Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[ArmChairCivvy]

From what Roper said:
"Digital engineering “isn’t a fluke, it’s not a point, it’s a trend. It is our future, and I’m excited to see where there trend goes, and hopefully, see it end that vicious circle that we have been trapped in for so long.”
[...]

He also reasserted previous comments that USAF will work to make the new model profitable, so companies don’t have to bet themselves on “must win” competitions and hope to recover their investment in production and sustainment."

[jedibeeftrix]

i can see his point.

f35 if brought to a useful fleet size will be both sucking on RAF(and RN) procurement budget into the 2030's and performing some of those roles that make a fighter program expensive.

where is the money to buy a different aircraft that can "do the same stuff as the one we already have?"

of course, maybe the answer is to stick with 48 aircraft and 3 pretty marginal squadrons, providing just 1 sqdn on deck and surge of 2...

[Roders96]

And in doing so waste the 3bn sunk into making the carriers able to carry them?

The most cost effective option all round is if this programme results in a stovl ucav, with the Americans fronting the development costs.

Point is: we've got to fill the carriers - either that or the RAF has sacrificed 3 squadrons of aircraft for nothing.

[military]

I listened to Justin Bronk of RUSI's comments on the F-35 and related matters to the Defence Selected Committee at the link below. Bronk was the only guest who came informed so I eventually skipped past the comments of the two older experts.

Bronk had a lot of good facts or points:

1. The UK would need to spend 3% of GDP on defence to do 10% of what the US can. The government must prioritize.

2. The UK spent £34 billion in today's money on Typhoon R&D in addition to the contributions of Germany, Italy and Spain. The budget is not there for Tempest to both be a manned fighter replacing the Typhoon for air policing purposes and a high end penetrator of highly defended air spaces. He recommends Tempest either be a straight Typhoon replacement without the air defence penetration capability or be an unmanned platform.

3. The RAF has a fleet of 140 Typhoons, of which 40 are operational at any one time. In a WWIII scenario with Russia, the RAF could get 70-80 ready for combat for that would break the entire system. Typhoons are supported on two large bases with plenty of civilian contractors. Supporting F-35s on a carrier is harder without the fixed base and contractors so there needs to be a higher ratio of total airframes to deployable-at-a-time airframes.

4. Not buying tons of F-35s will mean that F-35s are only for carrier strike and not for other operations against well defended countries. He mentions Algeria buying the S-400 and his belief that many countries in North Africa and the Middle East will be impenetrable by platforms other than the F-35 soon.

5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.

From this, the takeaway is to make Tempest less ambitious and buy more F-35s now so the RAF can be relevant in major operations over the next twenty years, in addition to building out carrier strike.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5 ... dd23350381

[Jensy]

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

Optimistically, I'd look to the inclusion of video gaming and other 'outsider' companies in the current Team Tempest. They bring unique software development, integration and management skills that, along with those brought in from motor sport, are easily transferable to many aspects of the project.

If their role goes beyond user interface, and they are going to be able to share their wider experience, we might avoid some of the usual government software (as a service) procurement shibboleth...

[ArmChairCivvy]

Tempest to both be a manned fighter replacing the Typhoon for air policing purposes and a high end penetrator of highly defended air spaces.

That is the big question and partner nations will have a say. Or, their contributions will be solely towards the subsystems and the UK will end up shouldering the cost of an airframe, to house them, all by itself. Something that the prgrm was set up to avoid.

Typhoons are supported on two large bases with plenty of civilian contractors. Supporting F-35s on a carrier is harder without the fixed base and contractors so there needs to be a higher ratio of total airframes to deployable-at-a-time airframes.

Hard to fault that logic. Then again the USMC claims to be able to do forward basing of the same version (the B) using bare-base facilities?

[Roders96]

Not sure the Americans ever will do 'bare base' facilities.

Didn't they have maccies and KFC in afghan?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not sure the Americans ever will do 'bare base' facilities.

The prgrm has had its ups and downs, The AF part of it evolved from Bare Base to BEAR ( the Marines have their own arrangements) and here is some history (& metrics) for it:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... s/bear.htm

[jedibeeftrix]

5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.

the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.

a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?

[Roders96]

5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.

the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.

a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?

It leaves carrier ops as RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air.

FAA fight the naval battle, RAF do the rest.

[jedibeeftrix]

5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.

the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.

a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?

It leaves carrier ops as RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air.

FAA fight the naval battle, RAF do the rest.

with triple hatted planes?

under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.

with 75 planes, and four squadrons...

[Roders96]

5. All three experts at the meeting would like to see 24 UK F-35s consistently deployed on a carrier, but that would seem to require 100 F-35s, even if they aren't involved in other operations from land bases.

the person who was most specific on numbers - and repeated it several times - was the ex carrier chap who said:
70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.

a very sensible ambition, but if we need 70-80 for carrier ops, where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?

It leaves carrier ops as RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air.

FAA fight the naval battle, RAF do the rest.

with triple hatted planes?

under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.

with 75 planes, and four squadrons...

By triple hatted do you mean swing role or overstretched?

[ArmChairCivvy]

70-80 bought in a reasonable time profile to maintain four squadrons of twelve, to provide two squadrons routinely on a carrier with the ability to surge to three.

Makes sense; note the timeframe, meaning these would all be in service simultaneously, not attrition or airframe hours replacements
- 2 sqdrns for strike carrier, and one on the carrier doing littoral duty

where does this leave RAF SEAD/DEAD/Expeditionary Air?

In where carrier air is the last of the three, and the RAF (other airwings) would need upgraded Typhoons (a la Tempest, but incremental)
- so without recourse to USAFE/ Luftwaffe's Tornado/Hornet force we would be in a hurry to get those upgrades introduced

with triple hatted planes?

Let's go back to what was required from F-35
1. as stealthy as a Nighthawk
2. can carry the load of a Hornet (SH wasn't there, at the time)
3. can accelerate like an F-16 (but missiles will do the turning; and you will get the first shot in any case)
That makes three; whether the hat trick criterion is met, well, there was already a response for that angle

[SW1]

I thought some may have learned from the carrier thread about fantastic rhetoric and realities but obviously not.

[jedibeeftrix]

with triple hatted planes?
under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.
with 75 planes, and four squadrons...

By triple hatted do you mean swing role or overstretched?

both.

if we look at recent reports of sticking with 48 and 2-3 sqdns, they're basically going to live on a carrier (and do a poor job cos they're so stretched).

with triple hatted planes?

Let's go back to what was required from F-35
1. as stealthy as a Nighthawk
2. can carry the load of a Hornet (SH wasn't there, at the time)
3. can accelerate like an F-16 (but missiles will do the turning; and you will get the first shot in any case)
That makes three; whether the hat trick criterion is met, well, there was already a response for that angle

I was thinking:
CEPP
Strike (SDSR10 absorbed the FCAS budgetline)
SEAD

[Roders96]

with triple hatted planes?
under the fantasy of 138 planes, you might have got six squadrons, and its easy to see how you might have 2/4, 3/3, 4/2 split in primary roles between the squadrons, enough to full each role adequately and surge to the requirement as necessary.
with 75 planes, and four squadrons...

By triple hatted do you mean swing role or overstretched?

both.

if we look at recent reports of sticking with 48 and 2-3 sqdns, they're basically going to live on a carrier (and do a poor job cos they're so stretched).

with triple hatted planes?

Let's go back to what was required from F-35
1. as stealthy as a Nighthawk
2. can carry the load of a Hornet (SH wasn't there, at the time)
3. can accelerate like an F-16 (but missiles will do the turning; and you will get the first shot in any case)
That makes three; whether the hat trick criterion is met, well, there was already a response for that angle

I was thinking:
CEPP
Strike (SDSR10 absorbed the FCAS budgetline)
SEAD

I definitely agree, it looks like it all hinges on the ucav, whatever it may be.

[ArmChairCivvy]

all hinges on the ucav, whatever it may be

Affordability, including that you can "afford" to lose some... not often factored into the force mix calculations these days

[Roders96]

Not sure it stretches past the available budget, sadly.

[NickC]

Thoughts arising from the US 2020 Virtual Air, Space & Cyber Conference four days ago Dr Roper revealed the USAF had a flown a NGAD, Next Generation Air Dominance, combat aircraft demonstrator which had “broken a lot of records.”

Dr Roper an advocate for digitally engineered a/c that can break the current 10-15 development year cycle and tens of $billions in cost eg F-35, so as to return to the 50's era enabling equivalent number of a/c to the century series of US fighters. A lot of unknowns with NGAD demonstrator as little info released, manufacture, cost, design and build time etc

The digitally engineered Boeing/Saab T-7 came in below half the cost USAF had provisionally budgeted, contract awarded Sep 2018 and understand first production a/c delivery due in 2023, an example of a new paradigm with digitally engineered a/c?

So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.

[SW1]

So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.

If the US is claiming to be heading down the route of new fighter designs ever 5 years or so it wouldnt be the the UKs commitment to f35 numbers that I would be worried about it would be theres.

[NickC]

So question could Tempest IOC be much earlier than 2035 which have seen mentioned and as the priority programme come at the cost of funding 138 UK F-35 as mentioned above with suggested numbers cut by half in the current Defence Review.

If the US is claiming to be heading down the route of new fighter designs ever 5 years or so it wouldnt be the the UKs commitment to f35 numbers that I would be worried about it would be theres.

Would agree except think Lockheed lobby so strong in Congress that pork barrel politics will ensure future US buys of F-35.

[Ron5]

If you read the announcement carefully, the US has flown a full size model aircraft, hardly the same as what anyone would view as a prototype. 95% Trump inspired hype, he's got all the services announcing all kinds of fantasy crap as if it were real.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The digitally engineered Boeing/Saab T-7 came in below half the cost USAF had provisionally budgeted, contract awarded Sep 2018 and understand first production a/c delivery due in 2023, an example of a new paradigm with digitally engineered a/c?

new fighter designs ever 5 years or so it wouldnt be the the UKs commitment to f35 numbers that I would be worried about it would be theres.

They somewhow go together as the whole combo of F-35 being better AND cheaper is predicated on the TOTAL quantities in service.

[NickC]

If you read the announcement carefully, the US has flown a full size model aircraft, hardly the same as what anyone would view as a prototype. 95% Trump inspired hype, he's got all the services announcing all kinds of fantasy crap as if it were real.

Airforce Magazine, "Roper Reveals NGAD Has Flown, But Doesn’t Share Details"

"The Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance combat aircraft, intended to complement or succeed the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role, has already flown, having been rapidly prototyped through modern digital design, Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper revealed Sept. 15"

What's your definition of a prototype, depends on how long is your piece of string, you might be right but please supply source and if you have a beef suggest you take it up with Dr. Roper the USAF Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
The NGAD has rec'd substantial prior year classified funding and we can now see where some of the money was spent, the FY-21 budget requests ~ $1 billion in FY-21 and ~ $7.4 billion through to FY-25.

PS FWIW in my post only said it was demonstrator

[Lord Jim]

"The Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance combat aircraft, intended to complement or succeed the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role, has already flown, having been rapidly prototyped through modern digital design, Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper revealed Sept. 15"

And if they are following the Boeing/SAAB techniques, the prototype will be far nearer the finished article that has historically been the case. The same also goes for avionics and other on board systems, not just the airframe and engines.