Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Let's not forget the most important thing, money.
Italy, Sweden and the UK have the engineering capability between them, what they lack is the cash to push through such a massive project. All that matters now its the money.
Italy, Sweden and the UK have the engineering capability between them, what they lack is the cash to push through such a massive project. All that matters now its the money.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
We already have rivet-less composite (though u don’t use rivets in primary solid laminate composites) structures flying in operational a/c and the uk has world leading multi part composite layup at a price no one else can currently compete with. It’s one area we are world leading at in aerospace.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
A little info on Tempests rival (translated from french);
@actudefense wrote:The French worried about the attitude of the Germans, accused of questioning the agreements and worrying about industrial rather than operational issues. Paris can not accept this partnership "under any conditions".
According to an industrialist, it will be very hard to convince German politicians to finance a multi-billion demonstrator. To make them accept the first contract at Le Bourget had already been difficult.
4 pitfalls:Calendar: SCAF must arrive in 2040. Probably operate until 2080. First demonstrator expected in 2026.
- Berlin favors industrial logic to operational
- Germans dispute the industrial partition already accepted
- The SCAF FR will carry the atomic bomb FR. Will SCAF All wear US bombs?
- Question of export policies, different, still not resolved.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
As always, the input from Ares exhibits the value of having our foreign correspondents here... avoiding myopia!
- a bonus question (to that bugger, who dared to be so rude: ): why would I, on this thread, mention the two in a reversed order for 'seniority' in the Commission pecking order? Google it, if you don't know
Someone implied before the wk end that I don't read the stuff they publish on the Continent ? Is it just me that has noticed that among the four key players of the new Commission are the the ex-defence ministers of ... France and Germany?Meriv9 wrote:building towards the proposed €13 billion European Defence Fund which is slated for introduction in 2021, a key element in a strategy focused on enhancing Europe’s ability to guarantee its own security.
- a bonus question (to that bugger, who dared to be so rude: ): why would I, on this thread, mention the two in a reversed order for 'seniority' in the Commission pecking order? Google it, if you don't know
PESCO (now)+ Defence Fund (building up) = a cookie jar... another one (paid in by all; funds withdrawn by ' the few')Meriv9 wrote: bun fight (thanks for teaching me a new word )
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
When the 'assembly' plant for F-35 in Japan rejected the UK subcontracting offer, despite the price advantage, the BAE folks, were they Boy Scouts, would surely have torn up their shorts and found some ash, from somewhere, to match the original story lineSW1 wrote: in operational a/c and the uk has world leading multi part composite layup at a price no one else can currently compete with
- however, they did not do that. As they understand that
A. price is not the same as value, and
B. "sovereign capabilities" may, in some weird way which we have not yet learned, be imputed to how 'value' is perceived
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Going well so far then. Glad we are doing something different. Just need to ensure we get sufficient buy in from partners to generate sufficient cash for development and a large enough order book to make costs competitiveshark bait wrote:A little info on Tempests rival (translated from french);
@actudefense wrote:The French worried about the attitude of the Germans, accused of questioning the agreements and worrying about industrial rather than operational issues. Paris can not accept this partnership "under any conditions".
According to an industrialist, it will be very hard to convince German politicians to finance a multi-billion demonstrator. To make them accept the first contract at Le Bourget had already been difficult.
4 pitfalls:Calendar: SCAF must arrive in 2040. Probably operate until 2080. First demonstrator expected in 2026.
- Berlin favors industrial logic to operational
- Germans dispute the industrial partition already accepted
- The SCAF FR will carry the atomic bomb FR. Will SCAF All wear US bombs?
- Question of export policies, different, still not resolved.
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
The problem with what the Japanese industry can give to the project is that the majority is already covered by other memeber of the Tempest, for the material production there is already quite a big group of English companies, while for the sensors there is Leonardo and Selex from Italy that has already a great know how with 4,5 generation aircrafts thanks to:
-the various versions of the captor partially researched by Leonardo installed on the EF2000
-the PIRATE system of which Leonardo is Prime Contractor installed on the EF2000
-The praetorian DASS system also produced by Leonardo installed on the EF2000
-the new Grifo 346 Radar produces by Leonardo installed on numerous aircrafts such as the M346FA
-the Selex Raven AESA radar installed on the Gripen
-the various versions of the captor partially researched by Leonardo installed on the EF2000
-the PIRATE system of which Leonardo is Prime Contractor installed on the EF2000
-The praetorian DASS system also produced by Leonardo installed on the EF2000
-the new Grifo 346 Radar produces by Leonardo installed on numerous aircrafts such as the M346FA
-the Selex Raven AESA radar installed on the Gripen
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Wondering if the cookie jar concept will push the sells. When Netherlands&Co will see that they are regardless paying for FCAS&Tempest how will they react?ArmChairCivvy wrote:PESCO (now)+ Defence Fund (building up) = a cookie jar... another one (paid in by all; funds withdrawn by ' the few')
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Well, they used to have the good ol' UK to lean on... with the EU proportional voting (weighted by respective GNIs)Meriv9 wrote:When Netherlands&Co will see that they are regardless paying for FCAS&Tempest how will they react?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Sam thing happened with Typhoon. The Germans dragged their feet and eventually refused to get involved with EAP. So the UK went alone and did it.shark bait wrote:According to an industrialist, it will be very hard to convince German politicians to finance a multi-billion demonstrator. To make them accept the first contract at Le Bourget had already been difficult.
The Germans then went and worked on the X-31 with the US....
Don't forget this is just a smaller, less capable Captor-E. All built on the original work on Blue Vixen in the UK.JFoulke wrote:-the Selex Raven AESA radar installed on the Gripen
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Smaller, yes.Timmymagic wrote: JFoulke wrote:
-the Selex Raven AESA radar installed on the Gripen
Don't forget this is just a smaller, less capable Captor-E. All built on the original work on Blue Vixen in the UK.
Gripen= a light(er) fighter).
Less capable? Backend (signal) processing? Plus MALD-like info sharing... when it is not MALD (which one is more likely to receive the effort of getting broken into?)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Smaller for sure, less effective? Are you sure? I’m not able to provide hard data because it’s always hard to find data about radar performances especially on systems currently in service.Timmymagic wrote:Sam thing happened with Typhoon. The Germans dragged their feet and eventually refused to get involved with EAP. So the UK went alone and did it.shark bait wrote:According to an industrialist, it will be very hard to convince German politicians to finance a multi-billion demonstrator. To make them accept the first contract at Le Bourget had already been difficult.
The Germans then went and worked on the X-31 with the US....
Don't forget this is just a smaller, less capable Captor-E. All built on the original work on Blue Vixen in the UK.JFoulke wrote:-the Selex Raven AESA radar installed on the Gripen
I would love if you provide me some info about the performance of both
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I do hope japan jumps on the tempest bandwagon, if a fighter does come out of it, I could see them buying a fair few and it may benefit from a far east production line, can't hurt having another tech savy partner onboard
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
It's very simple. Size matters. And the Gripen (like the Rafale, but for different reasons) has a very small nose. The Gripen also has smaller power generation capability than a Typhoon. The size of the radar (specifically the number of transmit/receive modules on it) and the power generation available are a huge, if not the major component in radar performance. There was a damn good reason that Typhoon has such a large nose....JFoulke wrote:Smaller for sure, less effective? Are you sure? I’m not able to provide hard data because it’s always hard to find data about radar performances especially on systems currently in service.
Think of the Raven as the V6 of the family and the full Captor-E as the great big V-12...with turbochargers...
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Another view of the future pops into view...
South Korea's KFX.
Very surprised by the external Sniper targeting pod....
South Korea's KFX.
Very surprised by the external Sniper targeting pod....
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I am getting mixed signals from what I have read and watched regarding this SPEAR-EW. Some think it is a hard kill SEAD weapon like HARM but some articles show it as an air launched EW Jamming system to fly into enemy GBAD sectors and degrade them without the compromising the low vis of the attacking aircraft. Can anyone help clarify things?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I think the answer is both. It will effectively be a flying single use EW pod, which at the end of its life may be used to crash into a radar. The real magic happens when its launched alongside SPEAR-EX (explosive?), the missiles can collaborate independent from the manned launch platform, turning the system into a highly effective hard kill SEAD weapon./
@LandSharkUK
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
There's been no indication that Spear-EW carries any explosive content whatsoever. Without a seeker head like Spear/Brimstone or inferometers like HARM it's ability to even suicide itself against an emitter would be marginal at best.Lord Jim wrote:I am getting mixed signals from what I have read and watched regarding this SPEAR-EW. Some think it is a hard kill SEAD weapon like HARM but some articles show it as an air launched EW Jamming system to fly into enemy GBAD sectors and degrade them without the compromising the low vis of the attacking aircraft. Can anyone help clarify things?
It's a disposable decoy/jamming system. Given its disposable nature and Leonardo's involvement expect to see the payload being a souped up version of BriteCloud, only with increased power (either with large batteries, a ram air turbine or generator attached to the turbine) and duration (BriteCloud will emit for about 10 seconds). It's jamming capabilities will be limited by its size and power output, so expect it principally to operate as a decoy to induce defences to emit and attack it, whereupon the F-35's behind it will engage with 'regular' Spear. The F-35's EW system would provide the general location of the enemy emitters, the 'regular' Spear's MMW seeker head and datalink will do the rest. Switching the radar off and on will no longer be a valid countermeasure against a DEAD attack.
Think of it as operating in a similar way to the loitering mode that ALARM had. Only it will be able to loiter in an area far longer. Enemy defences would have to assume it is a combat aircraft and engage or choose to not emit and allow a strike through for fear of revealing their position to a lurking Spear equipped F-35.
There is also the distinct possiblity that Meteor could be used as an ARM...it was recently mentioned at DSEI as a possible role...
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... me-changer
Drone maker Kratos has shown off a launcher for its low-cost XQ-58A Valkyrie unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) that fits inside a standard shipping container. There has been a growing trend toward containerized weapon systems around the world and combining this general concept with the Valkyrie could make these already very exciting drones even more capable of conducting flexible, highly agile, distributed operations.
Opens up a very interesting conversation into future strike systems and how they can used and deployed.
Drone maker Kratos has shown off a launcher for its low-cost XQ-58A Valkyrie unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) that fits inside a standard shipping container. There has been a growing trend toward containerized weapon systems around the world and combining this general concept with the Valkyrie could make these already very exciting drones even more capable of conducting flexible, highly agile, distributed operations.
Opens up a very interesting conversation into future strike systems and how they can used and deployed.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Yep cheap easy to deploy if it could be fitted with brimstone or spear it would be great
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
It does, but I'm not sure the method chosen for Kratos is a great idea. You have to wonder about the potential for damage upon landing using the airbag system, but also recovery of the system and most crucially the turn around time. It does open up some possibilities, I'm not sure this is the 'wingman' that everyone is looking for...SW1 wrote:Opens up a very interesting conversation into future strike systems and how they can used and deployed.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Why does it need to be armed? Why not keep the first generation simpler by using it as an intel gathering node that can feedback to the manned platforms?
The airbag system should be fine, if engineers can pull off that trick on mars I'm sure they can make it work here on earth. Saying that I think these are still returned to manufacturer for inspection after each flight.
The airbag system should be fine, if engineers can pull off that trick on mars I'm sure they can make it work here on earth. Saying that I think these are still returned to manufacturer for inspection after each flight.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Well if the air vehicle is cheap, then are you that worried about it either being damaged or not coming back at all. Cheap and expendable is what it’s all about. However there is already parachute recover systems on general aviation aircraft so it’s not that new, and much lighter than having landing gear.Timmymagic wrote:It does, but I'm not sure the method chosen for Kratos is a great idea. You have to wonder about the potential for damage upon landing using the airbag system, but also recovery of the system and most crucially the turn around time. It does open up some possibilities, I'm not sure this is the 'wingman' that everyone is looking for...SW1 wrote:Opens up a very interesting conversation into future strike systems and how they can used and deployed.
A flexible payload bay for sensors or weapons and a teaming with spear 3 to me offers the opportunity to not only significantly distribute strike options but potientially reduce some performance metrics on any future manned platform.
You could put a dozen of these in iso containers on a ship and another dozen on a set of man army trucks and launch manned aircraft from another location.