted to reach 75.3m by 2050.
Meanwhile, Germany's current 82m is predicted to fall to around 74.5m.
And France from 66m up to 71.1m .

The UK will have the largest population in Europe by 2050. (excluding Turkey and Russia, which are mostly in Asia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_variant)

[dmereifield]

I mean costing more than expected, not more than an F22. It is no longer the affordable aircraft it once wanted to be, this is something tempest should try and correct (again).

Honest question, how can you expect a 6th gen aircraft (whatever that is) to be built in the UK in relatively small numbers (ca. 150-500, depending on who joins the programme) to cost less than a 5th gen aircraft built in high numbers (3000-4000 units)? Surely there is no way tempest can be built for ca. $80 million or less? As an interesting reference point, how much is the Typhoon costing the MoD per unit?

Flyaway is like 105 mil.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/a ... July06.pdf


ignore the rafale numbers they're wrong.

We|| at $105 million is still considerably cheaper than the Typhoon (though I'm surprised to see that according to your source is only ca. £65 million), and so I can't see how we can build a more advanced future aircraft in much smaller numbers for a comparable price (to the F35)

[dmereifield]

Bigger population = bigger economy.

The UK's population, currently 65m is predicted to reach 75.3m by 2050.
Meanwhile, Germany's current 82m is predicted to fall to around 74.5m.
And France from 66m up to 71.1m .

The UK will have the largest population in Europe by 2050. (excluding Turkey and Russia, which are mostly in Asia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_variant)

Um, I'm not sure how the size of our population, and by extension our economy, relates specifically to the unit cost of a 6th generation aircraft....

[Lord Jim]

One of the issues with "Tempest" is what countries out there are aligned with the UK timescale and have a similar need. The countries that have bought the JSF on the whole are out of the running unless the have a two tier fleet like the UK with Typhoon and F-35. What the world needs is really a fifth generation F-5 or F-16A. The UK should also not get hung up on the desire for two engines. Many nations have been doing fine with high end single engines fast jets. If the UK can deal with a single engine platform that needs its powerplant to land safely in the form of the F-35B it should be able to deal with a single engine FGR. Hopefully when the time comes the technology introduced with the F-35 will have properly matured and the costs fallen considerably so that the materials etc. are seen as standard rather than specialised.

I wonder if history could repeat itself here. In the 1970s the RAF has its Phantoms in the attack role with the lightning still doing air defence. With the introduction of the Jaguar, the opportunity was taken to use the Phantom to replace the Lightning. May with "Tempest" we could have a low viz Jaguar and the F-35 could replace the Typhoon as the RAF Air Defence platform, but like Typhoon by being a swing role platform able to carry out other roles just as well?

[sunstersun]

yeah two engines is overrated.

[shark bait]

"two engines is overrated"? How?

Every air superiority fighter is twin engine, has that happened by accident? Or is that becuase in taking the fight to the enemy you need lots of fuel, requiring lots of thrust to allow the pilot engage and disengage on their terms?

Twin engine is pretty much a pre-requisite, especially in the beyond visual range era where having the energy to to keep out of harms way, observe and transfer to a long range missile is a real benefit.

[shark bait]

Honest question, how can you expect a 6th gen aircraft (whatever that is) to be built in the UK in relatively small numbers

Similar to how the Gripen costs less than a Typhoon, and to be clear I'm not just talking off the shelf costs, I'm mainly referring to operational costs.

[dmereifield]

Honest question, how can you expect a 6th gen aircraft (whatever that is) to be built in the UK in relatively small numbers

Similar to how the Gripen costs less than a Typhoon, and to be clear I'm not just talking off the shelf costs, I'm mainly referring to operational costs.

Ok, but is the Gripen not significantly less capable than the Typhoon?

[Timmymagic]

Ok, but is the Gripen not significantly less capable than the Typhoon?

Massively so. When its loaded with any stores of note its performance isn't going to be sparkling to say the least. It can't escape the lack of thrust, lack of conformal carry etc. It's perfectly find for Sweden or other nations for air policing, but for actual expeditionary warfare its hopeless.

[Lord Jim]

"two engines is overrated"? How?

Every air superiority fighter is twin engine, has that happened by accident? Or is that becuase in taking the fight to the enemy you need lots of fuel, requiring lots of thrust to allow the pilot engage and disengage on their terms?

Twin engine is pretty much a pre-requisite, especially in the beyond visual range era where having the energy to to keep out of harms way, observe and transfer to a long range missile is a real benefit.

Mirage 2000C
F-8 Crusader
F-106 Delta Dagger
SU-15 Flagon

[RetroSicotte]

Mirage 2000C
F-8 Crusader
F-106 Delta Dagger
SU-15 Flagon

Not exactly great examples. Mirage was never that top end an air superiority jet, and the Delta was an interceptor. They're also of much older technology concepts.

None of the type of aircraft he was referring to in the modern day. When F-14, F-15, F-22, J-20, Su-57, Su-27, Typhoon and others all agree on how to do air superiority these days in design, there's an undeniably clear trend.

[sunstersun]

@5:30

One engine offers so many advantages nowadays. It's safer, cheaper, and yeah it might be less agile or something, but it's not that important anymore to have two engines on your air superiority aircraft.

Just personal opinion, we're going to be seeing a lot more single engine planes.

[RetroSicotte]

One engine offers so many advantages nowadays. It's safer, cheaper, and yeah it might be less agile or something, but it's not that important anymore to have two engines on your air superiority aircraft.

Just personal opinion, we're going to be seeing a lot more single engine planes.

That is a complete change of what was being discussed, for a completely different class of aircraft. And tossing away the entire reason air superiority is based on twin engine with a quick "its a bit less agile or something" is just trying to perceive the very clear trend as nothing, when it really is not.

The engine argument that Dragon is referring to (I actually know the dude on Discord who makes these, or at least did, until I left Matsimus' military channel) is primarily a counter to those stating that twin-engine is superior in terms of reliability. Mostly focused on the claims of Canada needing a twin engine for its "climate".

[Lord Jim]

I think if you want a small light weight swing role platform able to perform air defence, having only one engine should not be an issue given the power the current and planned power units out there. I am not saying two engines is bad, but I think that any platform that emerges from the "Tempest " programme needs to be cheaper than the F-35 whist able to operate in a swing role. Thinking out of the box I would go as far as to say the first platform should be un manned with a manned version following up.

[Lord Jim]

Mirage 2000C
F-8 Crusader
F-106 Delta Dagger
SU-15 Flagon

Not exactly great examples. Mirage was never that top end an air superiority jet, and the Delta was an interceptor. They're also of much older technology concepts.

None of the type of aircraft he was referring to in the modern day. When F-14, F-15, F-22, J-20, Su-57, Su-27, Typhoon and others all agree on how to do air superiority these days in design, there's an undeniably clear trend.

I can see the trend you are making, but the other thing all these have in common is they a big and very expensive so no many nations operate them. Many western orientated nations use the F-16 as there primary air defence platform.

[Ron5]

A few points cross my mind:

1. Wouldn't a next gen Gripon need to carry weapons and extra fuel internally for LO? In which case, wouldn't it have to be larger?

2. Why would a larger twin engined aircraft have to be so much more expensive if built to the same standards regarding systems? Yes, the extra engine and larger airframe would incrementally cost more but all the sensors, software, testing, design costs would be the same, wouldn't they?

3. The trend with our potential enemies is for larger twin engined types.

4. France will undoubtedly insist on carrier capability for their joint project with Germany which to me implies a smalller aircraft, so the UK should go larger to proved a market differentiator.

5. F-35 will rule the single engine attck market for the next few decades, there is little point in building a more expensive clone.

[Timmymagic]

1. Wouldn't a next gen Gripon need to carry weapons and extra fuel internally for LO? In which case, wouldn't it have to be larger?

Absolutely, and that's an area where 2 engines isn't such a disadvantage. Suddenly you have all of that hull volume for fuel and a decent weapons bay. Come to think of it, given the clear benefits to a weapons bay the decision post war of most aircraft carrying stores externally seems a little silly. But I think the next aircraft developed will develop further from the F-22/F-35 concept and go for a much larger space. The F-22 and F-35 may be seen in later years as having too little thought devoted to the future of what they might carry. A large bay like the Buccaneers would be ideal, particularly if it had a more uniform shape.

es, the extra engine and larger airframe would incrementally cost more but all the sensors, software, testing, design costs would be the same, wouldn't they?

Engines and airframes aren't cheap, neither is long term sustainment. But in order to have 1 engine delivering the required thrust (like the F-35) its going to have to be a big one regardless. Would the F-35's airframe be that much bigger with 2 EJ-200's for example instead of the F-135? And yes the bulk of the initial costs lay elsewhere, there isn't so much to be saved in the initial purchase at all. Quite frankly the countries who can only afford single engined aren't going to be in the market for Tempest anyway. They'll be buying F-35 if anything.

4. France will undoubtedly insist on carrier capability for their joint project with Germany which to me implies a smalller aircraft, so the UK should go larger to proved a market differentiator.

The carrier requirement is enough reason alone to not partner with the French. It skews an entire programme to service a very small user base with zero possibility of export orders as a result, but with disadvantages for every other aircraft built. Yes the F-35 does the same, but at least a very decent number of F-35B and F-35C will be built. And its doubtful that a Franco-British-German plane will have the production volumes to justify several, substantially different models like F-35 so that those disadvantages can be minimised for most users.

5. F-35 will rule the single engine attck market for the next few decades, there is little point in building a more expensive clone.

And looking at the countries out there who could potentially buy a 'Tempest', they're all going to be F-35 users for part of their fleet or will be looking to replace a twin engined aircraft or have very specific demands for range, speed, persistence etc.

[shark bait]

Mirage 2000C
F-8 Crusader
F-106 Delta Dagger
SU-15 Flagon

Not air superiority
50 years old
50 years old
Twin engine

poor examples

[shark bait]

A few points cross my mind:

Some good points Ron, the F35 will likely rule the low observable single engine market for a while, and the French aircraft will likely lead to a low observable aircraft of similar size to the Rafale, so perhaps bigger is the way to differentiate.

Now we have the difficult act of managing big and affordable at the same time.

[Lord Jim]

Can nations other than the USA actually afford a single role Air superiority Fighter as that seems to be what people are wanting the next generation platform to be, citing the argument that you have to have two engines to carry out this role effectively. I do not think they can, preferring swing role platforms like the F-16 and Gripen, where were/are cheaper than the F-15 and Typhoon and smaller and guess what, both have a single engine. As for carrier operations the Rafale is the exception when it comes to the French Navy. As far as jets are concerned with the exception of the old navalised Magister, it is the only twin engines jet platform they have used. As for the USN, well both the F-35 and their planned UCAV have only a single engine.

Also going by peoples definition of Air Superiority, there have only been two platforms in recent memory developed in the west that meet it, this being the F-15A/C and F-22 and that is it. Even the USAF have realised that single role platforms are unaffordable, and so both have has an attack capability incorporated.

(My bad with the SU-15 Flagon, I got confused with another plane)

[shark bait]

Also going by peoples definition of Air Superiority, there have only been two platforms in recent memory developed in the west that meet it, this being the F-15A/C and F-22

Typhoon?
Su-27?
Su-35?

Can nations other than the USA actually afford a single role Air superiority Fighter

Who said single role?

Develop a good superiority fighter and it will be a good platform in other roles. (see Typhoon)

The reverse it not true. (see Tornado)

[Lord Jim]

But that is the point, the F-15 and F-22 were designed as Air Superiority platforms. Aircraft like the Typhoon are very capable but are not Air Superiority platforms. The Mirage 2000C was a pure fighter in French service yet it has been said it was not an Air Superiority platform. So what is the difference between a pure Fighter and an Air Superiority platform? is it the role an aircraft is designed for or the ability of said aircraft to carry it out? I am going down this route because I strongly believe you do not need two engines to be a good swing role platform able to carry out fighter/air defence duties effectively.

Saying all of that however, I cannot see "Tempest" delivering a manned platform to the RAF but rather upgrades to the Typhoon and possibly the F-35. The next manned platform bought for the RAF will probably be to replace the F-35 as this will eventually replace the Typhoon if the UK actually orders and receives the full amount it has stated it intends to. The FJ strength of the RAF has only been temporarily increased and will eventually drop back to the seven or eight squadrons grouped together at two locations. At most, including the OCU and OEU, that necessitated a fleet of 120 with the remaining airframes in storage.

What may appear in RAF service sooner is a UCAV FJ, and this could utilise technologies developed through "Tempest". This would supplement the F-35 in RAF service and would be a good prospect for export sales.

It must be my age but the SU-27 and SU-35 weren't developed in the West

[SKB]

I don't think they even told us what kind of fighter Tempest is intended to be. Dogfighter, Interceptor, Strike bomber.... etc.. ?