Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[SW1]

Unless the “loyal wingmen” are largely containerised with minimal support until use, there is either going to have to be a significant increase in engineering and ground services personnel or the numbers aren’t going to be anything like what some are suggesting or they will never get off the ground.

They are certainly going to have to engineered for 'occasional use', as you say, the engineering side will be a problem otherwise.

That said, they will have to be able to carry a meaningful war load, have a good radius of action and keep up ( within reason) with Tempest.

A: engineered for infrequent use, so bespoke engine and systems build with this in mind.
B: large enough to carry a good war load and fuel
C: Have a low radar and electronic emissions signatures
D: Be at least transonic.
E: Have a good sensor suite and some AI capabilities.

That's an expensive shopping list right there!

From the above shopping list (particularly E) we're definitely talking about a platform that is neither cheap nor much more expendable than a manned combat jet.

Over in camp SCAF the focus has been on a 'remote carrier' which seems to suggest something less complex. More of an extension of the manned platform that can be used to extend payload and sensor capabilities.

Meanwhile the US and their CCA programme is definitely Gucci. With aspirations for some autonomy and scaled for The Pacific. Will be challenging to deliver at the aspired price point,

It's taken since 2015 to get Protector into service and we're still waiting. With the cancellation of Project Mosquito, and the rising importance of GCAP, perhaps we should focus on getting the big aircraft sorted first. The state of technology, and the British economy, in a decade might well have changed what can and should be delivered by a loyal wingman.

You can have relatively cheap sensors we see them everywhere integrated into various pods and simple a/c

I’d be 180 opposite in view, there is not a real need for a new manned platform, it’s getting the weapons and the attributable unmanned systems in and interacting with the current manned a/c that is more important allowing them to do the dangerous missions imo.

Protector is taking as long as it is largely due to our funding profile of it.

[Dahedd]

Unless the “loyal wingmen” are largely containerised with minimal support until use, there is either going to have to be a significant increase in engineering and ground services personnel or the numbers aren’t going to be anything like what some are suggesting or they will never get off the ground.

They are certainly going to have to engineered for 'occasional use', as you say, the engineering side will be a problem otherwise.

That said, they will have to be able to carry a meaningful war load, have a good radius of action and keep up ( within reason) with Tempest.

A: engineered for infrequent use, so bespoke engine and systems build with this in mind.
B: large enough to carry a good war load and fuel
C: Have a low radar and electronic emissions signatures
D: Be at least transonic.
E: Have a good sensor suite and some AI capabilities.

That's an expensive shopping list right there!

From the above shopping list (particularly E) we're definitely talking about a platform that is neither cheap nor much more expendable than a manned combat jet.

Over in camp SCAF the focus has been on a 'remote carrier' which seems to suggest something less complex. More of an extension of the manned platform that can be used to extend payload and sensor capabilities.

Meanwhile the US and their CCA programme is definitely Gucci. With aspirations for some autonomy and scaled for The Pacific. Will be challenging to deliver at the aspired price point,

It's taken since 2015 to get Protector into service and we're still waiting. With the cancellation of Project Mosquito, and the rising importance of GCAP, perhaps we should focus on getting the big aircraft sorted first. The state of technology, and the British economy, in a decade might well have changed what can and should be delivered by a loyal wingman.

We could concentrate on Tempest and simply buy into Ghost Bat as the unmanned companion, the Australian/US developed UCAV is advancing nicely in development and by 2030 our Antipodean cousins will have ironed out the wrinkles.

[SW1]

Unless the “loyal wingmen” are largely containerised with minimal support until use, there is either going to have to be a significant increase in engineering and ground services personnel or the numbers aren’t going to be anything like what some are suggesting or they will never get off the ground.

They are certainly going to have to engineered for 'occasional use', as you say, the engineering side will be a problem otherwise.

That said, they will have to be able to carry a meaningful war load, have a good radius of action and keep up ( within reason) with Tempest.

A: engineered for infrequent use, so bespoke engine and systems build with this in mind.
B: large enough to carry a good war load and fuel
C: Have a low radar and electronic emissions signatures
D: Be at least transonic.
E: Have a good sensor suite and some AI capabilities.

That's an expensive shopping list right there!

From the above shopping list (particularly E) we're definitely talking about a platform that is neither cheap nor much more expendable than a manned combat jet.

Over in camp SCAF the focus has been on a 'remote carrier' which seems to suggest something less complex. More of an extension of the manned platform that can be used to extend payload and sensor capabilities.

Meanwhile the US and their CCA programme is definitely Gucci. With aspirations for some autonomy and scaled for The Pacific. Will be challenging to deliver at the aspired price point,

It's taken since 2015 to get Protector into service and we're still waiting. With the cancellation of Project Mosquito, and the rising importance of GCAP, perhaps we should focus on getting the big aircraft sorted first. The state of technology, and the British economy, in a decade might well have changed what can and should be delivered by a loyal wingman.

We could concentrate on Tempest and simply buy into Ghost Bat as the unmanned companion, the Australian/US developed UCAV is advancing nicely in development and by 2030 our Antipodean cousins will have ironed out the wrinkles.

Why would we want an ITAR restricted product with zero U.K. content?

[mrclark303]

Unless the “loyal wingmen” are largely containerised with minimal support until use, there is either going to have to be a significant increase in engineering and ground services personnel or the numbers aren’t going to be anything like what some are suggesting or they will never get off the ground.

They are certainly going to have to engineered for 'occasional use', as you say, the engineering side will be a problem otherwise.

That said, they will have to be able to carry a meaningful war load, have a good radius of action and keep up ( within reason) with Tempest.

A: engineered for infrequent use, so bespoke engine and systems build with this in mind.
B: large enough to carry a good war load and fuel
C: Have a low radar and electronic emissions signatures
D: Be at least transonic.
E: Have a good sensor suite and some AI capabilities.

That's an expensive shopping list right there!

From the above shopping list (particularly E) we're definitely talking about a platform that is neither cheap nor much more expendable than a manned combat jet.

Over in camp SCAF the focus has been on a 'remote carrier' which seems to suggest something less complex. More of an extension of the manned platform that can be used to extend payload and sensor capabilities.

Meanwhile the US and their CCA programme is definitely Gucci. With aspirations for some autonomy and scaled for The Pacific. Will be challenging to deliver at the aspired price point,

It's taken since 2015 to get Protector into service and we're still waiting. With the cancellation of Project Mosquito, and the rising importance of GCAP, perhaps we should focus on getting the big aircraft sorted first. The state of technology, and the British economy, in a decade might well have changed what can and should be delivered by a loyal wingman.

We could concentrate on Tempest and simply buy into Ghost Bat as the unmanned companion, the Australian/US developed UCAV is advancing nicely in development and by 2030 our Antipodean cousins will have ironed out the wrinkles.

Why would we want an ITAR restricted product with zero U.K. content?

Because it might be the only way we can afford a fully capable and well rounded UCAV alongside Tempest development.

ITAR issues don't seem to worry the Australians too much, as all their fixed wing systems are effected.

By all means, if we get 3%GDP on defence fill your boots, but otherwise something has to give.

[SW1]

Unless the “loyal wingmen” are largely containerised with minimal support until use, there is either going to have to be a significant increase in engineering and ground services personnel or the numbers aren’t going to be anything like what some are suggesting or they will never get off the ground.

They are certainly going to have to engineered for 'occasional use', as you say, the engineering side will be a problem otherwise.

That said, they will have to be able to carry a meaningful war load, have a good radius of action and keep up ( within reason) with Tempest.

A: engineered for infrequent use, so bespoke engine and systems build with this in mind.
B: large enough to carry a good war load and fuel
C: Have a low radar and electronic emissions signatures
D: Be at least transonic.
E: Have a good sensor suite and some AI capabilities.

That's an expensive shopping list right there!

From the above shopping list (particularly E) we're definitely talking about a platform that is neither cheap nor much more expendable than a manned combat jet.

Over in camp SCAF the focus has been on a 'remote carrier' which seems to suggest something less complex. More of an extension of the manned platform that can be used to extend payload and sensor capabilities.

Meanwhile the US and their CCA programme is definitely Gucci. With aspirations for some autonomy and scaled for The Pacific. Will be challenging to deliver at the aspired price point,

It's taken since 2015 to get Protector into service and we're still waiting. With the cancellation of Project Mosquito, and the rising importance of GCAP, perhaps we should focus on getting the big aircraft sorted first. The state of technology, and the British economy, in a decade might well have changed what can and should be delivered by a loyal wingman.

We could concentrate on Tempest and simply buy into Ghost Bat as the unmanned companion, the Australian/US developed UCAV is advancing nicely in development and by 2030 our Antipodean cousins will have ironed out the wrinkles.

Why would we want an ITAR restricted product with zero U.K. content?

Because it might be the only way we can afford a fully capable and well rounded UCAV alongside Tempest development.

ITAR issues don't seem to worry the Australians too much, as all their fixed wing systems are effected.

By all means, if we get 3%GDP on defence fill your boots, but otherwise something has to give.

No ability to integrate or sell without US say so may not bother australia who just buys US and don’t have much of national industry it does for most others.

Part of protectors development for example was to remove ITAR from the system because it’s an absolute pain in the you know where right down to who can work on it.

[Jensy]

You can have relatively cheap sensors we see them everywhere integrated into various pods and simple a/c

I’d be 180 opposite in view, there is not a real need for a new manned platform, it’s getting the weapons and the attributable unmanned systems in and interacting with the current manned a/c that is more important allowing them to do the dangerous missions imo.

Protector is taking as long as it is largely due to our funding profile of it.

Was the AI/semi-autonomous element, not the sensor suite, that concerned me.

Regardless of whether the focus should be on the manned or unmanned high-end platform, the reality is we can only presently afford to pursue one (at most).

I've seen suggestions that the US is eyeing up a CCA cost of about 10-20% of NGAD, or 25-50% of an F-35. That's far too rich for our blood.



My preference would be working on something closer to the Airbus remote carrier. That is until the use case for a loyal wingman has been established. Heck, I'd even get into bed with the French on that if there was the appetite and potential to utilise elements of SPEAR 5 (FC/ASW).

Sewing discord in SCAF would be an added bonus...

[Timmymagic]

My preference would be working on something closer to the Airbus remote carrier. That is until the use case for a loyal wingman has been established. Heck, I'd even get into bed with the French on that if there was the appetite and potential to utilise elements of SPEAR 5 (FC/ASW).

Sewing discord in SCAF would be an added bonus...

A joint CCA would make some sense, but would have the potential for being too diluted across all the partners, a kind of Eurodrone mess.

The Remote Carriers however is a clear case for collaboration.

[Timmymagic]

The Australian's are beginning to look at replacement of their Superhornet fleet...and they might not be looking at F-35.....

SuperHornet squadron replacement is scheduled for....2035...there are 24 SuperHornet...suspect they'll use any SuperHornet spares etc to keep the Growler fleet running longer though.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... hter-needs

[Jensy]

The Australian's are beginning to look at replacement of their Superhornet fleet...and they might not be looking at F-35.....

SuperHornet squadron replacement is scheduled for....2035...there are 24 SuperHornet...suspect they'll use any SuperHornet spares etc to keep the Growler fleet running longer though.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... hter-needs

Was there not once a plan to upgrade their Aussie Super Bugs to Growlers? Seem to remember they were wired as such from the factory.

EW is a valuable commodity in that region.

[wargame_insomniac]

The Australian's are beginning to look at replacement of their Superhornet fleet...and they might not be looking at F-35.....

SuperHornet squadron replacement is scheduled for....2035...there are 24 SuperHornet...suspect they'll use any SuperHornet spares etc to keep the Growler fleet running longer though.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... hter-needs

I wonder if there's any chance of a Tempest tie in with Australia...

Tempest would be a perfect match for their long range air dominance requirments, China will already be working on the J-20 replacement after all.

A Hi lo mix of F35, large twin Tempest and a fleet of Ghost Bat between them would make for an absolutely formidable line up....

I am however aware the last time we piched a long range strike aircraft at Australia, it was the TSR2, we all know what happened there!

Pitch it, perhaps with the UK buying into Ghost Bat for the RAF and perhaps a naval derivative for the RN.

The 2035 time scale would align with Super Hornet thase out.

[Spitfire9]

I wonder if there's any chance of a Tempest tie in with Australia...

...

I am however aware the last time we piched a long range strike aircraft at Australia, it was the TSR2, we all know what happened there!

Didn't Mountbatten argue strenuously that nobody should buy TSR2? I think that he did his best to put Oz off buying it and successfully so. Result was similar to UK signing up for F-111 on the basis that it would cost half as much as TSR2. IIRC F-111 ended up years late and doubled in price (not sure to more than TSR2 would have cost, had Oz ordered it).

[Digger22]

Mountbatten argued for Buccaneers over TSR2. Failure of TSR2 was not the Aircraft's fault either.

[mrclark303]

Mountbatten argued for Buccaneers over TSR2. Failure of TSR2 was not the Aircraft's fault either.

Don't get me started on TSR2, I've read just about everything there is on the subject....

It was such a crying shame, fact is though, it would have just about broken the RAF operating such an expensive and complex large aircraft in the cash strapped 1970's.

[mrclark303]

As a side note, I watched a really interesting Ward Carol ( ex Tomcat RIO and interested guy, recommended) Video on YouTube the other day, he had a wider discussion regarding gen 6 etc with a British guy who certainly knew his stuff, apologies guys, I can't remember his name.

The interesting part was specifically regarding Tempest.

He specifically hypothersised that even taking high tech manufacturing and rapid prototyping into account, the size and complexity being aimed for will cost circa 40 billion.

So let's say 15 billion each for Japan and the UK and 10 billion to Italy...

Is that affordable within our current defence budget?
Can Italy afford 10 billion?

I think the answer is no and no, if the UK can sustain 2.5% of GDP pushing forward on defence then perhaps, 3% then it's doable.

So, if his hypothesis is correct, it seems a reasonable assumption and it's unaffordable, where do we go next?

An F35A deal seems most likely and affordable, perhaps a future block 5 with increased UK content and assembly in the UK, to keep Warton etc open.

[Jdam]

How much have we spend on Typhoon?

[SD67]

As a side note, I watched a really interesting Ward Carol ( ex Tomcat RIO and interested guy, recommended) Video on YouTube the other day, he had a wider discussion regarding gen 6 etc with a British guy who certainly knew his stuff, apologies guys, I can't remember his name.

The interesting part was specifically regarding Tempest.

He specifically hypothersised that even taking high tech manufacturing and rapid prototyping into account, the size and complexity being aimed for will cost circa 40 billion.

So let's say 15 billion each for Japan and the UK and 10 billion to Italy...

Is that affordable within our current defence budget?
Can Italy afford 10 billion?

I think the answer is no and no, if the UK can sustain 2.5% of GDP pushing forward on defence then perhaps, 3% then it's doable.

So, if his hypothesis is correct, it seems a reasonable assumption and it's unaffordable, where do we go next?

An F35A deal seems most likely and affordable, perhaps a future block 5 with increased UK content and assembly in the UK, to keep Warton etc open.

And here comes, right on time, our old friend - the "affordable off the shelf US option". How many times have we seen this guy? Always turns up just when a UK project is getting traction, then once the project is cancelled he suddenly becomes somewhat less affordable. 20 years to get UK weapons integrated on F35 do we seriously think LM are going to help us build our own little Spey Phantom successor?

15 Billion development over 10 years for the UK is eminently affordable - arguably less than the army's vehicle programs and not that much more than morpheus. There's I believe 20 billion set aside for fast air in the 10 year equipment plan. To put that in perspective, nuclear enterprise gets 60 billion over the same timescale.
This is before you start to consider loss of exports, loss of sovereignty, exposure to the USD which is killing us at the moment, and thw spin off benefits in AI, materials technology etc.

[SW1]

You aren’t assembling f35 at warton that ship sailed in 2009 when the government of the day said nah and Italy said yeah.

Same with military power plants when the F136 was not funded UK government could off when the yanks said they wouldn’t! F136 was what retired a number of risks on f35b for the U.K. in particular back in the 00s.

Our radar and sensor business has no aircraft to develop stuff for and complex weapons will be seriously constrained as getting them on f35 is a headache and all test and integration is done stateside.

Of course buying f35a is an option but let’s not pretend there isn’t a significant cost to going that way and a rather short sided non strategic decision at that.

[serge750]

The upside is the US would get thier 138 F35 sold to the UK ! Sooooooo many downsides !!!!!!!! would rather be a main partner than buy of shelf !

[mrclark303]

As a side note, I watched a really interesting Ward Carol ( ex Tomcat RIO and interested guy, recommended) Video on YouTube the other day, he had a wider discussion regarding gen 6 etc with a British guy who certainly knew his stuff, apologies guys, I can't remember his name.

The interesting part was specifically regarding Tempest.

He specifically hypothersised that even taking high tech manufacturing and rapid prototyping into account, the size and complexity being aimed for will cost circa 40 billion.

So let's say 15 billion each for Japan and the UK and 10 billion to Italy...

Is that affordable within our current defence budget?
Can Italy afford 10 billion?

I think the answer is no and no, if the UK can sustain 2.5% of GDP pushing forward on defence then perhaps, 3% then it's doable.

So, if his hypothesis is correct, it seems a reasonable assumption and it's unaffordable, where do we go next?

An F35A deal seems most likely and affordable, perhaps a future block 5 with increased UK content and assembly in the UK, to keep Warton etc open.

And here comes, right on time, our old friend - the "affordable off the shelf US option". How many times have we seen this guy? Always turns up just when a UK project is getting traction, then once the project is cancelled he suddenly becomes somewhat less affordable. 20 years to get UK weapons integrated on F35 do we seriously think LM are going to help us build our own little Spey Phantom successor?

15 Billion development over 10 years for the UK is eminently affordable - arguably less than the army's vehicle programs and not that much more than morpheus. There's I believe 20 billion set aside for fast air in the 10 year equipment plan. To put that in perspective, nuclear enterprise gets 60 billion over the same timescale.
This is before you start to consider loss of exports, loss of sovereignty, exposure to the USD which is killing us at the moment, and thw spin off benefits in AI, materials technology etc.

You seem to be confusing me with the guy on YouTube, did I say I agreed with his hypothesis .... Hmm No, I didn't, I mearly put the idea forward for debate

Instead of immediately going off on an F35 rant, take a breath, get off your orange box and actually examine the possibilities?

It's meant to be a discussion on defence related matters, is £15 billion affordable, is it though ?

We are talking our Thypoon contribution, made at at a time when defence spending was considerably higher in relation to the costs.

We will find out soon enough, because the next government will have to fully commit, or back out.

[mrclark303]

You aren’t assembling f35 at warton that ship sailed in 2009 when the government of the day said nah and Italy said yeah.

Same with military power plants when the F136 was not funded UK government could off when the yanks said they wouldn’t! F136 was what retired a number of risks on f35b for the U.K. in particular back in the 00s.

Our radar and sensor business has no aircraft to develop stuff for and complex weapons will be seriously constrained as getting them on f35 is a headache and all test and integration is done stateside.

Of course buying f35a is an option but let’s not pretend there isn’t a significant cost to going that way and a rather short sided non strategic decision at that.

So it's 2026, Tempest has been cancelled by Labour as it trys to balance the books.

You're the Defence Secratry, ordering a replacement is now getting critical as time ticks away?

Options????

[new guy]

Option A: Don't be in that situation.

[serge750]

Option B - cheapest F35A please the US in buying 138+, piss UK industry off, maybe a lot of voters aswell ! & the Japanese F-up the Asian tilt etc, option C get in on the French/German/Spain aircraft - please all the Eurovoters & piss off all the brexiteers, probably cost the same - if not more - than GCAP with all the bad blood politics etc, option GCAP sounds the best to me even if it is £40bn + help our industry more & maybe less F-in about with potential exports & the property rights etc as said Before, we have been in bed with the EU + US projects before so why not try another way putting the UK specs high up on the list instead of compromising to much to please all the other partners

[mr.fred]

So it's 2026, Tempest has been cancelled by Labour as it trys to balance the books.

You're the Defence Secretary, ordering a replacement is now getting critical as time ticks away?

Options????

Give up and go home?
You've no money for anything save maybe a few export grade F35s or maybe a lease a few Gripen, if the US lets you.
Why bother at that point?

[SW1]

You aren’t assembling f35 at warton that ship sailed in 2009 when the government of the day said nah and Italy said yeah.

Same with military power plants when the F136 was not funded UK government could off when the yanks said they wouldn’t! F136 was what retired a number of risks on f35b for the U.K. in particular back in the 00s.

Our radar and sensor business has no aircraft to develop stuff for and complex weapons will be seriously constrained as getting them on f35 is a headache and all test and integration is done stateside.

Of course buying f35a is an option but let’s not pretend there isn’t a significant cost to going that way and a rather short sided non strategic decision at that.

So it's 2026, Tempest has been cancelled by Labour as it trys to balance the books.

You're the Defence Secratry, ordering a replacement is now getting critical as time ticks away?

Options????

If Sweden on a defence budget of approx 6.5 billion pound per annum can manage to develop and produce there own fighter program the uk on a defence budget of 55 billion pounds nearly 10x the amount along with 2 other of the richest 7 countries on the plant cant manage it then those running the shop in and out of uniform are incompetent.

If you value air superiority then develop the fighter. As you specifically asked for an alternative if you value sovereignty of capability then you follow Germany and Spain and top up a typhoon order.

[SD67]

As a side note, I watched a really interesting Ward Carol ( ex Tomcat RIO and interested guy, recommended) Video on YouTube the other day, he had a wider discussion regarding gen 6 etc with a British guy who certainly knew his stuff, apologies guys, I can't remember his name.

The interesting part was specifically regarding Tempest.

He specifically hypothersised that even taking high tech manufacturing and rapid prototyping into account, the size and complexity being aimed for will cost circa 40 billion.

So let's say 15 billion each for Japan and the UK and 10 billion to Italy...

Is that affordable within our current defence budget?
Can Italy afford 10 billion?

I think the answer is no and no, if the UK can sustain 2.5% of GDP pushing forward on defence then perhaps, 3% then it's doable.

So, if his hypothesis is correct, it seems a reasonable assumption and it's unaffordable, where do we go next?

An F35A deal seems most likely and affordable, perhaps a future block 5 with increased UK content and assembly in the UK, to keep Warton etc open.

And here comes, right on time, our old friend - the "affordable off the shelf US option". How many times have we seen this guy? Always turns up just when a UK project is getting traction, then once the project is cancelled he suddenly becomes somewhat less affordable. 20 years to get UK weapons integrated on F35 do we seriously think LM are going to help us build our own little Spey Phantom successor?

15 Billion development over 10 years for the UK is eminently affordable - arguably less than the army's vehicle programs and not that much more than morpheus. There's I believe 20 billion set aside for fast air in the 10 year equipment plan. To put that in perspective, nuclear enterprise gets 60 billion over the same timescale.
This is before you start to consider loss of exports, loss of sovereignty, exposure to the USD which is killing us at the moment, and thw spin off benefits in AI, materials technology etc.

You seem to be confusing me with the guy on YouTube, did I say I agreed with his hypothesis .... Hmm No, I didn't, I mearly put the idea forward for debate

Instead of immediately going off on an F35 rant, take a breath, get off your orange box and actually examine the possibilities?

It's meant to be a discussion on defence related matters, is £15 billion affordable, is it though ?

We are talking our Thypoon contribution, made at at a time when defence spending was considerably higher in relation to the costs.

We will find out soon enough, because the next government will have to fully commit, or back out.

Hey mate not on a rant at all. But I think fast combat air is where we should circle the wagons, second only to SSNs / SSBNs. Everything else, strategically, is a long long way behind.

And we have two fantastic partners who share with us similar requirements, similar threat perception, and top tier industrial capabilities.
Seriously if the 3rd 5th and 7th economies in the world cannot between them develop a fighter then there is something wrong.

In terms of whether 15 billion is affordable - MHO is if you want 6th gen capabilities you are going to pay for it. Either in up front capex, or ongoing licensing / support / maintenance.