Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[SD67]

It's all in the NAO report I can send you a link.

In terms of the 12 billion, this is development cost, the production cost comes after 2033. Let's say it's 50 billion to develop a 6th gen fighter, our 40% of that is 20 billion, some has already been spent, some is listed under different categories.

The real risk is Successor. Nuclear enterprise is 70billion - by far the biggest and riskiest. AUKUS is a godsend

[Damola3]

As an addition to my post above, I noted in reading the parliamentary report that there was a funding problem identified in the 2023-2033 equipment plan. I do not recall any other poster other than myself talking about improving performance ie getting more bangs per buck (thus reducing funding problems). Other posters seem to talk only of getting more bucks. Such a defeatist attitude saps our military strength. I don't accept that approach.

As an addition to my post above, I noted in reading the parliamentary report that there was a funding problem identified in the 2023-2033 equipment plan. I do not recall any other poster other than myself talking about improving performance ie getting more bangs per buck (thus reducing funding problems). Other posters seem to talk only of getting more bucks. Such a defeatist attitude saps our military strength. I don't accept that approach.

Defence is the APEX of innovation. This isn't a corporate monopoly market where you can just buy out and keep down the competition. Everybody is desperate to get one over their adversaries. It's non-stop innovation. It's impossible to accurately predict the outcome of projects.

The National Audit Office and independent agencies always average out cost overruns, so we actually do the best accounting compared internationally. We are the only country where state controlled agencies undermine their own spending plans (not debating the ups and downsides). Pretty much any public sector project in any country is unaffordable by the same methodology.

All defence departments/ministries globally tend to be as optimistic as possible about costs, in order for the government to commit to a programme that's difficult to cancel later, when the costs overrun. This type of politics will never really leave defence. Our current spending plans are very realistic. The previous equipment cost overrun was 2% of the defence budget

Two months ago, a minister said that we've been in the process of overhauling procurement over the past few years. This change of strategy was set in the 2021 review.

https://archive.li/wk8BJ

The idea is that exportability is key. This means a lower likelihood of overspeccing equipment to the extent that it can't be exported and these gold-plated projects often suffer from overruns. Notice how Cartilage says that he expects it to reduce rather than abolish these occurrences.

The reforms are in part a response to the most recent high-profile failure — the £5.5bn Ajax armoured vehicle programme — and a subsequent review which found several systemic problems at the Ministry of Defence.

Ministers and officials would “be subjecting the military requirements not just to the UK needs but assessing them against a potential global market”, Cartlidge told the Financial Times.

“In my view that almost acts as a check and balance against overly exquisite procurement, [in other words when] so many requirements are put in that you end up taking years.” He added the reforms might “not guarantee against a new Ajax but will make it less likely”.

It simply is the nature of defence that you will have cost overruns in complex projects and there will need to be adaptation to your operational needs. You can't fully predict the outcome of innovation.

[Damola3]

It's all in the NAO report I can send you a link.

In terms of the 12 billion, this is development cost, the production cost comes after 2033. Let's say it's 50 billion to develop a 6th gen fighter, our 40% of that is 20 billion, some has already been spent, some is listed under different categories.

The real risk is Successor. Nuclear enterprise is 70billion - by far the biggest and riskiest. AUKUS is a godsend

F-35 cost £55 Billion development costs in today's money.

Any programme looks ridiculously expensive if you add fuel, operational costs, maintenance costs etc over 50+ years.

It's split 40/40/20 with Japan and Italy.

Our 40% would be £20 Billion.

We haven't actually spent serious sums on Tempest yet. That spending will build-up until 2033. Then there's an extra 2 years of development before it hits the production line in 2035.

We have to remember that the budget covers until 2033. 40% of our equipment budget is nuclear related. We haven't actually decided spending on the mid to late 2030s.

When 2033 hits, say we've renewed SSBNs. That's minimum 70 Billion off the next decade's plan on top of a funding uplift. Assume Tempest is £200 Million a unit. 100 would be £20 Billion.

In next year's defence review, Labour are going to make big decisions. TBF, Starmer hasn't been committal to a spending target. He said that he would spend whatever the outcome of the defence review. This is after being asked about the size of the army.

A Tory minister said that the budget is increasing to 2.5% up to 2030, because we lack capacity to spend that money right away without importing equipment.

Our shipyards are all full and we don't have a fixed wing aircraft supply chain (other than Typhoon). Even then, we will know more about the F-35 order in 2025, where they said that any further F-35 order will be decided upon (on top of the 74 operational already on order). We will have another 15 F-35 for 2025, then an extra 17 up to 2033 as of now.

Tempest has plenty of money behind it. I'm more worried about the fast jet gap in the now. After scrapping T1 Typhoons, we should be looking to get getting F-35B to 100+ by the end of that 2033 cycle.

[tomuk]

As an addition to my post above, I noted in reading the parliamentary report that there was a funding problem identified in the 2023-2033 equipment plan. I do not recall any other poster other than myself talking about improving performance ie getting more bangs per buck (thus reducing funding problems). Other posters seem to talk only of getting more bucks. Such a defeatist attitude saps our military strength. I don't accept that approach.

As an addition to my post above, I noted in reading the parliamentary report that there was a funding problem identified in the 2023-2033 equipment plan. I do not recall any other poster other than myself talking about improving performance ie getting more bangs per buck (thus reducing funding problems). Other posters seem to talk only of getting more bucks. Such a defeatist attitude saps our military strength. I don't accept that approach.

Defence is the APEX of innovation. This isn't a corporate monopoly market where you can just buy out and keep down the competition. Everybody is desperate to get one over their adversaries. It's non-stop innovation. It's impossible to accurately predict the outcome of projects.

The National Audit Office and independent agencies always average out cost overruns, so we actually do the best accounting compared internationally. We are the only country where state controlled agencies undermine their own spending plans (not debating the ups and downsides). Pretty much any public sector project in any country is unaffordable by the same methodology.

All defence departments/ministries globally tend to be as optimistic as possible about costs, in order for the government to commit to a programme that's difficult to cancel later, when the costs overrun. This type of politics will never really leave defence. Our current spending plans are very realistic. The previous equipment cost overrun was 2% of the defence budget

Two months ago, a minister said that we've been in the process of overhauling procurement over the past few years. This change of strategy was set in the 2021 review.

https://archive.li/wk8BJ

The idea is that exportability is key. This means a lower likelihood of overspeccing equipment to the extent that it can't be exported and these gold-plated projects often suffer from overruns. Notice how Cartilage says that he expects it to reduce rather than abolish these occurrences.

The reforms are in part a response to the most recent high-profile failure — the £5.5bn Ajax armoured vehicle programme — and a subsequent review which found several systemic problems at the Ministry of Defence.

Ministers and officials would “be subjecting the military requirements not just to the UK needs but assessing them against a potential global market”, Cartlidge told the Financial Times.

“In my view that almost acts as a check and balance against overly exquisite procurement, [in other words when] so many requirements are put in that you end up taking years.” He added the reforms might “not guarantee against a new Ajax but will make it less likely”.

It simply is the nature of defence that you will have cost overruns in complex projects and there will need to be adaptation to your operational needs. You can't fully predict the outcome of innovation.

Really. MOD procurement is a dumpster fire. It is surprising that any innovation makes it to the field.

[tomuk]

It's all in the NAO report I can send you a link.

In terms of the 12 billion, this is development cost, the production cost comes after 2033. Let's say it's 50 billion to develop a 6th gen fighter, our 40% of that is 20 billion, some has already been spent, some is listed under different categories.

The real risk is Successor. Nuclear enterprise is 70billion - by far the biggest and riskiest. AUKUS is a godsend

In next year's defence review, Labour are going to make big decisions. TBF, Starmer hasn't been committal to a spending target. He said that he would spend whatever the outcome of the defence review. This is after being asked about the size of the army.

Yes he hasn't committed to 2.5% by 2030 only 2.5% when financial conditions allow. If you think were going to any more than 2.5% then you are in another world.

There is a school of thought who don't want a defence review at all and just a commitment to the 2.5% so there is a period of what you might call stability. I think that was one of someone's steps.

[Damola3]

It's all in the NAO report I can send you a link.

In terms of the 12 billion, this is development cost, the production cost comes after 2033. Let's say it's 50 billion to develop a 6th gen fighter, our 40% of that is 20 billion, some has already been spent, some is listed under different categories.

The real risk is Successor. Nuclear enterprise is 70billion - by far the biggest and riskiest. AUKUS is a godsend

In next year's defence review, Labour are going to make big decisions. TBF, Starmer hasn't been committal to a spending target. He said that he would spend whatever the outcome of the defence review. This is after being asked about the size of the army.

Yes he hasn't committed to 2.5% by 2030 only 2.5% when financial conditions allow. If you think were going to any more than 2.5% then you are in another world.

There is a school of thought who don't want a defence review at all and just a commitment to the 2.5% so there is a period of what you might call stability. I think that was one of someone's steps.

It won't be above 2.5%. That's not the point that I'm making. A gradual increase to 2.5% gives us an extra £70 Billion overall from 2024 - 2030.

Excluding nukes, our decade equipment plan is £160 Billion from 2023-2033. That's almost 50% of our decade conventional equipment spend in 6 years.

The point I'm making is that there's plenty of room for extra conventional spend up until then.

Contrary to popular belief here, our economy is the 6th biggest on earth. Going from 2% to 2.5% is actually an enormous increase. As a high tech country/economy, a high proportion of our equipment programmes is R&D.

£70 Billion gets you 822 F-35B for example (not including operating costs). We don't actually have any capacity in industry to spend that money within the UK in that timeframe. Unless it's more F-35, we're really just behind Tempest. All of the shipyards are full. A minority of that money is to rebuild our supply chain and stockpile of weapons (not platforms).

Land armies are actually comparatively cheap. For example, for the cost of 20-30 fighter jets, you can get 1,000 modern MBTs. Look at Poland with a 200,000 active army, purchasing 1,000 MBTs, new Abrams and 600 howitzers etc.

Labour can still go below 2.5% and increase our capabilities drastically. I've seen people say 3-4% here, however that's full Cold War militarisation mode.

What people think of 3-3.5% here is actually more like 2.5%.

2.5% of GDP is $89 Billion in today's money. Russia are spending $109 Billion while at war (though prices are cheaper there).

It's easy sometimes to look past the reality that it takes time over decades to build up armed forces. For example, everyone is up in arms about 9 frigates, which is bad but we have 13 brand new hulls over the next 9 years. It's taken 10-15 years for mass to build after those cuts post 2010.

Back then, we basically stopped buying new equipment, which is why every platform in the armed forces is being overused and clapped out. Look at the current rate at which we're procuring equipment and you'll see that within a decade, our current situation will look unbelievable.

[tomuk]

It's all in the NAO report I can send you a link.

In terms of the 12 billion, this is development cost, the production cost comes after 2033. Let's say it's 50 billion to develop a 6th gen fighter, our 40% of that is 20 billion, some has already been spent, some is listed under different categories.

The real risk is Successor. Nuclear enterprise is 70billion - by far the biggest and riskiest. AUKUS is a godsend

In next year's defence review, Labour are going to make big decisions. TBF, Starmer hasn't been committal to a spending target. He said that he would spend whatever the outcome of the defence review. This is after being asked about the size of the army.

Yes he hasn't committed to 2.5% by 2030 only 2.5% when financial conditions allow. If you think were going to any more than 2.5% then you are in another world.

There is a school of thought who don't want a defence review at all and just a commitment to the 2.5% so there is a period of what you might call stability. I think that was one of someone's steps.

It won't be above 2.5%. That's not the point that I'm making. A gradual increase to 2.5% gives us an extra £70 Billion overall from 2024 - 2030.

Excluding nukes, our decade equipment plan is £160 Billion from 2023-2033. That's almost 50% of our decade conventional equipment spend in 6 years.

The point I'm making is that there's plenty of room for extra conventional spend up until then.

Contrary to popular belief here, our economy is the 6th biggest on earth. Going from 2% to 2.5% is actually an enormous increase. As a high tech country/economy, a high proportion of our equipment programmes is R&D.

£70 Billion gets you 822 F-35B for example (not including operating costs). We don't actually have any capacity in industry to spend that money within the UK in that timeframe. Unless it's more F-35, we're really just behind Tempest. All of the shipyards are full. A minority of that money is to rebuild our supply chain and stockpile of weapons (not platforms).

Land armies are actually comparatively cheap. For example, for the cost of 20-30 fighter jets, you can get 1,000 modern MBTs. Look at Poland with a 200,000 active army, purchasing 1,000 MBTs, new Abrams and 600 howitzers etc.

Labour can still go below 2.5% and increase our capabilities drastically. I've seen people say 3-4% here, however that's full Cold War militarisation mode.

What people think of 3-3.5% here is actually more like 2.5%.

2.5% of GDP is $89 Billion in today's money. Russia are spending $109 Billion while at war (though prices are cheaper there).

It's easy sometimes to look past the reality that it takes time over decades to build up armed forces. For example, everyone is up in arms about 9 frigates, which is bad but we have 13 brand new hulls over the next 9 years. It's taken 10-15 years for mass to build after those cuts post 2010.

Back then, we basically stopped buying new equipment, which is why every platform in the armed forces is being overused and clapped out. Look at the current rate at which we're procuring equipment and you'll see that within a decade, our current situation will look unbelievable.

This just reads like some MOD\DSES press release it is completely devoid of reality.

[SD67]

In the last decade we've been dealing with a log jam of block obsolescence that goes all the way back to Options for Change in the 90s, but the problem does eventually work itself out.
As the previous poster said- Nuclear is the Elephant in the room. Doubling the size of the Construction facilities at Barrow and Rolls must not have been cheap- it's a massive up front CAPEX with the payback spread over decades. But there is payback - in the late 2030s export revenues kick in from AUKUS. All future development is amortised over double or triple the operational fleet, and half paid for by Australia. It's a total game changer.

And the Operational benefits have not yet hit the budget. I understand a T23 is four times as thirsty as a T26. Over a 30 year life that adds up. Plus relatively lower crewing, better reliability.

My only worry is that post-Levene procurement is still too decentralised. Drones and Helicopters at least should be joint. And the Army frankly don't have the skill set, how many different types of rifle do we have now?

We're a3 trillion USD economy. .5% of GDP over 10 years is 150 billion, and our scientists do not tend to flee the country.

[inch]

Does anyone think gcap partners should offer gcap to the USAF instead of NGAD ,not as high tech but probably good enough and hopefully have the long legs ,heck they can even install NGAD tech on their version, consolidate to win the numbers game against China Russia NKorea, Iran pact , just saying

[wargame_insomniac]

Does anyone think gcap partners should offer gcap to the USAF instead of NGAD ,not as high tech but probably good enough and hopefully have the long legs ,heck they can even install NGAD tech on their version, consolidate to win the numbers game against China Russia NKorea, Iran pact , just saying

Why do that? When USA perfectly happy to take a design, "upgrade" it to their local preferences, and then no doubt sell it globally as "Made in America".

Mind you that is sort of what UK did to Danish "Arrowhead" design. Its's just they do it more blatantly and succesfully than we do so maybe just sour grapes on my part.

[serge750]

Don't think the americans would want to join as NGAD is a main prestigious project for them....maybe the us navy would join if it was carrie capable to share costs - but even that is so remote, hopefully GCAP will be a winner with Japan & italy !

[inch]

I only mentioned it as read that USAF having a possible rethink on NGAD program , maybe a negotiation tactic or a genuine cost too much per fighter or too cutting edge tech , whatever ,was just an idea for the USAF to get a 6th gen fighter in numbers cheaper to have money to spend on other programmes they need to spend on ,thats all ,they bought into harriers why not gcap and modify as necessary,,that was my reasoning good or bad

[serge750]

I read into it that they wanted too much for not enough budget, so much going on that maybe the will keep the brakes on to keep NGAD going at a slower pace......if they are only planning on the numbers to replace the F22 ? it could be a good move to delay it & also replace some early F35's when they have replaced the 22's, but anthing is possible....

[mrclark303]

Does anyone think gcap partners should offer gcap to the USAF instead of NGAD ,not as high tech but probably good enough and hopefully have the long legs ,heck they can even install NGAD tech on their version, consolidate to win the numbers game against China Russia NKorea, Iran pact , just saying

I see the logic, but It just wouldn't work, let's just remember Merlin and A330 ' wins' in the US, both overturned by intense domestic lobbying.

If they manage to overturn Helicopter and Tanker contracts, can you imagine the enormous size of the hissy fit they would have with a "foreign' high end fighter!

Best keep the US out of GCAP, but at the same ensure 100% compatibility with US systems.

[SD67]

It would be great to see a 21st century version of the Martin B-57, though the number of Congressional dead bodies you'd need to step over to get there does not bear thinking about.

And then if it happened the US licensee would likely "do a Constellation Class" and re-engineer half of it

[Timmymagic]

I only mentioned it as read that USAF having a possible rethink on NGAD program , maybe a negotiation tactic or a genuine cost too much per fighter or too cutting edge tech , whatever ,was just an idea for the USAF to get a 6th gen fighter in numbers cheaper to have money to spend on other programmes they need to spend on ,thats all ,they bought into harriers why not gcap and modify as necessary,,that was my reasoning good or bad

US has a combat aviation industry just like us. They also have the need to keep their own design teams busy with work as much as we do.

[motiv]

Sounds promising, especially as the Unions wil force Labour to keep this going and not merge with the French.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ghter-jet/

A key topic of their discussion was the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a joint effort by the UK, Japan, and Italy to develop a next-generation stealth fighter. This initiative aims to replace existing aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Mitsubishi F-2. “The two leaders also affirmed to continue to promote cooperation between the two countries including the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP),” the summary noted.

[Damola3]

Sounds promising, especially as the Unions wil force Labour to keep this going and not merge with the French.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ghter-jet/

A key topic of their discussion was the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a joint effort by the UK, Japan, and Italy to develop a next-generation stealth fighter. This initiative aims to replace existing aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Mitsubishi F-2. “The two leaders also affirmed to continue to promote cooperation between the two countries including the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP),” the summary noted.

I'm not party political at all, but there's no way that Labour are ever merging with the French or any party no matter how Pro-EU they are. Within the EU, defence politics are toxic. It's the French leading the Germans in monopolising the European defence industry and sidelining important second tier European powers like Spain and Italy.

The French are trying to eat the Italian defence industry ATM to be most specific. They essentially agreed to split the MBT programme with Germany behind Italy's back and tried to make them a third tier partner on the FCAS, which has been slow due to infighting.

Countries like Poland basically stay out of the politics and buy equipment from where it's best. They buy their aircraft from the States and armoured vehicles from South Korea.

Excuse my French (and pardon the pun), but even the German Sky Shield Programme has p*ssed off France to no end.

[SD67]

Sounds promising, especially as the Unions wil force Labour to keep this going and not merge with the French.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ghter-jet/

A key topic of their discussion was the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a joint effort by the UK, Japan, and Italy to develop a next-generation stealth fighter. This initiative aims to replace existing aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Mitsubishi F-2. “The two leaders also affirmed to continue to promote cooperation between the two countries including the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP),” the summary noted.

I'm not party political at all, but there's no way that Labour are ever merging with the French or any party no matter how Pro-EU they are. Within the EU, defence politics are toxic. It's the French leading the Germans in monopolising the European defence industry and sidelining important second tier European powers like Spain and Italy.

The French are trying to eat the Italian defence industry ATM to be most specific. They essentially agreed to split the MBT programme with Germany behind Italy's back and tried to make them a third tier partner on the FCAS, which has been slow due to infighting.

Countries like Poland basically stay out of the politics and buy equipment from where it's best. They buy their aircraft from the States and armoured vehicles from South Korea.

Excuse my French (and pardon the pun), but even the German Sky Shield Programme has p*ssed off France to no end.

Agreed, I would not want to touch EU defence politics with a long stick.

The way things are developing we will be challenged to keep MBDA together. The FCASW weapon is looking like a problem, with the program effectively split in two. And apart from that what other joint programs do we have with France? The Skua replacement I guess, but what else?

Most of Europe are buying Leo2 / Boxer / CV90 for Land, and F35 for Air. Where's the Euro collaboration? FCAS could be a royal sheisseshow, maybe they get some drones out of it, who knows.

I agree on Labor and GCAP, I think the unions have made it very very clear where they stand on this. There are many boxes being ticked - levelling up, industry, training, the North, Green tech. Unless something dramatic changes, like it, you know, doesn't work.

[Ron5]

The unions couldn't keep TSR2 alive in the face of the traitor Healey.

Just saying.

[SD67]

Different times

And the fact that TSR2 had no partners and y know kinda didnt work

[tomuk]

Different times

And the fact that TSR2 had no partners and y know kinda didnt work

The Australians?

[Damola3]

Sounds promising, especially as the Unions wil force Labour to keep this going and not merge with the French.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ghter-jet/

A key topic of their discussion was the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a joint effort by the UK, Japan, and Italy to develop a next-generation stealth fighter. This initiative aims to replace existing aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon and Mitsubishi F-2. “The two leaders also affirmed to continue to promote cooperation between the two countries including the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP),” the summary noted.

I'm not party political at all, but there's no way that Labour are ever merging with the French or any party no matter how Pro-EU they are. Within the EU, defence politics are toxic. It's the French leading the Germans in monopolising the European defence industry and sidelining important second tier European powers like Spain and Italy.

The French are trying to eat the Italian defence industry ATM to be most specific. They essentially agreed to split the MBT programme with Germany behind Italy's back and tried to make them a third tier partner on the FCAS, which has been slow due to infighting.

Countries like Poland basically stay out of the politics and buy equipment from where it's best. They buy their aircraft from the States and armoured vehicles from South Korea.

Excuse my French (and pardon the pun), but even the German Sky Shield Programme has p*ssed off France to no end.

Agreed, I would not want to touch EU defence politics with a long stick.

The way things are developing we will be challenged to keep MBDA together. The FCASW weapon is looking like a problem, with the program effectively split in two. And apart from that what other joint programs do we have with France? The Skua replacement I guess, but what else?

Most of Europe are buying Leo2 / Boxer / CV90 for Land, and F35 for Air. Where's the Euro collaboration? FCAS could be a royal sheisseshow, maybe they get some drones out of it, who knows.

I agree on Labor and GCAP, I think the unions have made it very very clear where they stand on this. There are many boxes being ticked - levelling up, industry, training, the North, Green tech. Unless something dramatic changes, like it, you know, doesn't work.

The funny thing here is that both Italy and Japan have been burned. Italy by Germany/France and Japan with the Mitsubishi F-2, where they ended up paying double the price for a rebranded F-16, gave the US a 40% workshare and didn't even get serious technology transfer. From a Japanese POV, they've hit a goldmine with this partnership.

[Damola3]

I only mentioned it as read that USAF having a possible rethink on NGAD program , maybe a negotiation tactic or a genuine cost too much per fighter or too cutting edge tech , whatever ,was just an idea for the USAF to get a 6th gen fighter in numbers cheaper to have money to spend on other programmes they need to spend on ,thats all ,they bought into harriers why not gcap and modify as necessary,,that was my reasoning good or bad

NGAD is what a child would say if you asked them to describe their ideal fighter aircraft. They've basically requested every single technology on the spec sheet.

For contrast, BAe have already chucked the idea of 'loyal wingmen' (not drones as a whole). Imagine a subsonic aircraft on a SEAD mission which gives away the position of the Nextgen fighter in comms. It's generally accepted that it won't work. Here's one example of why US specs are insane.

It's 100% some politics going on because I cannot see how NGAD will fly in 2-3 years without drastically reworking the specs of the aircraft.

Besides the point, these programmes are more than just aircraft. They're developing different classes of drones such as stealth refuelling drones, which carry fuel in internal bays. Our drone programme is also very important for our carrier borne capability as it looks like we're moving away from rotary wing on Queen Lizzy.

For drones alone, these programmes are yielding benefits even before the aircraft hit the runway and having your own command & control airframe gives you a greater control over the air system as a whole. I would argue that '6th' generation aircraft are needed to have a serious military aviation industry.

[Ron5]

.... y know kinda didnt work

TSR2 was working fine when cancelled.