Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[JakobS]

bMNSB.jpg

This is Saabs concept for a single engined "smaller" fighter jet. One have to keep that in mind when discussing "splitting" Tempest in a bigger version and a smaller single engined version. 170 kN engine, MTOW 23500 kg etc, there really isn't anything small and less expensive about a 5th/6th generation fighters with internal weapons and fuel.

I don't really see more than one airframe for the project. When our (swedish) air force is so small as it is today a Gripen sized plane is not really in the cards anymore. it will cost way to much money for the capability it delivers. Saab knows it, SAF knows it, Swedish defence ministry knows it etc.

[Meriv9]

Sorry but I dont understand something.

I do realize that the Baltics are really undefendable but they are still an obstacle.

Is Sweden still a frontline country? Being in the EU its foreign politics can still be the same as in the past?

I do understand the need for Low-High mix but i would develop the single engine more for East Europe countries than for Sweden.

I'm wrong?

[ArmChairCivvy]

started going wrong with Boeing when they moved their corporate HQ to Chicago IMHO, they became too close to the bankers

Quite a price to pay... for not liking to FLY that distance

[military]

Thanks to Airbus, Boeing needs to be aggressive on price for its commercial planes. Maybe all the outsourcing was originally a move to get around US labour unions? Maybe this is related to the move to South Carolina mentioned above.

Also, subcontractors can be fired without Boeing executives getting backlash for worker terminations.

I have no idea whether Britain's subcontracting role in civilian projects will be sticky or not. Presumably this business is competitive so the companies involved know they must stay lean.

[SW1]

Thanks to Airbus, Boeing needs to be aggressive on price for its commercial planes. Maybe all the outsourcing was originally a move to get around US labour unions? Maybe this is related to the move to South Carolina mentioned above.

Also, subcontractors can be fired without Boeing executives getting backlash for worker terminations.

I have no idea whether Britain's subcontracting role in civilian projects will be sticky or not. Presumably this business is competitive so the companies involved know they must stay lean.

Across Aerospace certainly in the UK there has been a big shift over the last decade to using contract staff both in the engineering but also more on the shop floor, companies don’t want the overhead and the hassle of unions ruling shop floors Boeing are doing something similar with it’s more to Charleston without doubt.

This has been coupled with productions facilities far more advanced than there military equivalents for production of the newest Clean sheet airliners requiring much less labour. It’s very sadly an industry and workforce very badly hit by Covid and largely gone unnoticed.

[Lord Jim]

I have just read in an article on Tempest, that Sweden has no intention what so ever of purchasing any platform that emerges from the programme. Instead they wish to utilise the advanced technologies developed to improve the Gripen, keeping it relevant well into the 2030s and beyond.

[SW1]

I have just read in an article on Tempest, that Sweden has no intention what so ever of purchasing any platform that emerges from the programme. Instead they wish to utilise the advanced technologies developed to improve the Gripen, keeping it relevant well into the 2030s and beyond.

That was what they said when they signed up to the program.

[military]

Across Aerospace certainly in the UK there has been a big shift over the last decade to using contract staff both in the engineering but also more on the shop floor, companies don’t want the overhead and the hassle of unions ruling shop floors Boeing are doing something similar with it’s more to Charleston without doubt.

This has been coupled with productions facilities far more advanced than there military equivalents for production of the newest Clean sheet airliners requiring much less labour. It’s very sadly an industry and workforce very badly hit by Covid and largely gone unnoticed.

Sounds like big up front investments in tooling that won't pay off if air travel does not return to normal. Maybe there will be some sort of government support given the importance of the sector to Ben Wallace at least, given his recent article in The Sunday Times.

[Jensy]

I have just read in an article on Tempest, that Sweden has no intention what so ever of purchasing any platform that emerges from the programme. Instead they wish to utilise the advanced technologies developed to improve the Gripen, keeping it relevant well into the 2030s and beyond.

That was what they said when they signed up to the program.

Plus repeated it with nearly every single announcement made since. Fair enough. It is good to know where they stand.

For all intents and purposes Gripen NG is a brand new aircraft, much like the Super Hornet, that shares some components with its predecessor and is in production. I believe Sweden intends to keep some of its legacy C/D models flying for some time too. Either way they're pretty well equipped until the mid-30s, so can take their time.

If we can share experience and costs in developing major parts of Tempest, that also benefit the future of Gripen, then I can't see a downside.

Sweden hasn't been in the market for a twin engined, supersonic aircraft since the very beautiful, Olympus powered Saab 36 bomber was cancelled in the 60s...

[ArmChairCivvy]

there will be some sort of government support given the importance of the sector to Ben Wallace at least

He is also the ship-building czar. Anything (many a thing within defence) that uses AI will also receive state aid. Cars, hmmm, we only need so many and the exports will be stymied by tariffs.

I believe Sweden intends to keep some of its legacy C/D models flying for some time too. Either way they're pretty well equipped until the mid-30s, so can take their time.

Yes, they will temporarily (using the old fleet) double the numbers and by mid-30s two of the main parties want defence spending to be 2.5% of the GDP.

since the very beautiful, Olympus powered Saab 36 bomber was cancelled in the 60s...

as was their nuclear prgrm (the two were linked, though that was not ever said).

[Jensy]

Still just baby steps but in the right direction:

UK’s Tempest air defence project set for £50m Saab investment
Boost from Swedish contractor comes as Ministry of Defence weighs spending plans in strategic defence review

Link to FT(£) Article: https://www.ft.com/content/f654250d-9af ... 3f9add107a

Sweden’s leading defence contractor will this week announce plans to invest an initial £50m in the UK to develop technology for future combat air systems.

The move by Saab provides a timely boost to the UK-led Tempest future fighter project as the Ministry of Defence weighs its spending priorities for a strategic defence review that is expected later this year. Industry is hoping for a government commitment to the future combat air requirement in the review, people close to the subject said.

Micael Johansson, Saab’s chief executive, said his company intended to set up a research centre in the UK to be close to BAE Systems’ Tempest teams, which are based in Lancashire. The investment was proof of his company’s commitment to the UK and the programme, he stressed.

“Combat air capability is extremely important for us and a security interest for Sweden,” he said. “This is absolutely a sign that it is critically important to us to be part of this combat air development. It is a sign of how important the UK is to us.”

Saab, maker of the Gripen combat jet, employs more than 300 people in the UK and has long been a supplier to all three armed services. The number of jobs to be created by the £50m investment, which will focus on developing sensor and aeronautics technology, had not yet been decided, the company said.

The Swedish defence ministry earlier this month said it intended to begin examining its requirements for a next-generation combat air system. In an apparent reference to Tempest, it said the study could include “studies, technology development, and demonstrator activities in collaboration with one or more international partners”.

[dmereifield]

Still just baby steps but in the right direction:

UK’s Tempest air defence project set for £50m Saab investment
Boost from Swedish contractor comes as Ministry of Defence weighs spending plans in strategic defence review

Link to FT(£) Article: https://www.ft.com/content/f654250d-9af ... 3f9add107a

Sweden’s leading defence contractor will this week announce plans to invest an initial £50m in the UK to develop technology for future combat air systems.

The move by Saab provides a timely boost to the UK-led Tempest future fighter project as the Ministry of Defence weighs its spending priorities for a strategic defence review that is expected later this year. Industry is hoping for a government commitment to the future combat air requirement in the review, people close to the subject said.

Micael Johansson, Saab’s chief executive, said his company intended to set up a research centre in the UK to be close to BAE Systems’ Tempest teams, which are based in Lancashire. The investment was proof of his company’s commitment to the UK and the programme, he stressed.

“Combat air capability is extremely important for us and a security interest for Sweden,” he said. “This is absolutely a sign that it is critically important to us to be part of this combat air development. It is a sign of how important the UK is to us.”

Saab, maker of the Gripen combat jet, employs more than 300 people in the UK and has long been a supplier to all three armed services. The number of jobs to be created by the £50m investment, which will focus on developing sensor and aeronautics technology, had not yet been decided, the company said.

The Swedish defence ministry earlier this month said it intended to begin examining its requirements for a next-generation combat air system. In an apparent reference to Tempest, it said the study could include “studies, technology development, and demonstrator activities in collaboration with one or more international partners”.

Positive, but isn'tthis the same £50 million that was announced previously?

[bobp]

Positive, but isn'tthis the same £50 million that was announced previously?

Yes i am 100 percent sure have heard all this before. A lot of the 50 million will go into the new building but still a welcome research boost all the same.

[SW1]

Yes was announce at the online farnborough event in July, guess it takes the FT 2 months to catch up

[bobp]

It appears the US has been hiding something for a while,

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ghter-jet/

[Roders96]

I know off topic but - could this be why there's been slow uptake on F35B orders?

Could they be hoping for an F35B batch II, to work out some of the kinks? We all know it's not a perfect jet.

Helps us understand why they've been so accommodating with lending airframes etc, if they don't want to buy it themselves they definitely won't expect us to!

[jedibeeftrix]

Justin Bronk to the Commons committee looking at carrier strike:

Tempest - on current budgets - if you want:
Something capable of the expeditionary strike and SEAD/DEAD roles in the highest threat environments ~2040 it [will] be unmanned.
Something more modest - looking only to cover the roles QRA + limited strike style roles of EF2000 block2... then, yes, it can be manned.

Choose.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yeah, the problem
" the U.S. industrial base has dwindled from 10 manufacturers capable of building an advanced fighter to only three defense companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The time it takes the Air Force to move a new fighter from research and development to full-rate production has stretched from a matter of years to multiple decades.

The result is that every fighter program becomes existential for companies"

Biz case
AF "Leaders found that by applying digital manufacturing and development practices — as used by the T-7 program, as well as in the development of the NGAD prototype — it could drop the total life cycle cost"

Solution, err, at least as I see it
The Big Three will still compete with designs from their in-house teams,
BUT
the actual production line becomes shared, just like the tank factory in the US is Gvmnt owned and then only leased to whoever wins with their design (every 50 years, or so in that case)
WHEREAS a digital design is easily transferable onto a suitably equipped line
- luckily we are also " in that game", with BAE and Saab pooling their expertise gained in it (as was done between Boeing and Saab for the T-7)

[Roders96]

A poblem with this view is that a significant portion of the programme cost is across both training of workforce, and tooling. Each unique to each new product made.

Please read training of the workforce as building experience of building that specific jet in every worker on the line, and by tooling I mean manufacturing the moulds and machinery that are unique to the construction of that specific jet.

These are significant costs that don't go away if you start doing it all under a shared roof. There are secondary benefits to this, such as broader experience in the regional labour pool surrounding the factory, also known as agglomeration effects, but these are in no way targeted at the programme you're wanting.

There will be benefits, just not as many as hoped.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think we are a generation apart - and not talking about respective physical ages.

But the approach is gaining hold: T31 assembly line, T-7, now the hype about cycle times with the new fighter (I think the US, China and Russia take turns in trying to spook each other )... not to mention Tempest (as described, but only on paper so far).

[SW1]

It doesn’t necessarily take very long to develop a prototype to conduct experimental flying because you tend to use off the shelf systems. Like for example a tornados landing gear and a typhoon engine ect ect. You also don’t have to take account of the full design loops. The x-35 for example was built and flown reasonably quickly. The question will always be how much of that are you willing to accept into a production airframe how much are you willing to accept off the shelf systems. It’s productionising the design and its entry into service that are always the difficult bits.

Whatever the uk decides to do it have to be easier to upgrade and integrate things onto than what’s gone before and it needs to focus on the boring stuff like ensuring material and part selection pushes service intervals as far apart as is possible, reducing there duration and all the while reducing the number specialist personnel required to carry out such servicing. While reducing the amount of retraining requiring to operate and maintain it for existing personnel.

[bobp]

More information here....

https://www.airforcemag.com/roper-revea ... e-details/

[Ron5]

More information here....

https://www.airforcemag.com/roper-revea ... e-details/

This is what @Lord Jim was telling us could happen with Tempest given SAAB is part of the team. Gotta give him kudos for that

[Ron5]

It doesn’t necessarily take very long to develop a prototype to conduct experimental flying because you tend to use off the shelf systems. Like for example a tornados landing gear and a typhoon engine ect ect. You also don’t have to take account of the full design loops. The x-35 for example was built and flown reasonably quickly. The question will always be how much of that are you willing to accept into a production airframe how much are you willing to accept off the shelf systems. It’s productionising the design and its entry into service that are always the difficult bits.

Whatever the uk decides to do it have to be easier to upgrade and integrate things onto than what’s gone before and it needs to focus on the boring stuff like ensuring material and part selection pushes service intervals as far apart as is possible, reducing there duration and all the while reducing the number specialist personnel required to carry out such servicing. While reducing the amount of retraining requiring to operate and maintain it for existing personnel.

It's the software that's the gating factor these days. Not seen anything that will result in it being developed & supported any quicker.

[Ron5]

Justin Bronk to the Commons committee looking at carrier strike:

Tempest - on current budgets - if you want:
Something capable of the expeditionary strike and SEAD/DEAD roles in the highest threat environments ~2040 it [will] be unmanned.
Something more modest - looking only to cover the roles QRA + limited strike style roles of EF2000 block2... then, yes, it can be manned.

Choose.

Bronk's an effing idiot. I wouldn't ask him his opinion on what donut to buy in the morning. Typical schoolboy, thinks he knows everything - has actually done nothing.