UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2470
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Jul 2019, 09:56

shark bait wrote:I'm holding out for a 90% F-22 from Tempest.

If Tempest wants to be viable as a high end superiority fighter it's going to have to be a lot more than that. F-22 is older and less advanced than a lot of people think.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby shark bait » 08 Jul 2019, 10:10

I will clarify, I am referring to the mechanical stuff.

The F22 has suffered and under-investment on the systems, and Tempest should obviously aim to surpass this. The good news is much of this work can be applied to the current generation, and Tempest has two different platforms (+revenue streams) to use as flying test beds.

For example get a big screen cockpit flying on Grippen, and a new radar flying on Typhoon, then focus Tempest on integrating the best of these onto a new airframe. This is an opportunity to extend the life of Typhoon and Grippen, as well as controlling the Tempest project.

It can be a win win.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2470
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Jul 2019, 10:23

No disagreement there. But I don't believe we should consider watering anything down about the result. Tempest has direct competitors already forming aimed at high end stuff themselves. The aim should be on surpassing that to succeed.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby shark bait » 08 Jul 2019, 10:50

I think Tempest has to challenge that view.

If the next gen continues on the trend set by its predecessors western air forces will consume themselves. Tempest has to buck this trend. I'd stamp “Perfect is the enemy of good” on the project office door.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Jul 2019, 15:28

As I mentioned earlier, SAAB have come up with a way of using computer modelling etc. to allow a platform to be basically most of the way there by the time they actually build a real plane. This is how they were able to put in the lowest bid for the USAFs T-X competition. The majority of the initial test flights are just to confirm the computer model and so you save a large chunk of the developmental costs by having a platform that is almost ready to go. Obviously the T-X is a lot less complicated than the Son of Tempest will be but it should allow costs to be kept down during the developmental phase at least.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Jul 2019, 20:57

I was unable to find the "Complax Weapons" thread so will put this here.
https://www.janes.com/article/89751/mbd ... s-concepts
How does this announcement from MBDA affect the Angle/French programme to develop a replacement for Storm Shadow and provide a next generation AShM? Form what has been said this weapon systems overlaps many of the aims of the joint programme. Could this be a spin off? Any ideas?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1955
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Gabriele » 10 Jul 2019, 09:17

MBDA formulates one concept per year. Most go nowhere.

FCASW can be part of that family of system... or even the only part to see light. Depends on whether someone forks out the money for the rest.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Jensy » 15 Jul 2019, 23:26

If anyone's headed to RIAT this year, looks like the Tempest is going to be on public display:



Guessing it will be used as a backdrop for officially announcing the Swedes joining the programme and the recent talk of doubling the design staff.

https://www.pesmedia.com/tempest-fighter-jet-programme-recruitment-drive/

The more I see of it, the more the initial design grows on me, especially since the DassBus broke cover.

Jensy

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jul 2019, 09:55





Saab press release
On 18 July 2019, the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding co-operation on future combat air systems. Saab views the agreement as a starting point for exploring the opportunity for joint development of a future combat air system, which will also read across into the continued long-term development of existing platforms including Gripen.

Leading up to the MoU signing, Saab has worked with British industry partners, BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA and Rolls Royce on a feasibility study on future combat air systems (FCAS), which concluded that identified synergies between the companies would provide a solid foundation for the further development of the required industrial and technology base. Saab will contribute with its experience of advanced technology development, system integration of complete combat air systems and related areas including sensors, missile systems and support.

“Throughout our history, Saab has continuously conducted studies and research of future concepts and technologies, which has allowed us to stay at the leading edge. International co-operation is part of Saab’s strategy for growth and the collaboration with the British industries represents that way of working also with regard to the future”, comments Håkan Buskhe, President and CEO of Saab.

Saab and British industry stand ready to support the outlined objectives set out by the Swedish and UK governments. Saab has not yet received an order in relation to the FCAS MoU.

Saab is today developing the next generation fighter Gripen E/F, and is committed to do so in close partnership with its strategic partners, the Swedish and Brazilian Air Forces, as well as with other existing and new Gripen customers, to ensure that Gripen evolves to meet emerging operational requirements for decades to come.

Technology development through the Swedish-UK collaboration, and the sharing of knowledge and expertise across industry, will provide additional benefits to the long-term sustainment and development of existing platforms and systems including Gripen, as well as the potential for a joint FCAS programme that will meet the requirements of the UK and Sweden, as well as the international market.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jul 2019, 10:01



And....the Loyal Wingman is to be called Mosquito apparently, which does make some sense...Kratos and Boeing in the mix to date.


Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jul 2019, 10:03

Thee apppear to be models of the Boeing proposal, which looks a little different to the Australian concept. Also a new word...Fractionation...


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby seaspear » 24 Jul 2019, 07:38

Would Canada be able to enter this arrangement and what would the requirements be?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2470
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby RetroSicotte » 24 Jul 2019, 08:14

seaspear wrote:Would Canada be able to enter this arrangement and what would the requirements be?

Having any money for aircraft.

So...no, most likely. Unfortunately.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 24 Jul 2019, 11:23

seaspear wrote:Would Canada be able to enter this arrangement and what would the requirements be?


The Canadian's are in a quandary. The recent F-18 purchase from Australia buys them a little time, but not much. Realistically they're waiting for Trudeau to go or back down so that they can just buy the F-35A. In terms of capability in the near term, and cost that makes by far the most sense. If LM manage to get the F-35A price down to the level that they've indicated for FRP and the flight hour cost down to $25k by 2025 the simple truth is that no other aircraft can compete on price, let alone capability. IF that happens any Canadian participation in Tempest or FCAS is moot.
The only way Canada could skip F-35 and enter Tempest or FCAS would be to somehow bridge the gap. The secondhand Australian F-18 won't do that, the Kuwaiti's, Swiss and Finn's may be selling spares in due course (discounting the Spanish as by all accounts theirs are almost out of airframe hours) and that could buy the Canadians some time. But those F-18 not only become expensive to run, even with lots of airframes to pick from, Boeing will charge a fortune to continue to support legacy Hornets once the USMC have finished with them as well, but in terms of their use in combat they will become increasingly obsolete. To the point at which they have zero utility.
The other option to bridge the gap is to try and minimise their F-18 use by buying some other aircraft. Gripen C's and Typhoon T.1's would be available in sufficient numbers to do this. But even with a very low purchase price (I'd imagine the UK or Germany/Spain would almost give Typhoon T.1's away to secure Canadian participation in Tempest/FCAS) the set up costs would not be cheap.
I'm discounting the original SuperHornet idea to bridge the gap as a Boeing purchase would be politically impossible in the near term.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 02 Aug 2019, 09:39

Not really surprising, but this decision will definitely impact on FCAS' overall performance. Building in the strength to absorb routine carrier ops means a lot of weight...

https://www.janes.com/article/90221/eur ... arrier-ops

Some developments that could impact the propulsion choices for Tempest. RR don't tend to loan out EJ-200's unless there's a reasonable chance of success, good to see increasing work with Reaction Engines

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f216732033

SW1
Member
Posts: 924
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 02 Aug 2019, 19:19

Timmymagic wrote:Not really surprising, but this decision will definitely impact on FCAS' overall performance. Building in the strength to absorb routine carrier ops means a lot of weight...

https://www.janes.com/article/90221/eur ... arrier-ops

Some developments that could impact the propulsion choices for Tempest. RR don't tend to loan out EJ-200's unless there's a reasonable chance of success, good to see increasing work with Reaction Engines

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f216732033


There is definitely an increase in weight but if you don’t set it as a requirement at the beginning then it is impossible to try an introduce later. The larger issue maybe around radar size, the French preferred configuration is a delta and coupled with there traditional high AOA approach and carrier required steep approach pilot visibility maybe an issue, it will drive ship size and landing length more than the aircraft requirements in this regard.

Weight does not necessarily affect performance provided you have a big plane and big engines, where it will drive things is cost so careful trade offs will be required.

There are some benefits of such an approach for one the aircraft will be more robust when it comes to operating from strips other than airfields. A large number of countries have operates such aircraft for that reason in the past. The F4 phantom sold well as did the a4 skyhawk. Not to mention the fa18. Germany and Spain have both operated the f4 and f18 respectively for years so there not adverse to the idea.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Aug 2019, 01:38

The demise of the Northrop led land based F-18, was a bone of contention between them and McDonald Douglas, as the former were supposed to be the lead for land based sales, but the latter broke the agreement. The land based version was far lighter and had an airframe stressed to 9G unlike the FA-18. Buyers of the FA-18 have had various pieces of Carrier equipment removed when placing orders, but the aircraft is still heavy for a platform of its size. It is sturdy there is no doubt, but there have been trade offs in range, manoeuvrability and payload, more than on either the F-4 and A-4

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2257
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby abc123 » 03 Aug 2019, 08:02

Timmymagic wrote:Not really surprising, but this decision will definitely impact on FCAS' overall performance. Building in the strength to absorb routine carrier ops means a lot of weight...

https://www.janes.com/article/90221/eur ... arrier-ops



But who will pay for that? I can't imagine Germany being willing to pay a few billions for carrier fighter development they will not goeing to use?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

SW1
Member
Posts: 924
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 03 Aug 2019, 08:22

Lord Jim wrote:The demise of the Northrop led land based F-18, was a bone of contention between them and McDonald Douglas, as the former were supposed to be the lead for land based sales, but the latter broke the agreement. The land based version was far lighter and had an airframe stressed to 9G unlike the FA-18. Buyers of the FA-18 have had various pieces of Carrier equipment removed when placing orders, but the aircraft is still heavy for a platform of its size. It is sturdy there is no doubt, but there have been trade offs in range, manoeuvrability and payload, more than on either the F-4 and A-4


Yes there would be around a 4K lbs weight increase for strengthening related to carrier landings, though with newer ship launch/recovery systems they maybe able to bring this dwn a bit. Yes some of it can be dropped off for land based airforces as you mention it’s been done before wing pylon sizing cases are usually carrier landings for example. As for the trade offs the French will be in an slightly fortunate position as the aircraft will not need to land on there current aircraft carrier and so they’ll be able to size the ship to suit the plane costs not withstanding. Sure we keep getting told manoeuvrability doesn’t matter any more it’s all in the information, only to have people’s enthusiasm go into overdrive about f22, or su35 and f35s post stall abilities at airshows....

abc123

Pay for what? There still only designing 1 a/c.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2257
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby abc123 » 03 Aug 2019, 08:27

SW1 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The demise of the Northrop led land based F-18, was a bone of contention between them and McDonald Douglas, as the former were supposed to be the lead for land based sales, but the latter broke the agreement. The land based version was far lighter and had an airframe stressed to 9G unlike the FA-18. Buyers of the FA-18 have had various pieces of Carrier equipment removed when placing orders, but the aircraft is still heavy for a platform of its size. It is sturdy there is no doubt, but there have been trade offs in range, manoeuvrability and payload, more than on either the F-4 and A-4


Yes there would be around a 4K lbs weight increase for strengthening related to carrier landings, though with newer ship launch/recovery systems they maybe able to bring this dwn a bit. Yes some of it can be dropped off for land based airforces as you mention it’s been done before wing pylon sizing cases are usually carrier landings for example. As for the trade offs the French will be in an slightly fortunate position as the aircraft will not need to land on there current aircraft carrier and so they’ll be able to size the ship to suit the plane costs not withstanding. Sure we keep getting told manoeuvrability doesn’t matter any more it’s all in the information, only to have people’s enthusiasm go into overdrive about f22, or su35 and f35s post stall abilities at airshows....

abc123

Pay for what? There still only designing 1 a/c.


Pay for things that are the difference between say Typhoon and Rafale M or F-16 and F-18.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

SW1
Member
Posts: 924
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby SW1 » 03 Aug 2019, 08:38

abc123 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The demise of the Northrop led land based F-18, was a bone of contention between them and McDonald Douglas, as the former were supposed to be the lead for land based sales, but the latter broke the agreement. The land based version was far lighter and had an airframe stressed to 9G unlike the FA-18. Buyers of the FA-18 have had various pieces of Carrier equipment removed when placing orders, but the aircraft is still heavy for a platform of its size. It is sturdy there is no doubt, but there have been trade offs in range, manoeuvrability and payload, more than on either the F-4 and A-4


Yes there would be around a 4K lbs weight increase for strengthening related to carrier landings, though with newer ship launch/recovery systems they maybe able to bring this dwn a bit. Yes some of it can be dropped off for land based airforces as you mention it’s been done before wing pylon sizing cases are usually carrier landings for example. As for the trade offs the French will be in an slightly fortunate position as the aircraft will not need to land on there current aircraft carrier and so they’ll be able to size the ship to suit the plane costs not withstanding. Sure we keep getting told manoeuvrability doesn’t matter any more it’s all in the information, only to have people’s enthusiasm go into overdrive about f22, or su35 and f35s post stall abilities at airshows....

abc123

Pay for what? There still only designing 1 a/c.


Pay for things that are the difference between say Typhoon and Rafale M or F-16 and F-18.


Your nowhere near the number you quote then If it’s in from that start. Most of the differences are sizing of your main loading members, landing gear, keel beam and central wing box structure rudders. It will lead to trade-offs but every a/c build has them. Test campaign will definitely have a carrier unique section to it which I would be expecting the other insist the French pay for.

The best example maybe if the US only built the f35c and every service had to operate it.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2257
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby abc123 » 03 Aug 2019, 09:58

SW1 wrote:
abc123 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The demise of the Northrop led land based F-18, was a bone of contention between them and McDonald Douglas, as the former were supposed to be the lead for land based sales, but the latter broke the agreement. The land based version was far lighter and had an airframe stressed to 9G unlike the FA-18. Buyers of the FA-18 have had various pieces of Carrier equipment removed when placing orders, but the aircraft is still heavy for a platform of its size. It is sturdy there is no doubt, but there have been trade offs in range, manoeuvrability and payload, more than on either the F-4 and A-4


Yes there would be around a 4K lbs weight increase for strengthening related to carrier landings, though with newer ship launch/recovery systems they maybe able to bring this dwn a bit. Yes some of it can be dropped off for land based airforces as you mention it’s been done before wing pylon sizing cases are usually carrier landings for example. As for the trade offs the French will be in an slightly fortunate position as the aircraft will not need to land on there current aircraft carrier and so they’ll be able to size the ship to suit the plane costs not withstanding. Sure we keep getting told manoeuvrability doesn’t matter any more it’s all in the information, only to have people’s enthusiasm go into overdrive about f22, or su35 and f35s post stall abilities at airshows....

abc123

Pay for what? There still only designing 1 a/c.


Pay for things that are the difference between say Typhoon and Rafale M or F-16 and F-18.


Your nowhere near the number you quote then If it’s in from that start. Most of the differences are sizing of your main loading members, landing gear, keel beam and central wing box structure rudders. It will lead to trade-offs but every a/c build has them. Test campaign will definitely have a carrier unique section to it which I would be expecting the other insist the French pay for.

The best example maybe if the US only built the f35c and every service had to operate it.


Not saying that would be so bad thing, but considering German history in defence procurements, they might have problems with that.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Sep 2019, 14:57

Going to take a wild stab in the dark......is it.....Italy?

Been reported elsewhere that Leonardo are the lead for Italy.



In FCAS news Indra have been reported as the lead for Spain. Which given that Airbus Defence are based there is a real surprise.

inch
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby inch » 09 Sep 2019, 15:56

Be cool if Japan tho

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Sep 2019, 16:53

I know its just a mockup and the real thing (whatever it is) won't look exactly like this, but...it does look rather good.
From the Team Tempest twitter.

Image


Return to “Royal Air Force”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest