Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the UK should push forward with Tempest and HMG should set out a 30 billion pound program to deliver 180 aircraft this would see a cost per airframe around 160 million pounds however with tax return's to HMG and possible exports this could come down

As a side like all the services the RAF's fast jet force has been cut to far and I think we should have 10 front line fast jet units with at this time that being 8 Typhoon and 2 F-35 added to this should be 3 FAA fast jet units of F-35. This would then see Typhoon units replaced with Tempest units

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:HMG should set out a 30 billion pound program to deliver 180 aircraft
A quick 'back of a fag packet' calculation, taking the starting point from the letter by Minister for Defence Proc to the Defence Committee (Chair):
"the F-35 Production,Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU, signed by F-35 Partner Nations
including the UK in 2006, sets out arrangements for further development of the aircraft.
Subject to approval, the MoD intends to commit funding in the coming months to the
next phase of development on Follow-on Modernisation (FOM), which will deliver the
Block 4 standard."
So, limited investment (£ 2 bn) into the R£D phase, all in all £ 10 bn for the first 48 for the first ten years, before digging into the back of the sofa for Block 4 (and more a/c?).

A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree it is a big ask however we would need to keep it at around this level or we have to start asking is it worth doing. for this amount we would have to keep it to a land based aircraft only

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree, to me £30bn seems extremely optimistic just for development costs. For development and 180 production aircraft I'd be looking at double that at least.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Pseudo wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree, to me £30bn seems extremely optimistic just for development costs. For development and 180 production aircraft I'd be looking at double that at least.
Based on what?

And what’s the cost of not doing it?

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:what’s the cost of not doing it?
We sell all the 'Tempest' modules to Japan and buy back their plane.

A net/ net zero export/ import wise. Money-wise :?:
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 »

Pseudo wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree, to me £30bn seems extremely optimistic just for development costs. For development and 180 production aircraft I'd be looking at double that at least.
I disagree. Will the skills and experience that BAe has gained in being involved in the TF-X programme, F35, Hawk-i in the recent years, and modern computer based design approaches to rapid prototyping, I expect the cost be be 15billion for the development costs or less. At the outset, the programme has adoped an agile approach to the entire delivery programme. The F35 programme is not a proper benchmark to assess the development costs of a jet. That sole purpose of the F35 programme was to develop a profit making machine for Lockheed Martin that can never be killed off. This basis principle has resulted in infrastructure to support the F35 programme in virtually every single state in the USA...... common sense will apply to the Tempest programme, that is the key asset that Saab/Sweden bring to the table. Cost effective platform development techniques.. and, we dont have to put up with the French or Germans whose sole purpose in military development programmes is make is a theatrical political act to to jostle for power and influence, no matter the cost on the programme..

How much did it take for BAe to get the EAP prototype flying, and then how much "extra costs" did the "cost sharing" add to the programme when the French, and Germans were added to the programme ?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

SW1 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree, to me £30bn seems extremely optimistic just for development costs. For development and 180 production aircraft I'd be looking at double that at least.
Based on what?
Inflation is a big factor. At 2% inflation what would cost £30bn in 2020 costs £40bn 2035 and what costs £45bn in 2020 costs £60bn in 2035. Though there's also the other issue of in the very likely event that there are developmental difficulties the programme in service date is already running up against the far end of the Typhoon's service life so those developmental difficulties will have to be overcome quickly and overcoming developmental difficulties quickly is usually costly.
And what’s the cost of not doing it?
Depends on what the alternatives are, but my guess is that a solution based around a future CTOL F-35 variant and something like the XQ-58 or Loyal Wingman would cost a lot less than a domestically produced solution and deliver close enough the UK's requirements. However, cost isn't the reason for a domestic programme. It's at least as much about the commercial, industrial and research benefits along with the reputational benefits, and to my way of thinking those make a domestic project worth the cost even if it's $60bn or more.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Roders96 »

SD67 wrote:
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?
The competing priority may be having an air force in numbers.

May not be too - if loyal wingman turns out to be something worth having.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Pseudo wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree, to me £30bn seems extremely optimistic just for development costs. For development and 180 production aircraft I'd be looking at double that at least.
Based on what?
Inflation is a big factor. At 2% inflation what would cost £30bn in 2020 costs £40bn 2035 and what costs £45bn in 2020 costs £60bn in 2035. Though there's also the other issue of in the very likely event that there are developmental difficulties the programme in service date is already running up against the far end of the Typhoon's service life so those developmental difficulties will have to be overcome quickly and overcoming developmental difficulties quickly is usually costly.
And what’s the cost of not doing it?
Depends on what the alternatives are, but my guess is that a solution based around a future CTOL F-35 variant and something like the XQ-58 or Loyal Wingman would cost a lot less than a domestically produced solution and deliver close enough the UK's requirements. However, cost isn't the reason for a domestic programme. It's at least as much about the commercial, industrial and research benefits along with the reputational benefits, and to my way of thinking those make a domestic project worth the cost even if it's $60bn or more.
Well the cost of typhoon development was about £5b pounds for the U.K. Germany a similar amount. We then spent about 12.5b pounds acquiring 160 odd aircraft. So that’s a frame of reference.

Having said that it is not in the public domain what the aircraft looks like, what the requirements on the aircraft are, what systems they are looking to build it around and the missions that are being asked of it. Until more information is available it’s pure guessing what any development cost will be. Are you looking at purely procurement cost or how you improve training integration both pilots and ground crew, thru life and support costs by designing things in from the start.

When I mention cost of not doing it, i do not mean purely financial. Whatever we are buying instead will have a cost, as you allude to what happens to military aircraft engine capability in the U.K. if your aircraft are all using Pratt and Whitney engines why would anyone buy yours, likewise radar and sensor businesses if your using Northrop Grumman radars.
Your ground test and flight test capabilities, weapons manufacturing business. You could go thru a whole list of industries already hammered by covid that simply put if you walk away from the military business will simply not continue in the anything like there present guise.

It will get to a point if not already that the electorate will simply ask why are you spending our tax payers money to buy American products while closing down our own manufacturing capabilities given everything that’s gone on this past year and levelling up agenda so vigorously being pushed it would seem wholly the wrong direction.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

SW1 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Pseudo wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:A more central role in R&D could (?) mean more cost, but forgetting that and thru-life costs (anybody's guess), the case of getting 150-ish for 30 bn looks a bit optimistic considering that the overall costs will be shared across a production volume likely to be a quarter (max) of the F-35 production... of course we can try to avoid three variants and too much 'parallelism'
I agree, to me £30bn seems extremely optimistic just for development costs. For development and 180 production aircraft I'd be looking at double that at least.
Based on what?
Inflation is a big factor. At 2% inflation what would cost £30bn in 2020 costs £40bn 2035 and what costs £45bn in 2020 costs £60bn in 2035. Though there's also the other issue of in the very likely event that there are developmental difficulties the programme in service date is already running up against the far end of the Typhoon's service life so those developmental difficulties will have to be overcome quickly and overcoming developmental difficulties quickly is usually costly.
And what’s the cost of not doing it?
Depends on what the alternatives are, but my guess is that a solution based around a future CTOL F-35 variant and something like the XQ-58 or Loyal Wingman would cost a lot less than a domestically produced solution and deliver close enough the UK's requirements. However, cost isn't the reason for a domestic programme. It's at least as much about the commercial, industrial and research benefits along with the reputational benefits, and to my way of thinking those make a domestic project worth the cost even if it's $60bn or more.
Well the cost of typhoon development was about £5b pounds for the U.K. Germany a similar amount. We then spent about 12.5b pounds acquiring 160 odd aircraft. So that’s a frame of reference.
My understanding is that the approximate basic cost of Typhoon is £75m and in 2011 the NAO estimated that the developmental costs and the purchase of 160 examples cost the UK £20.2bn, which would make the UK's share of development costs £8bn. So, if Germany contributed the same amount that's £16bn. AIUI the UK and Germany contributed two thirds of the development costs with Spain and Italy contributing the other third between them. That takes us to £24bn in 2011, which due to inflation would be £30.5bn today according to the BoE inflation calculator.

Now, £30bn in 2035 money would be equivalent to £22.5bn today at 2% inflation and I just don't see the development of Tempest costing less than the development of Typhoon, and given that the UK will be footing a much larger share of the development cost due to it being developed with fewer and less wealthy partners it's almost certain that the UK will be taking on a much larger share of whatever the development cost of Tempest ends up being.
When I mention cost of not doing it, i do not mean purely financial.
Yes, you'll note from the post that you're responding to that I appreciate that and I'm more than sympathetic to the argument that the benefits of such a programme go far beyond the financial.
It will get to a point if not already that the electorate will simply ask why are you spending our tax payers money to buy American products while closing down our own manufacturing capabilities given everything that’s gone on this past year and levelling up agenda so vigorously being pushed it would seem wholly the wrong direction.
But then if the spends billions developing equipment that they could have bought from the US for half the price then the electorate will simply ask why aren't you getting the most for their money. Sadly, military procurement is very much a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition as far as how it plays in electoral politics outside of the areas that directly benefit from the jobs that it creates and sustains.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Development of the tempest programs is already underway, why your projecting development cost fwd to 2035 I don’t know nor your calculations of 50/60b by then. Development and production costs are separate and as such over over very different time frames. You also assuming that like typhoon everything will be new and developed together it may not be and making a judgement on cost and how relevant it is will be dependant on what concept is selected.

Pseudo wrote:But then if the spends billions developing equipment that they could have bought from the US for half the price then the electorate will simply ask why aren't you getting the most for their money. Sadly, military procurement is very much a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition as far as how it plays in electoral politics outside of the areas that directly benefit from the jobs that it creates and sustains.
There is no bases on the claim that buying things from the US is half the price as developing your own. We should not and cannot be dependant on the US and it’s say so for vital military equipment.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

SW1 wrote:Development of the tempest programs is already underway, why your projecting development cost fwd to 2035 I don’t know nor your calculations of 50/60b by then.
I'm projecting the development costs to 2035 because AFAIK 2035 is the projected in service date, so when the NAO does its eventual report on how much development of Tempest cost it will be doing so in about that time, but if it makes you feel better I can do it to 2033 where instead of £30bn in 2020 being £40bn in 2035, it would be £39bn in 2033.
Development and production costs are separate and as such over over very different time frames.
They are and as I've repeatedly pointed out I'm talking about development.
You also assuming that like typhoon everything will be new and developed together it may not be and making a judgement on cost and how relevant it is will be dependant on what concept is selected.
I'm assuming that they'll be developing the systems required for the aircraft to meet the operation requirements by the time it enters service and I'm also expecting that there won't be many extant systems that meet those requirements.
Pseudo wrote:But then if the spends billions developing equipment that they could have bought from the US for half the price then the electorate will simply ask why aren't you getting the most for their money. Sadly, military procurement is very much a damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition as far as how it plays in electoral politics outside of the areas that directly benefit from the jobs that it creates and sustains.
There is no bases on the claim that buying things from the US is half the price as developing your own.
That's not the point that I was making, the point that I was making is that outside of the areas that directly benefit from the jobs that are created and sustained through domestic production then there's no real electoral advantage either way because if you buy from another country then the electorate will complain about spending taxpayers money overseas and not supporting British industry, but if you develop domestically then they'll complain that it costs too much and the government isn't getting value for money. As I say, the question of defence procurement is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition.
We should not and cannot be dependant on the US and it’s say so for vital military equipment.
Holy shit, dude. Actually read what I write. The way that you're going on you'd think that I hadn't already written in a reply to one of your earlier posts that I think that domestic development of bleeding edge technology stuff is worthwhile because of the commercial, industrial and research benefits along with the reputational benefits even if it costs substantially more than procuring an existing system from another country.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

A couple of observations - projecting inflation forward decades is a meaningless exercise. Inflation also inflates tax revenues and nominal GDP.

Research costs to 2025 are 2 billion, already budgeted for. Then assuming the partners press go there’s production development to 2030 ish then actual production.

The cost of the 2025-30 phase? Who knows but I doubt it’s physically possible to spend more than a billion a year. They days of building a fleet of prototypes are long gone.

Presumably the purchase will start as soon as our F35 purchases are finished and basically take their budget line. We spend 3 billion a year on combat air today

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 »

Please do not mention SAAB's Digital Engineering Tool Kit here are it may affect the health of certain contributors to this board who strongly believe these cannot in anyway affect how platforms are designed, developed and tested. :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 »

SD67 wrote:projecting inflation forward decades is a meaningless exercise. Inflation also inflates tax revenues and nominal GDP.
That is true. But if we want to, in some meaningful way, compare projects from high inflation decades with current/ planned projects, it would make sense to use the correction backwards, over years of known inflation rates.
- the start year for such correction factors (for England/ UK) vary from 1201 to 1751, so at least navy projects would benefit... when was it again when the effictiveness of bombardment was compared to breaking (French) windows with silver guineas
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
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Another Italian article/analysis piece from START Magazine, with commentary from their domestic Aero/Defence trade organisation:
"If we are to be honest, we need cooperation with the UK. There aren't many other programs to cooperate in. Especially in the aviation market given the closure of Germany and France", said Guido Crosetto, president of Aiad, the Federation that brings together Italian companies in the aerospace, defence and security sectors.

According to Crosetto, "cooperation on tempest is fundamental to preserve our know-how". But "it is important that cooperation with investment takes place".
The article is based upon a web seminar entitled: "The Italian-British collaboration in Defense and Security after Brexit". Attendees included Jill Morris, the UK ambassador to Italy; Guido Crosetto, Lorenzo Mariani, CEO of Mbda Italia; president of AIAD (their ADS equivalent) and Leonardo chair, Luciano Carta.

Going to a need a translator plug-in, assuming you're not fluent:
https://www.startmag.it/innovazione/leo ... on-brexit/

The article highlights:

- Common starting points for UK/IT with Typhoon and F-35 fleets
- Leonardo's vital importance to the UK and our defence industry (7,500 direct employees in the UK)
- Building on the "success" of Typhoon, at least from the perspective of Italian industry (see below quote)
- Sweden has already invested directly unlike Italy, putting it in a "strong position"
SMEs to be "viewed as partners not suppliers"
- Building upon the Brexit deal to establish a more effective multinational framework for defence collaboration
- Making the transfer of goods and services between Tempest partners as easy as under the EU
For Crosetto "it is essential for Italy to have a distribution similar to that which took place in the Eurofighter program that has made Leonardo grow but also SMEs thanks to that virtuous cooperation".
Still early days but I'm increasingly convinced that merging Tempest and SCAF is a recipe for disaster, for all involved. Admiral Dario Giacomin, Deputy Secretary General of Defence points to the EuroMale UAV as an example of how the programmes can be brought together.

If he thinks that's a success and model of effective cooperation, well I shudder to imagine his idea of a disaster. No surprises which national partner has caused delay and complications there...

Ares
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Dec 2017, 19:19
Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ares »

From the Joint statement of Japan-UK foreign and defence ministerial meeting 2021:
The four Ministers endorsed the progress of the work of the Japan-UK High Level Defence Equipment and Technology Cooperation Steering Panel on defence equipment and technology cooperation. They welcomed the ongoing dialogue on Future Combat Air System (FCAS)/F-X at subsystem level in order to understand mutual requirements and the benefits of cooperation for enhanced technology and improved cost effectiveness. The four Ministers emphasised the importance of the research programme for the demonstration of a joint new air to air missile (JNAAM). They welcomed the successful completion of the Personnel Vulnerability Evaluation in 2020 and progress made on the Project for Cooperative Research on the Feasibility of a Japan and Great Britain Universal Advanced RF system (JAGUAR).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -statement
Not yet so sure JAGUAR would relate with Leonardo's Tempest radar.

Image

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Ares wrote:From the Joint statement of Japan-UK foreign and defence ministerial meeting 2021:
The four Ministers endorsed the progress of the work of the Japan-UK High Level Defence Equipment and Technology Cooperation Steering Panel on defence equipment and technology cooperation. They welcomed the ongoing dialogue on Future Combat Air System (FCAS)/F-X at subsystem level in order to understand mutual requirements and the benefits of cooperation for enhanced technology and improved cost effectiveness. The four Ministers emphasised the importance of the research programme for the demonstration of a joint new air to air missile (JNAAM). They welcomed the successful completion of the Personnel Vulnerability Evaluation in 2020 and progress made on the Project for Cooperative Research on the Feasibility of a Japan and Great Britain Universal Advanced RF system (JAGUAR).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -statement
Not yet so sure JAGUAR would relate with Leonardo's Tempest radar.

Image
Slowly, but surely and progressively we are building the alliances to make a success of the Tempest programme and to ensure it is sustainable over the long run by building an alliance of technology partners and stakeholders.

The platform will be the easiet part of the programme(but one where the optics around a successful prototype or technology demonstrator will help crystalise support), the system of systems, and EW/Mission systems are where the greatest costs will come from and where we can get our allies involved. This JAGUAR seems to be joint R&D of future concepts of RF systems versus an implementation which Leonardo will be more involved in.

BAe's involvement with the TFX programme, and potentially now with Japan on the develoment of the Radar helps de-risk the programme significantly by getting a lead on the long-lead items.

Right now, it does seem that the Tempest programme has more brains working on it than the EU FCAS does and that lead should grow over time with projects like Jaguar(Cool name for that collaboration)....

I wish Canada and Australia were also part of this mix, fingers crossed for the future to get them involved aswell. There is alot they can add to the programme in addition to developing their own industries as series of technology contributors for a 6th generation platform.

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:BAe's involvement with the TFX programme, and potentially now with Japan on the develoment of the Radar helps de-risk the programme significantly by getting a lead on the long-lead items.
I think you have captured the essence of it... for now
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 »

I wish Canada and Australia were also part of this mix, fingers crossed for the future to get them involved as well. There is alot they can add to the programme in addition to developing their own industries as series of technology contributors for a 6th generation platform.
I doubt the Canadians will ever buy non-North American - NORAD interoperability plus political pressure, unfortunately.

Just speculating but maybe India is a long term dark horse. What is their long term Flanker replacement now they've pulled out of PAK FA? Chinese expansionism plus strategic industrial opportunities in the Software domain could make the program attractive. Gnat, Jaguar, Harrier Hawk, Tempest?

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:Flanker replacement now they've pulled out of PAK FA?
I believe their version being made into a two-seater indicated that it was meant to be part of their nuclear (delivery) triad, rather than a Flanker replacement
- as France will also need a new nuclear-capable plane, I believe India will be looking that way
- that said, separately Flankers will also need to be replaced, some day. There's enough time, though, to run one more made-in-India fighter project onto rocks, before that decision becomes pressing
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:Flanker replacement now they've pulled out of PAK FA?
I believe their version being made into a two-seater indicated that it was meant to be part of their nuclear (delivery) triad, rather than a Flanker replacement
- as France will also need a new nuclear-capable plane, I believe India will be looking that way
Interesting - I'd always assumed future nuclear delivery was the reason Rafale won. Yes it'll be interesting to see how much cash is drained by Tejas between now and then.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

SD67 wrote:Just speculating but maybe India is a long term dark horse. What is their long term Flanker replacement now they've pulled out of PAK FA? Chinese expansionism plus strategic industrial opportunities in the Software domain could make the program attractive. Gnat, Jaguar, Harrier Hawk, Tempest?
My guess is that the first question that anyone involved in having to negotiate India's procurement "process" will be to ask whether it's really worth the massive, interminable pain in the arse that it'll be.

MammaLiTurchi
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 13 Mar 2020, 13:28
Turkey

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by MammaLiTurchi »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
TheLoneRanger wrote:BAe's involvement with the TFX programme, and potentially now with Japan on the develoment of the Radar helps de-risk the programme significantly by getting a lead on the long-lead items.
I think you have captured the essence of it... for now
Actually TFX programme was a wishful thinking a few years ago, but after exclusion of Turkey from F35 circumstances brought a new momentum to the project. World's 4th largest composite manufacturing site and large design offices with powerful computers are built in couple of years, dedicated to TFX.

Although engines continue to be the main problem for TFX, many subsystems are either ready or under development in Turkey. TFX is becoming a cost effective 5th generation alternative for countries with low to medium sized defence budgets, and BAE systems is seeing the opportunity.

The plane will not necessarily be something of cutting edge tech, but will definitely have its own market and hence a nice profit source for UK participants.

Post Reply