Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Timmymagic »

Roders96 wrote:Apologies if this has already been discussed - but if we wrote off the f35 order at 48 airframes - how much cash would that leave tempest to play with?
Impossible to tell as the MoD have only ordered 48, and as such have only produced figures to Parliament based on that number (£18.4bn to buy and operate to 2048). You could extrapolate on that but it might not be accurate due to the higher unit cost and running cost, plus upgrades, for the earlier production aircraft. I'm also unclear if that figure includes associated fixed costs like Meteor integration etc. A further cost could be if Marham was capable of housing and supporting more than 48 aircraft? Would we have to upgrade another airfield? Or further expand the facilities at Marham? The RAF seem to be happy with c60 fighter aircraft per airfield at present (see Coningsby, Lossiemouth and Marham in Tornado days..). But more than that? The cost to upgrade Marham was c£500m...and it was a fairly modern, in use airfield. Culdrose or Yeovilton would easily cost as much (and would not have HAS). Depressingly the only RAF airfield that is left 'unused' with HAS on that would be suitable is Leeming. All the rest have gone, or are in use for other activities.

I've said it before but any chance to buy any further F-35, to get to a more credible figure of 70ish or 90ish needs to happen before 2030 (realistically order in 2028 for delivery in 2030). There are 5 years 2023-2028 where we've not got orders for any further F-35 and before the money is sucked up by Tempest even more. If we could order 5/6 per year in that period we'd be in a good position. 6 per year would mean we could keep the 5 oldest 'combat capable' F-35 as Block 2/3F training only aircraft and exclude the 3 ITF aircraft to leave us with 70 'fully combat capable' aircraft. If we found some spare money later we could always upgrade the training aircraft. 70 aircraft would enable us to deploy a full 36 on a QE Class with ease, with an element of stretch if we were going full 'Falklands'. To get 36 on both carriers in a 'Falklands' type situation we'd need 90+. Which would mean ordering 9/10 per year from 2023/8. And that isn't going to happen (mind you neither is 5/6...).

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

But the two are not alternatives. Tempest production won't start until 2035 at the earliest. Last F35 for the USAF will be delivered in 2035. There may be some late export deals but realistically most countries that are allowed to buy F35 have already ordered it and follow-ons will be peanuts compared to US demand.

I suspect BAE are planning for Tempest to almost literally replace F35 activity on the production line

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Roders96 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Apologies if this has already been discussed - but if we wrote off the f35 order at 48 airframes - how much cash would that leave tempest to play with?
Impossible to tell as the MoD have only ordered 48, and as such have only produced figures to Parliament based on that number (£18.4bn to buy and operate to 2048). You could extrapolate on that but it might not be accurate due to the higher unit cost and running cost, plus upgrades, for the earlier production aircraft. I'm also unclear if that figure includes associated fixed costs like Meteor integration etc. A further cost could be if Marham was capable of housing and supporting more than 48 aircraft? Would we have to upgrade another airfield? Or further expand the facilities at Marham? The RAF seem to be happy with c60 fighter aircraft per airfield at present (see Coningsby, Lossiemouth and Marham in Tornado days..). But more than that? The cost to upgrade Marham was c£500m...and it was a fairly modern, in use airfield. Culdrose or Yeovilton would easily cost as much (and would not have HAS). Depressingly the only RAF airfield that is left 'unused' with HAS on that would be suitable is Leeming. All the rest have gone, or are in use for other activities.

I've said it before but any chance to buy any further F-35, to get to a more credible figure of 70ish or 90ish needs to happen before 2030 (realistically order in 2028 for delivery in 2030). There are 5 years 2023-2028 where we've not got orders for any further F-35 and before the money is sucked up by Tempest even more. If we could order 5/6 per year in that period we'd be in a good position. 6 per year would mean we could keep the 5 oldest 'combat capable' F-35 as Block 2/3F training only aircraft and exclude the 3 ITF aircraft to leave us with 70 'fully combat capable' aircraft. If we found some spare money later we could always upgrade the training aircraft. 70 aircraft would enable us to deploy a full 36 on a QE Class with ease, with an element of stretch if we were going full 'Falklands'. To get 36 on both carriers in a 'Falklands' type situation we'd need 90+. Which would mean ordering 9/10 per year from 2023/8. And that isn't going to happen (mind you neither is 5/6...).
Very interesting. c. 40bn over lifetime then.

Do we know what ballpark weight Tempest looks to be yet?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

SD67 wrote:The key thing is the Full Business Case 2025, I cannot see the government throwing Lancashire under the bus in the run up to the next election
As things currently stand, in 2025 the next scheduled general election will be four years away in 2029.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

In our first episode of this exciting six-part series, we provide an insight into ‘Team Tempest UK’ - comprising the Royal Air Force Rapid Capability Office, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Rolls Royce and MBDA - who together are develop the technologies, knowledge, skills and expertise needed to deliver a Next Generation Combat Air System capable of operating in the 2040+ environment.

https://teamtempest.podbean.com/

motiv
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 05 Oct 2020, 17:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by motiv »

Touble at mill it seems over in France

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dass ... SKBN2AX17U
PARIS (Reuters) - The chief executive of French planemaker Dassault Aviation raised the prospect of an alternative plan on Friday if talks between France, Germany and Spain on a joint fighter plane break down, but said he still believes in the project.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron first floated the venture in 2017 but it has become mired in mistrust and differing visions between Berlin and Paris as well as corporate infighting over workshare, people close to the talks have said. Spain’s decision to join the project last year further slowed discussions.

“I don’t believe it’s in mortal danger but I’m not going to tell you that the patient is not in difficulty,” Dassault’s CEO Eric Trappier said of the project formally launched in 2019.

“The head of a company must always have a Plan B in mind. He does everything to ensure Plan A succeeds, everything. But the day Plan A doesn’t work you need a Plan B,” he told a news conference when asked what would happen if the talks failed.

Trappier said Dassault had accepted that European planemaker Airbus would have a larger overall share under an equal three-way split agreed by the partners, since it represents the military aircraft industries of both Germany and Spain.

But that did not mean all parts of the work could be split equally with no clear leadership, he added.

A key stumbling block concerns the control of technologies like flight controls, for which France claims the upper hand since Dassault builds fighter planes and business jets on its own and Airbus has its civil engineering offices in Toulouse.

“If nobody is running flight controls it’s not possible, it won’t work: you have to have someone in charge,” Trappier said.

He played down a separate dispute over access to know-how, saying Dassault and Airbus had a shared industrial understanding of the way intellectual property is protected. That discussion is mainly being conducted at a political level, he added.

Trappier said a merger between FCAS and the BAE Systems-led Tempest project involving Britain, Sweden and Italy was “not on the agenda”.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

motiv wrote:that European planemaker Airbus would have a larger overall share under an equal three-way split agreed by the partners, since it represents the military aircraft industries of both Germany and Spain.

But that did not mean all parts of the work could be split equally with no clear leadership, he added.
motiv wrote:echnologies like flight controls, for which France claims the upper hand since Dassault builds fighter planes and business jet
Well it's good to see someone being refreshingly honest.

I wonder what this plan B is he's referring to. Offer Germany's share to India? Nuclear capable, carrier capable, already a Customer. Though from an ease of working perspective it might be out of the frying pan into the fire

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by inch »

Well that's very reassuring and good news a merger dassault / bae tempest ,not going to happen ,just had a horrible thought then that plan b might have been dassault/ tempest tie up lol,so yes if went bad France /Germany/Spain deal , France probably would go for someone like India or just go it alone again ,but I think as I said before it's all just getting the ducks in a row before they sort it out , can't afford to politically let it fail a EU project , with them Nasty Brits leaving , can't have them making a success of their programme with EU always right and knows best on everything

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Defiance »

SD67 wrote:I wonder what this plan B is he's referring to. Offer Germany's share to India? Nuclear capable, carrier capable, already a Customer. Though from an ease of working perspective it might be out of the frying pan into the fire
India won't be any easier when it comes to transfer of technology, not by a long shot. They're done with being a junior partner in this kind of thing these days.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

So, this should keep the rumour mill turning for another week:


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote:So, this should keep the rumour mill turning for another week:

Why on earth would he despair??

PS Jon lake is a prime idiot , I'm familiar with the name.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:Why on earth would he despair??
I assume that it's because he'd prefer to design the room to put the modifications necessary for carrier launch and recovery in to it from the outset rather than having to try an adapt an aircraft designed to take advantage of the lower launch restrictions of conventional take-off an landing to be able to cope with the rigours of carrier launch and recovery.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest will hardly be within the weight limit of catapults now being sought
... this is good entertainment, though
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I must say that I believe in Tempest (as a plane, not just a tech project) much more now than at the time of its announcement at Farnborough - when it had been rolling for, what, one and a half years already. Let me try to sketch out (in a short format :) ) why.

While I agree with the "Lord Jim"assessment in broad brushes:
- major transformation within the Army,
- that the RAF will be treading water for this decade with the exception of Wedgetail, and
- the Navy has its future mapped out
there is no doubt that one of the Big Bets of the IR will be the Tempest. That is no contradiction of the above as 'they' will only start roll out from the line in the next decade.

So as part of further 'blabberings' about Combat Air from my Wing Chair,
why would a project with such a huge price tag (R&D) be viable when the expected production, even with success, will fall short of the grand total (so far) for the Eurofighter/ Typhoon?

The affordability of the all-round F-35 is being scrutinised v closely by the US branches of Defence (not to mention the Congress :) ). The concept itself (leaving the role of stealth aside; I did promise a short format) is now under pressure from both sides (this time leaving aside that the navy has been lackluster all along)
- a 20-year old concept has been brought back to life in the form f-15X, the first one due in the next quarter
- will they work out of the box, unlike the 'competitor'? Well, we will get to find out soon-ish
- will they be able to launch hyper-weapons (Mach 5 and above), which is now the top priority due to the fact that that the sneaky Ruskies had secretly squeezed ahead. Short answer: Yes
- they cost $150 mln a piece; how does that make them affordable? Well, they can do things that can't be done with an all-f35 fleet (or with the F-35, for that matter)

OK so far? So affordability at the higher, all of Combat Air 'mix' level will be addressed through a mixed fleet?
- yes
- but a mix of what
- no doubt there will be F-35s in there
- ENTER Affordable, Light-weight Fighter (Alf? 8-) ) that General Brown was sketching out (and has been discussed on this forum)
... still a concept. But 'stuff' has been done in the 20 years that F-35 has been in development, I mean it was to be developed as THE Alf. Not looking like one by now :?:

Talk about pressure :!: From both sides. Bottom line (to keep this short):
The F-35 will be lucky to reach half of its planned production volume
- can we afford to have a mix of three fighters? Short answer: No
- Tempest will be the Typhoon replacement
- F-35 will be sustained (and hopefully upgraded, to reach its potential) in the Carrier Air niche
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Caribbean »

The conclusion that I draw from the recent announcements is that, if the F35 numbers DO get pegged at 48, then "Plan B" must be along the lines of a standard deployment of 12-18 F35B, along with (say) 1 or 2 "loyal wingmen" per F35B (so 12 x F35b plus 24 x LW for example, or 18 + 18 as another). That explains the interest in a potential retro-fit of cats and traps for a lighter aircraft). F35 numbers would, of course, vary depending on the mission needs, but numbers could be made up by unmanned systems.

Sorry if I'm behind everyone else on this (I've been skimming through stuff for the last few days - work pressures again, so apologies if someone has already posted something similar) - but that conclusion seems to fit the evidence we have - nothing more complex needed.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

That would make a great deal of sense and appears to be the direction of travel. 1.5 deployed squadrons of F35B + Allies + Loyal Wingman then go all in on Tempest next decade.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Repulse »

That’s my reading also (F35b to be replaced by Tempest in 2030s + UAVs). I wouldn’t be surprised if the concept of operating both carriers at the same time starts to get mentioned to sweeten the blow of cutting the F35B order.

Personally think that if they focus all F35Bs then allocating a 16 a/c squadron to each carrier is a feasible option for a decade from 2025.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Considering the Carrier Air niche (only) role for the planes that we are now taking delivery of
... when would they start to drop off?

With the numbers of Tiffies in the fleet, we have been able to be 'husbanding' airframe hours. With a smaller fleet (ie. the F-35s) that could not play quite the same role.
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)

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Meanwhile in Italy (a thread from Francis Tusa):


5 Star Movement Deputies and Senators add, "...we believe it is only right that Italy should consider reducing our share of F-35s. An irrecoverably defective and now technologically outdated aeronautical programme in which we have a decidedly marginal and not very advantageous industrial participation and which - if we do procure
all 90 planes - will on its own absorb all or financial defence, making it impossible to invest in other projects more in step with the times."
Mamma mia...

MammaLiTurchi
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 13 Mar 2020, 13:28
Turkey

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by MammaLiTurchi »

If this pace continues, even Biden might call Erdogan to come back in F35 programme. And even fly them right above lovely S400s!

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Defiance »

MammaLiTurchi wrote:If this pace continues, even Biden might call Erdogan to come back in F35 programme. And even fly them right above lovely S400s!
Japan's order expansion helps offset that, as does probably victories in Finland and Canada for F-35.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote: Finland and Canada
Will be interesting, with Boeing as incumbent in both.

Canada wants 88 of something for C$15-19 billion ($11.8-14.9 billion) in which would be the aircraft, related equipment and entry into service cost.
- with a similar formula Finland wants 60-ish of something for USD 12 billion

There's the great cost controversy (about affordability) and a man that is buying both :D sheds some light on the crazy figures that are being circulated (airframes only) in, or rather to, the press. National Defence Magazine has dug a bit deeper:

"Gen. James “Mike” Holmes, head of Air Combat Command, told reporters that purchasing the F-15EX could be the “affordable answer” to meeting the Air Force’s goal of acquiring 72 new fighter jets each year.

[The service needs to purchase 72 aircraft a year to improve and retain readiness, the rationale given in budget documents ... so the 72 figure shouldn't be just 'out of a hat']

The price tag for the F-15EX is $80 million for the aircraft and $131 million for the gross weapon system cost. The F-35A comes out to $90 million per unit and $101 million for the gross weapon system, according to budget documents. However, procurement cost is not the only thing to consider in the debate to purchase the F-15EX over the F-35, Holmes said.

“There’s the cost to operate the airplane over time,” he said. “Does it require new military construction? Does it require extensive retraining of the people, and then how long does it take?” ["]
- he did not want to raise the complex stealth skin maintenance issues, as that may come across as a criticism of the experience with B-2, which is the property of a different Command (the Strategic one).
- one could fairly safely assume that smaller airforces that can only afford to buy one (multi-role) fighter design would need a plane sitting “Scramble ready” on the tarmac rain, shine, sleet, and hail, and not a “Hangar queen” that can’t be exposed to the elements.

Going back to where this post started, it would look like the Finns have a budget that would stretch to the planes, only. And that even the upper end of the indicated scale in Canada's case is short by some $ 3 bn... for the planes only
- both can decide to buy fewer a/c
- or they can decide to buy something else

I am getting the pop corn ready as the race is nearing the chalk lines ;)
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)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

I place my bets on..

Superhornet for Canada based mainly on cost (though you can never rule out the Canucks just pushing the whole thing to the right again)

A surprise win for Typhoon in Finland. F35 rules itself out on operating cost, so they go for the best air defence option that allows a full purchase within budget. BAEs in country industrial footprint tips the balance.

(then again I may be way off...)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- one could fairly safely assume that smaller airforces that can only afford to buy one (multi-role) fighter design would need a plane sitting “Scramble ready” on the tarmac rain, shine, sleet, and hail, and not a “Hangar queen” that can’t be exposed to the elements.
For most western european countries thats not an issue as most bases will easily have enough HAS and Hangarage for the available fleet.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by NickC »

Timmymagic wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:- one could fairly safely assume that smaller airforces that can only afford to buy one (multi-role) fighter design would need a plane sitting “Scramble ready” on the tarmac rain, shine, sleet, and hail, and not a “Hangar queen” that can’t be exposed to the elements.
For most western european countries thats not an issue as most bases will easily have enough HAS and Hangarage for the available fleet.
Would not be surprised if Russians would have the numbers of Intermediate RBM to hit majority of air bases in western europe, how many defended by Patriot/THAAD or equivalent ABM missiles?

Sweden seems to be the exception that bought Patriot in 2018 for ~$3 billion with the latest PAC 3 MSE missiles, Germany procrastinating over awarding contract for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, TLVS, due to $billions in cost, mention of Switzerland showing interest in Israeli David's Sling.

Use of the earlier Patriot with MIN-104 missiles by Saudi Arabia against Houthi ballistic missiles did not appear to have a great hit success rate, otherwise europe depends on limited number of US Army Patriot batteries in europe with PAC 3 MSE (new AESA GaN radar in development for Patriot), as far as know THAAD not deployed in europe.

The Iranian IRBM attack on the US Iraq Al Asad Air Base Jan 2020 with only eight missiles?


Post Reply