Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Interesting slide from the USAF, how does the RAF implement those recommendations within Tempest?
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Of course most of those also make life easier for the enemy.
What does your company make, washing machines?
What does your company make, washing machines?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Gas Turbines, a bit more powerful than a washing machine, and we do have variants with and without american content for different markets for the reasons above.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I’ll second the ‘why?’.Ron5 wrote:Paranoid rubbish. If tempest is ever built, of course it will have US content. Jeesh.
Why is it paranoid rubbish?
Why is it mandatory to have US content?
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
1. Paranoid = having US content means the US will block bids to enable US companies to win.mr.fred wrote:I’ll second the ‘why?’.Ron5 wrote:Paranoid rubbish. If tempest is ever built, of course it will have US content. Jeesh.
Why is it paranoid rubbish?
Why is it mandatory to have US content?
2. Mandatory is your word, nobody else's.
3. The US aerospace industry is so large and dominant, it's very hard to find any Western aircraft without US content. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
1. It does give the US a say in your sales.Ron5 wrote:
1. Paranoid = having US content means the US will block bids to enable US companies to win.
2. Mandatory is your word, nobody else's.
3. The US aerospace industry is so large and dominant, it's very hard to find any Western aircraft without US content. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
https://www.janes.com/article/78047/sca ... ng-blocked
Case in point. Allegedly
2. Indeed. Maybe a slightly more inflammatory word than “certain that”, which would also be synonymous with “of course it will”, but why does that bother you?
3. China supplies most of the worlds computer chips, but the US has concerns about that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fears.html
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Yep the French are trying to get the Egyptians to accept a delay so they can rework the SCALP to include no US parts as it is being blocked.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
1. Not the same case at all. The US is not blocking the sale to give an advantage to a US equivalent product.mr.fred wrote:1. It does give the US a say in your sales.Ron5 wrote:
1. Paranoid = having US content means the US will block bids to enable US companies to win.
2. Mandatory is your word, nobody else's.
3. The US aerospace industry is so large and dominant, it's very hard to find any Western aircraft without US content. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
https://www.janes.com/article/78047/sca ... ng-blocked
Case in point. Allegedly
2. Indeed. Maybe a slightly more inflammatory word than “certain that”, which would also be synonymous with “of course it will”, but why does that bother you?
3. China supplies most of the worlds computer chips, but the US has concerns about that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... fears.html
2. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. A childish form of debate. I am not bothered by your use of the word "mandatory", merely pointing out nobody had said that previously.
3. Totally irrelevant.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
1. Although the US is (allegedly) blocking a sale. I can see that being a concern for people wishing to sell their product overseas, regardless of the reason.Ron5 wrote: 1. Not the same case at all. The US is not blocking the sale to give an advantage to a US equivalent product.
2. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. A childish form of debate. I am not bothered by your use of the word "mandatory", merely pointing out nobody had said that previously.
3. Totally irrelevant.
2. If it didn’t bother you, you wouldn’t have mentioned it. Does it matter that I introduced it?
3. Do you think so? I don’t. Seems very comparable to me.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
The problem is the source codes, is it Washington will accept that London has the source codes of the Tempest Anglo-American, or American-British, while this is not the case for the F-35, although the UK is the only first level partner of the program. It's a real problem.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Last comment from me.mr.fred wrote:1. Although the US is (allegedly) blocking a sale. I can see that being a concern for people wishing to sell their product overseas, regardless of the reason.Ron5 wrote: 1. Not the same case at all. The US is not blocking the sale to give an advantage to a US equivalent product.
2. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. A childish form of debate. I am not bothered by your use of the word "mandatory", merely pointing out nobody had said that previously.
3. Totally irrelevant.
2. If it didn’t bother you, you wouldn’t have mentioned it. Does it matter that I introduced it?
3. Do you think so? I don’t. Seems very comparable to me.
You are shifting ground, arguing something that is tangential to the original comment. Once again, a childish form of debate.
1. I labelled "paranoid rubbish" the comments that claimed the US would block Tempest sales for commercial gain. You are talking about US blocking for totally different reasons.
2. Of course I can mention a misleading comment in your post without being "bothered" about it.
3. Still totally irrelevant. Chinese chips have nothing to do with US components that will undoubtedly be part of any future Tempest.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
It's source code, not codes. Not sure why you think US retention of F-35 source code is any more problematical than say French retention of Rafale source code when that aircraft is sold abroad.Frenchie wrote:The problem is the source codes, is it Washington will accept that London has the source codes of the Tempest Anglo-American, or American-British, while this is not the case for the F-35, although the UK is the only first level partner of the program. It's a real problem.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Sorry for my approximative english.
The Rafale is available with a real total transfer of technology, including source code, as a result, a country could, in complete independence, ensure the maintenance, support and development of its Rafale, the integration of weapons, communication systems. Thus, it is not necessary to communicate sensitive informations to France during updates of the aircraft system.
The Rafale is available with a real total transfer of technology, including source code, as a result, a country could, in complete independence, ensure the maintenance, support and development of its Rafale, the integration of weapons, communication systems. Thus, it is not necessary to communicate sensitive informations to France during updates of the aircraft system.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
1. The US can and will block sales for non-commercial reasons. Why would they not block sales for commercial reasons?Ron5 wrote:
Last comment from me.
You are shifting ground, arguing something that is tangential to the original comment. Once again, a childish form of debate.
1. I labelled "paranoid rubbish" the comments that claimed the US would block Tempest sales for commercial gain. You are talking about US blocking for totally different reasons.
2. Of course I can mention a misleading comment in your post without being "bothered" about it.
3. Still totally irrelevant. Chinese chips have nothing to do with US components that will undoubtedly be part of any future Tempest.
2. If you truly aren’t bothered, then you would have fooled a casual observer. Even here you are going on about it being misleading. Why is it misleading? Someone who wasn’t bothered by it would let it stand without comment. I’d like to think that someone who was bothered by it would a) admit they were bothered by it and b) explain why they were bothered by it.
3. So a country aiming to source components locally for national security purposes is irrelevant to a country trying to source components locally for national security purposes? As you like it.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
If they follow the F35 set up in reverse. The UK owning the source codes while allowing full acsess to the sourse codes. With the Americans having the independent ability to write there own codes. There would no be the problem. There was problem early in the f35 development when the UK was prepared to leave the program over acsess to source codes.Frenchie wrote:The problem is the source codes, is it Washington will accept that London has the source codes of the Tempest Anglo-American, or American-British, while this is not the case for the F-35, although the UK is the only first level partner of the program. It's a real problem.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
BAE future fighter concepts paper I found quite interesting. Unfortunately, I have a feeling much of this will be well out of our league cost wise and probably more aimed at USAFs sixth gen efforts...
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_432748_en.pdf
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_432748_en.pdf
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Also one from Cranfield - the U.K. combat air parts of their cost reduction group papers. Relevant to some of our thinking for tempest?
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/~/media/fil ... ashx?la=en
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/~/media/fil ... ashx?la=en
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... yet-there/
Britain has asked for what started as a technology demonstrator for a combat UAV to refocus toward a study of “technology areas,” she said. That left the door open for the technology to be applied for large programs, such as the Franco-German Future Combat Air System, she added.
“The story is not yet written,” she said. “Perhaps in the next few years the British could be by our side on the FCAS project. But maybe I am just dreaming. We’re not there yet.”
Britain has asked for what started as a technology demonstrator for a combat UAV to refocus toward a study of “technology areas,” she said. That left the door open for the technology to be applied for large programs, such as the Franco-German Future Combat Air System, she added.
“The story is not yet written,” she said. “Perhaps in the next few years the British could be by our side on the FCAS project. But maybe I am just dreaming. We’re not there yet.”
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... s-MUT.html
These campaigns included demonstrations with five Airbus-built Do-DT25 target drones controlled from a mission group commander who was airborne in a manned command and control (C2) aircraft.
Flown in a test zone of Germany’s Baltic Sea area, the MUT trial flights served multiple purposes, including validating such elements as connectivity, human-machine interface, and the concept of teaming intelligence through mission group management. For the aspect of teaming intelligence, multiple capabilities and enabling technologies are required at sufficient maturity levels – from teaming/swarming algorithms and new sensors to mission management systems for command and control assistance by the manned aircraft’s crew.
These campaigns included demonstrations with five Airbus-built Do-DT25 target drones controlled from a mission group commander who was airborne in a manned command and control (C2) aircraft.
Flown in a test zone of Germany’s Baltic Sea area, the MUT trial flights served multiple purposes, including validating such elements as connectivity, human-machine interface, and the concept of teaming intelligence through mission group management. For the aspect of teaming intelligence, multiple capabilities and enabling technologies are required at sufficient maturity levels – from teaming/swarming algorithms and new sensors to mission management systems for command and control assistance by the manned aircraft’s crew.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
The UK controlled a BAC 111 and three simulated ucavs from a Tornado all the way back in 2007. Hope the know how has not been squandered.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I de Japan has rejected the Lockheed F22/F35 hybrid as a replacement for the aging F-2.
Could this be good news for us and the tempest project ?
Maybe a coalition of the U.K, Sweden, Italy and Japan ?
Could this be good news for us and the tempest project ?
Maybe a coalition of the U.K, Sweden, Italy and Japan ?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Can only hope the British officials are already out there woowing their Japanese counterparts, it would give tempest the credibility it needs to get off the drawing board.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Why officials; they have given the companies the R&D moneyshark bait wrote:Can only hope the British officials are already out there woowing their Japanese counterparts
"British project will be run by BAE Systems, Italy's Leonardo, engine maker Rolls Royce, and missile maker MBDA.
It may also look to Boeing, which recently teamed with Brazil's Embraer and has close ties to Saab, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at Teal Group."
Even though the quote (from BusinessInsider) is old, from Farnborough days, it underlines the fact that there will be only one winner in the US 6th gen fighter competition, and should it not be Boeing, this time they won't sit on their hands as it could easily mean exiting he fighter business
- rather, they would be looking to join in
Going back to officials vs. companies, sure there will be problems with security clearance in x-border activities. Hence, the companies should start to probe tech sharing (both ways) and then present a possible consortium to the Gvmnts as I am pretty sure they will not see rqrmnts specs before it is known who will be in and who will be out (ehhm, that four letter word "work share" will raise its ugly head and restrict the number that can realistically be in... it won't be an other F-35 where LM gets to cement its monopoly and Uncle Sam is paying for it to do so).
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I thought the US was going for 2 6th gen one for the USAF and the other for the USN learning from the F35 project that one aircraft type split between 3 variants isn't the best way, and the navy deciding that the F35c won't be replacing the F18s on there own.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why officials; they have given the companies the R&D moneyshark bait wrote:Can only hope the British officials are already out there woowing their Japanese counterparts
"British project will be run by BAE Systems, Italy's Leonardo, engine maker Rolls Royce, and missile maker MBDA.
It may also look to Boeing, which recently teamed with Brazil's Embraer and has close ties to Saab, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at Teal Group."
Even though the quote (from BusinessInsider) is old, from Farnborough days, it underlines the fact that there will be only one winner in the US 6th gen fighter competition, and should it not be Boeing, this time they won't sit on their hands as it could easily mean exiting he fighter business
- rather, they would be looking to join in
Going back to officials vs. companies, sure there will be problems with security clearance in x-border activities. Hence, the companies should start to probe tech sharing (both ways) and then present a possible consortium to the Gvmnts as I am pretty sure they will not see rqrmnts specs before it is known who will be in and who will be out (ehhm, that four letter word "work share" will raise its ugly head and restrict the number that can realistically be in... it won't be an other F-35 where LM gets to cement its monopoly and Uncle Sam is paying for it to do so).