Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[military]

The Canadian requirements probably mention NATO operations against countries with integrated air defense networks, which dramatically tilts the competition towards the only stealth aircraft. This isn't corruption but a fact of modern warfare is that not being detected by your enemy dramatically increases your combat effectiveness. The RAF knows this and possibly wants more F-35s now at the expense of Tempest down the road.

The main issue with the F-35 in Canada is that Justin Trudeau used the earlier policy of a F-35 sole source buy as a hammer against the Conservatives during the first election he won. So backtracking would be embarrassing. Moving from Hornets to Super Hornets for domestic political reasons is therefore a real possibility. The spat between Boeing and Bombardier seems to be well in the past. Buying the Gripen E light fighter makes sense only if funds are incredibly tight.

F-35 is still the presumed favorite because of its combat effectiveness. Few Canadian voters make their decisions based on combat aircraft procurement anyway. Canada spends only 1.3% of GDP on defense and defense is really not at the forefront of national discussion.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I don’t buy the idea that they’re only looking for technology insertion into Gripen E/F.

The answer lies in the alphabet (lots left, as they started from A). The C/D was not far off from your 40-50%; don't have the same comparison for this next model.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The spat between Boeing and Bombardier seems to be well in the past.

I wonder what makes you say that. Every politician has a base that they have to maintain for any chance of a comeback - should they face that situation after the next election - and Trudeau and Bombardier 'come' from the same part of Canada.

[Lord Jim]

Buying the Gripen E light fighter makes sense only if funds are incredibly tight.

They are!

[SD67]

I don’t buy the idea that they’re only looking for technology insertion into Gripen E/F.

The answer lies in the alphabet (lots left, as they started from A). The C/D was not far off from your 40-50%; don't have the same comparison for this next model.

Is UK content that much? Interesting. Slot in one half of the new Tempest powertrain Rolls are developing and you’d have a very capable F16 successor with high UK content and no ISTAR restrictions...

[ArmChairCivvy]

Slot in one half of the new Tempest powertrain Rolls are developing

Once upon a time... the Swedes made a Draken go Mach2 with one of the engines of which the EE Lightning carried two

[Ron5]

The main issue with the F-35 in Canada is that Justin Trudeau used the earlier policy of a F-35 sole source buy as a hammer against the Conservatives during the first election he won.

Few Canadian voters make their decisions based on combat aircraft procurement anyway.

Seems contradictory?

[Jensy]

Slot in one half of the new Tempest powertrain Rolls are developing

Once upon a time... the Swedes made a Draken go Mach2 with one of the engines of which the EE Lightning carried two

It's for reasons like this that I'd consider Saab/Sweden to be an ideal partner in Tempest. They have a long and proud history of doing things 'differently' and often against the accepted wisdom of others.

In many ways (radar, weapons and avionics) Gripen is already something of a mini-Typhoon. Can this be pushed further for their replacements and deliver two aircraft for the price of one and half? Seems challenging but the rewards could be huge.

[ArmChairCivvy]

long and proud history of doing things 'differently' and often against the accepted wisdom of others.

In many ways (radar, weapons and avionics) Gripen is already something of a mini-Typhoon.

For the first part: they also learned, with the leap from Viggen to Gripen, they paid too much (the advances are in some areas, whereas you still pay for the design in whatever does really change that much.

Yes, agree about the mini-Typhoon (and in EW even ahead of it). Then the raw high&fast power of Typhoon is ahead.

[military]

Sweden had huge cuts in its defense budget during the 30 years since the Cold War and has little money for anything on the scope of Tempest. Sweden will be flying Gripen E for a while but needs new avionics to keep it competitive on the lower end export market. Gripen E is still a lighter fighter than the F-16V and I don't see it gaining many sales, though. It has a shot in Switzerland, less so in Finland and Canada.

[military]

Ben Wallace's article in The Sunday Times was actually not about tanks but about British aerospace exports to the Middle East, particularly Oman and Qatar. In addition to Typhoon sales to Qatar and Typhoon components for sales by the other partner nations, it seems like Britain must be a subcontractor on most other international civilian and defense projects for the aerospace sector to be so big.

In any case, this sales visit (explicitly denied as being a sales call in the article) means that Tempest will be very much alive following the integrated review.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... 2cad153d3f

[Ron5]

Wallace is not very smart if he thinks they'll keep buying British aircraft if he destroys the UK conventional army. Why the heck does he think they buy them in the first place??

[SD67]

The "British Conventional Army" has been relatively tiny since about Henry V. BAOR is an ahistorical anamoly. Spitfire, HMS Dreadnought, etc. We have always prioritised technology over numbers

[ArmChairCivvy]

We have always prioritised technology over numbers

Spitfire would never have come around without the Merlin engine... which the Air Ministry wanted to kill (lack of funds... you know, a global depression and its aftermath) and it was privately funded (Crowd Sourcing, from with in a small crowd in the day).

We should not be trying to be clad in (past) happy interventions that repaired a derailed policy.
- the WW1 army was not one such (because after the Boer War there were wise men working hard on getting things to shape... and they had ten years)
- in WW2 the gas pedal was only stepped on after the Skoda factories went over to Hitler (output at the time the same as the whole UK land armaments industry)

But in a way we do agree: Do the R&D so that production can be ramped up
- though as for WW1 10 yrs; WW2 1 yr... the nxt 'big thing': likely a month, or less

[military]

The main issue with the F-35 in Canada is that Justin Trudeau used the earlier policy of a F-35 sole source buy as a hammer against the Conservatives during the first election he won.

Few Canadian voters make their decisions based on combat aircraft procurement anyway.

Seems contradictory?

Seem like it but not really. The F-35 sole source contract was just a supposed example of Conservative incompetence on a high cost issue, not itself an issue that would otherwise get much attention.

One political angle I didn't mention before is that there are three serious parties likely wanting to spend less on defense and on the high-profile F-35 specifically than Trudeau: the Greens, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. Trudeau might be more afraid of these parties than the Tories in a general election and so might not go for the F-35 as a result. All speculation on my part, of course.

Incidentally, the leader of the Conservatives for the last week or so served for five years in the Canadian Forces Air Command.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_O'Toole

[ArmChairCivvy]

Trudeau might be more afraid of these parties than the Tories in a general election and so might not go for the F-35 as a result.

and not wanting to been seen making u-turns, either?

I repeat that Bombardier's treatment by Boeing (lobbying with the WH) will not be so soon forgotten, and especially not by Bloc Q
... so against all odds, Saab might swim through (being a purveyor to the navy already). Which would be v good news for Tempest, after Eurofighter's "mysterious" withdrawal

[Lord Jim]

Once upon a time... the Swedes made a Draken go Mach2 with one of the engines of which the EE Lightning carried two

And later took the engine from a Boeing 707 put an afterburner on it and a single one of these powered the Mach 2 (I think) Viggen.

[Roders96]

What with the 'optionally manned' mantra, I would not be surprised if tempest turns into two aircraft with a high low mix.

The lower end becoming the RAFs loyal wingman, descendent of gripen.

[SD67]

In addition to Typhoon sales to Qatar and Typhoon components for sales by the other partner nations, it seems like Britain must be a subcontractor on most other international civilian and defense projects for the aerospace sector to be so big.

Yes that's it, Britain's aerospace industry is a subcontractor on just about everything, and still no 2 in the world in overall revenue. Though the term "subcontractor" is probably a bit of an anachronism these days with tier one suppliers taking on more of the design.

[ArmChairCivvy]

In addition to Typhoon sales to Qatar and Typhoon components for sales by the other partner nations, it seems like Britain must be a subcontractor on most other international civilian and defense projects for the aerospace sector to be so big.

Yes that's it, Britain's aerospace industry is a subcontractor on just about everything, and still no 2 in the world in overall revenue. Though the term "subcontractor" is probably a bit of an anachronism these days with tier one suppliers taking on more of the design.

Agree with all of that but looking ahead, the swelling wave of nationalism around the globe may yet throw a spanner into the works. Even in the US (with their scale of building a/c of all sorts) there is talk about the need to nationalise warplane making... so that should any of the big companies involved be dragged down by the civilian side these projects would be shielded
- in the end, it is always the Prime who decides (and in this scenario the overseas supply would matter much less than under Business As Usual)

[SD67]

Sure nationalism is a worry but I'm sceptical that any of the serious players in industry are remotely interested in unwinding these global supply chains. Look at the 787 - centre fuselage made in Italy, Wings in Japan, Winglets in Korea, Engines in UK (if Rolls chosen). Boeing did that for a reason, is the taxpayer really going to fork out the billions needed to onshore all of that?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Boeing did that for a reason, is the taxpayer really going to fork out the billions needed to onshore all of that?

A good question. Who will do the cost-benefit analysis vs. the case in which the (national) aviation industry work force would halve?
- this question is, of course, not country specific.
- I just picked an example where the scale and tech lead would help to shield from the worst effect of collapsing demand. At least initially

[SW1]

Sure nationalism is a worry but I'm sceptical that any of the serious players in industry are remotely interested in unwinding these global supply chains. Look at the 787 - centre fuselage made in Italy, Wings in Japan, Winglets in Korea, Engines in UK (if Rolls chosen). Boeing did that for a reason, is the taxpayer really going to fork out the billions needed to onshore all of that?

Oh I think to a certain extent they are. It’s been nothing but trouble for them in a large number of instances, in your example Boeing in all but name took over production in Italy because things were a shambles even in japan things were not good with the first barrel section arriving with an inch of misalignment!.

Boeing set up these locations because they were lower cost than Everett which is also why they’ll now move 787 production to Charleston. They do it also as part of offsets for the sale of aircraft to certain airlines and in exchange for certain airlines gaining slots at certain main US hubs. They will look to streamline suppliers going fwd and will be very reluctant to repeat the process for any new a/c in future.


The take from all this and it’s relevance to Tempest is that it’s more important to deal with specialist in certain areas that are competent and found in certain specific countries than a scatter gun approach to whoever waves a few quid in the air because it will always cost you more in time and money to go that route.

[NickC]

Sure nationalism is a worry but I'm sceptical that any of the serious players in industry are remotely interested in unwinding these global supply chains. Look at the 787 - centre fuselage made in Italy, Wings in Japan, Winglets in Korea, Engines in UK (if Rolls chosen). Boeing did that for a reason, is the taxpayer really going to fork out the billions needed to onshore all of that?

Boeing thought that if they offloaded 787 development/production to sub-contractors world wide they could screw them down on price and cream off the profits, it didn't work, they have had to cover ~$30 billion overspend on the 787 R&D and had to partially bring dev/build back in house, but as they were making such big profits on the 737 Boeing had no problem and kept funding big share buy backs, then the new 737 MAX crashes and 346 dead and now over 500 new planes in storage/grounded, production just resumed but not flying commercialy as yet so without their cash cow Boeing not in so happy position made worse by corunavirus.

[SD67]

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