Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[SD67]

We’ll the French plane won’t exist until 2050 according to the CEO of Dassault, Typhoons will be falling out of the skies by 2035 so I think we’re pretty safe on that front

The only real threats are a) incompetence and b) F35k but b) doesn’t actually exist

Also don’t underestimate what a big move it is for Japan to collaborate with anyone other than the US. This clearly wasn’t done on a whim

[dmereifield]

I think this Government would like to sign up to a watertight contract (ala Brown and the carriers) so Labour can't back out of it. Still don't see us getting much more than 100

[SouthernOne]

I think this Government would like to sign up to a watertight contract (ala Brown and the carriers) so Labour can't back out of it. Still don't see us getting much more than 100

Perhaps the biggest risk then is that the program, while proceeding, just doesn't get to the scale needed to fund development and operation of a genuinely "6th generation" aircraft. If that's how it turns out, it may be more of a modern day SEPECAT Jaguar, Japanese F1 and F2, or Italian AMX.

[Spitfire9]

I think this Government would like to sign up to a watertight contract (ala Brown and the carriers) so Labour can't back out of it. Still don't see us getting much more than 100

I don't favour governments continuing to govern after they have left office through punitive contract cancellation clauses in contracts they sign, making it too expensive to cancel the contract.

Unless this aircraft can be developed at an affordable cost and manufactured efficiently, it risks becoming a recklessly expensive white elephant, soaking up tens of billions of defence pounds in an absurd manner.

It is ridiculous that there should be two European 6G programmes duplicating efforts massively wastefully. It does not make sense for both to go forward to launch. More sensible would be for one programme to proceed, for the countries involved in the 'losing' programme to buy the 'winning' aircraft and to spend the development funds saved on different developments.

[dmereifield]

I think this Government would like to sign up to a watertight contract (ala Brown and the carriers) so Labour can't back out of it. Still don't see us getting much more than 100

I don't favour governments continuing to govern after they have left office through punitive contract cancellation clauses in contracts they sign, making it too expensive to cancel the contract.

Unless this aircraft can be developed at an affordable cost and manufactured efficiently, it risks becoming a recklessly expensive white elephant, soaking up tens of billions of defence pounds in an absurd manner.

It is ridiculous that there should be two European 6G programmes duplicating efforts massively wastefully. It does not make sense for both to go forward to launch. More sensible would be for one programme to proceed, for the countries involved in the 'losing' programme to buy the 'winning' aircraft and to spend the development funds saved on different developments.

But there aren't two European 6G programmes anymore. They're now one European and one international (which has two European partners). And, you know full well why there can't be just one (1] France and Germany are shall we say, suboptimal partners; 2] too much disparity of requirements).

There's no reason why the world's 3rd, 5/6th and 9th largest economies can't afford to develop a 6G aircraft and buy (and export) sufficient airframes to make it viable.

[Meriv9]

Even if they were perfect partners and the Brexit didn't happen the french made it clear with us. They don't look for partners they only want clients. So the reason for the divided effort is first and mainly french politics (Dassault).

[SW1]

So what does the marketing department of Lockheed Martin define as the attributes of the super catchy “genuinely 6g plane” that all must live up to. Is the 1st attribute it must be made in Texas…..

[mrclark303]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

[mrclark303]

Even if they were perfect partners and the Brexit didn't happen the french made it clear with us. They don't look for partners they only want clients. So the reason for the divided effort is first and mainly french politics (Dassault).

It's always been the same Meriv, it's such a shame too.

Imagine if the French 'played nicely' and remained in the Eurofighter project, the costs to all partners would have fallen substantially, international sales would have likely been much higher too...

Had the French simply bought 50 F18's for their carriers, then history could have played out differently.

Unfortunately, the French make poor partners.

[SD67]

I disagree that Tempest is in some way fundamentally unaffordable. We have a budget line of over 3 billion a year for combat air, if we stop buying F35 in 2030 what else are. We going to spend it on there is only so much sustainment you can do on a 20-30 year old platform

It’s the same partnership that built Typhoon just Spain / Germany replaced by Japan which is a net gain. So what’s the issue?

I don’t see how development has become fundamentally more expensive. The cost of research is basically the salary of the boffins and funny thing a second rate scientist is paid the same as a first rate one.
In terms of productionisation - 3d printing and digital modelling should be significantly reducing the cost. Building multiple prototypes is what really eats up the money

The black hole in the defence budget is Successor, plus the USD exchange rate. The former will be done by mid 2030s and making us more dependent on US imports would be an odd way of fixing the latter

[SW1]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

[ThreeHeadedLion]

Spitfire, I absolutely agree that India should have totally condemned the Russian invasion, filling their boots with Russian oil and gas was disgraceful behaviour, effectively underpinning the Russian economy and fanning the flames of war, along with China.

From a UK context Ron, Saudi Arabia is good bet, a typical UK export customer for high end military aircraft. An initial order to replace Typhoon, followed by further orders to replace the various F15 derivatives they operate perhaps.

So an initial 55 order is quite plaussable for a sufficiently capable machine.

The Gulf states in general are prime targets for exports of a high end long range Gen6 fighter.

Not only have the Saudis not offered any condemnation of Russia but they have also openly showed the middle finger to the US and worked in cahoots with Russians to cut oil production and raise prices. Yet, twerking in front of Saudis for a mere token order is dandy but no thanks to a potential project saving order of hundreds of airframes from India. Terrible lack of consistency.

Not only a terrible lack of consistency but also lack of foresight. If their own project fails and they are shut out of western projects, who do you think they will partner up with to build a new jet? They will pour tens of billions into another Russian project. Do you want to be moaning about how the Russians are attacking europe again with an Indian funded jet in 15 years time?

It is one thing to be wound up by India's self-serving actions but quite another to poke oneself in the eyeball seething about it.

If they come sniffing around for cooperation on GCAP, we should strap them to a chair and not let them leave before they commit to buy half the total production numbers.

Both us and Japan are headed for economic meltdown over the coming couple of years and italy is a perennial basketcase. I would tie up as much financial commitment to this project as possible before emily thornberry becomes the defense sec.

[ThreeHeadedLion]

I too - follow Indian Military aviation very closely - and they will pursue AMCA no matter what. That willl never get cancelled - no matter what. For the engine - they will use off the shelf like their Tejas if they cannot build an engine.

India is a "nightmare industrial partner" where their perception of their technical abilities and capabilties far exceed what they can achieve which makes them problemmatic. Why do you think the French rejected the original terms of the Rafale MMRCA procurement programme? Dassault did not want to go anywhere near the nonsense that is HAL and the DRDO associated design bodies.

It will come with a lot of theatrical bureacrtic grandstanding versus the cold hard engineering required to pull off complex projects. If the UK wanted that kind of nonsense - they can get the French involved !!!!

Just look at their Tejas jet project and what a joke that was and still is - and lets not talk about their Arjun tank project.

As an end customer - sure - but not as a development partner ..

Pretty much bang on here. Except the fact that India is a terrible off the shelf customer as well. They will keep running us around in endless competitions for a decade and then place an order with the French.

Probably, the best time to get an order is right after the production airframes start to roll off the line. Give them their own production line and ToT in return for a funding commitment right from the start. Kind of like Indonesia's participation in KAI-FX. But at no stage let them anywhere near the development cycle.

[wargame_insomniac]

Spitfire, I absolutely agree that India should have totally condemned the Russian invasion, filling their boots with Russian oil and gas was disgraceful behaviour, effectively underpinning the Russian economy and fanning the flames of war, along with China.

From a UK context Ron, Saudi Arabia is good bet, a typical UK export customer for high end military aircraft. An initial order to replace Typhoon, followed by further orders to replace the various F15 derivatives they operate perhaps.

So an initial 55 order is quite plaussable for a sufficiently capable machine.

The Gulf states in general are prime targets for exports of a high end long range Gen6 fighter.

Not only have the Saudis not offered any condemnation of Russia but they have also openly showed the middle finger to the US and worked in cahoots with Russians to cut oil production and raise prices. Yet, twerking in front of Saudis for a mere token order is dandy but no thanks to a potential project saving order of hundreds of airframes from India. Terrible lack of consistency.

Not only a terrible lack of consistency but also lack of foresight. If their own project fails and they are shut out of western projects, who do you think they will partner up with to build a new jet? They will pour tens of billions into another Russian project. Do you want to be moaning about how the Russians are attacking europe again with an Indian funded jet in 15 years time?

It is one thing to be wound up by India's self-serving actions but quite another to poke oneself in the eyeball seething about it.

If they come sniffing around for cooperation on GCAP, we should strap them to a chair and not let them leave before they commit to buy half the total production numbers.

Both us and Japan are headed for economic meltdown over the coming couple of years and italy is a perennial basketcase. I would tie up as much financial commitment to this project as possible before emily thornberry becomes the defense sec.

You think a multi £ billion order for 55 high end Gen 6 is a token order!!

Saudi Arabia has always made 'dubious' decisions, always have and we've always looked the way, while they get the cheque book out....

They have spent countless billions with the UK on military aircraft and support contracts since the 1960's and will hopefully continue to do so long into the future.

I can assure you (I know a little about this area) that there is absolutely 'no way on god's green earth' the Saudis would let the Russians or Chinese poke and prod at their Typhoons (or F15's), why, because Iran is a massive Russian and Chinese client state, they would have to be positively barking bloody mad to give them access to these aircraft and systems.

India, well, dealing with their Government is like pulling teeth, ask the French, so quite were you get the fanciful notion of India buying 100's of Tempest is slightly bemusing and quite frankly, far more chance of finding a unicorn, breaking it in and winning the Derby!

Would the Indians share sensitive Gen6 technology with Russia, absolutely they would, if the wind happened to be blowing towards Moscow that day in Delhi and it was seen to be in Indian interests.

I would put money on the fact that Russian test pilots have already flown Rafael and had a detailed look at the aircraft and it's systems, no doubt whatsoever.

[mrclark303]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

If we are talking fast jet Squadrons, then the UK barely has enough to defend UK airspace, that's the stark reality of the situation.

I wouldn't call it sizable, I would call it woefully inadequate to be honest.

Is Gripen E a brand new aircraft, well no, it's a progression of an existing design, in much the same way as the Buccaneer morphed from S1 to S2. It carries on the baton from the C/D, taking unfunded design alterations that SAAB had been quietly working on for many years and packaging them together with new avionics and an existing proven engine.

The difference between this and a clean sheet design, with new engines and avionics is chalk and cheese and an order of magnitude expence wise.

I still stand by the fact that at 2% GDP on defence, with an existing huge black hole in defence spending and projects in deficit,coupled with a responsibility for a third of Tempest and a very tight deadline, we can't afford it....

I had high hopes when 3% was promised, but it was snatched away, just as fast, can anyone explain where the money will suddenly magically appear from???

I hope somehow it happens....

[SW1]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

If we are talking fast jet Squadrons, then the UK barely has enough to defend UK airspace, that's the stark reality of the situation.

I wouldn't call it sizable, I would call it woefully inadequate to be honest.

Is Gripen E a brand new aircraft, well no, it's a progression of an existing design, in much the same way as the Buccaneer morphed from S1 to S2. It carries on the baton from the C/D, taking unfunded design alterations that SAAB had been quietly working on for many years and packaging them together with new avionics and an existing proven engine.

The difference between this and a clean sheet design, with new engines and avionics is chalk and cheese and an order of magnitude expence wise.

I still stand by the fact that at 2% GDP on defence, with an existing huge black hole in defence spending and projects in deficit,coupled with a responsibility for a third of Tempest and a very tight deadline, we can't afford it....

I had high hopes when 3% was promised, but it was snatched away, just as fast, can anyone explain where the money will suddenly magically appear from???

I hope somehow it happens....

Even at the end of the Cold War the No11 group was 7 f3 sqns and 2 phantom sqns and that was facing a soviet force orders of magnitude larger and more competent than today so if that was sufficient then we have enough today. With the air launched nuclear role now gone the strike force that supported it went too.

The gripen e is a new airframe, new engine (new to Sweden and development is required to go from a twin engine construct to single), new radar and avionics and a full flight test campaign. So if you don’t think that’s a new plane that’s ok I do.

Granted we are developing engine and airframe
from scratch but we aren’t doing it alone and the engine and centre fuselage development is the main reason Japan is involved. The budget line is already in place for tempest development.

You can of course take the position there will be no further funding of fastjet capability for the next 15 years and take that investment into other areas but what happens in 20 years time needs to be answered and of course fast jet final
Assembly and flight test, sensor and engine manufacture which will as a result close out in the meantime. It a valid decision but one that needs taken with eyes wide open.

[mrclark303]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

If we are talking fast jet Squadrons, then the UK barely has enough to defend UK airspace, that's the stark reality of the situation.

I wouldn't call it sizable, I would call it woefully inadequate to be honest.

Is Gripen E a brand new aircraft, well no, it's a progression of an existing design, in much the same way as the Buccaneer morphed from S1 to S2. It carries on the baton from the C/D, taking unfunded design alterations that SAAB had been quietly working on for many years and packaging them together with new avionics and an existing proven engine.

The difference between this and a clean sheet design, with new engines and avionics is chalk and cheese and an order of magnitude expence wise.

I still stand by the fact that at 2% GDP on defence, with an existing huge black hole in defence spending and projects in deficit,coupled with a responsibility for a third of Tempest and a very tight deadline, we can't afford it....

I had high hopes when 3% was promised, but it was snatched away, just as fast, can anyone explain where the money will suddenly magically appear from???

I hope somehow it happens....

Even at the end of the Cold War the No11 group was 7 f3 sqns and 2 phantom sqns and that was facing a soviet force orders of magnitude larger and more competent than today so if that was sufficient then we have enough today. With the air launched nuclear role now gone the strike force that supported it went too.

The gripen e is a new airframe, new engine (new to Sweden and development is required to go from a twin engine construct to single), new radar and avionics and a full flight test campaign. So if you don’t think that’s a new plane that’s ok I do.

Granted we are developing engine and airframe
from scratch but we aren’t doing it alone and the engine and centre fuselage development is the main reason Japan is involved. The budget line is already in place for tempest development.

You can of course take the position there will be no further funding of fastjet capability for the next 15 years and take that investment into other areas but what happens in 20 years time needs to be answered and of course fast jet final
Assembly and flight test, sensor and engine manufacture which will as a result close out in the meantime. It a valid decision but one that needs taken with eyes wide open.

Evening SW1, I 'really' hope Tempest proceeds, cancellation would be a body blow to the UK's ability to carry on as an airframe maker and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

An order for F35A would be a forgone conclusion in its place.

I'm of an age where I've seen this all before and the cynic in me struggles to square the 'huge' current hole of funding, never mind launch a new multi billion pound combat aircraft.

Extra money will have to be found or something substantial cancelled in its place.

However you crunch the numbers, it will likely be Mr Starmer who has to write the cheque...

[tomuk]

and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

You've suggested this before but why would LM be interested? And would the DOD let LM (largest) takeover their 6th biggest contractor.

[SD67]

WRT Saudi Arabia my uncle worked in logistics therein the 70s after leaving the RAF - the UK basically built the Saudi Air Force, many of their personnel were British at the time. Saudia Airlines as well - I remember the cabin announcements before takeoff in Jeddah were always a British public school voice which somehow felt reassuring. The Saudis are some of the most anti Russian anti communist people in the world hence why they financed the Afghan resistance.

[mrclark303]

and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

You've suggested this before but why would LM be interested? And would the DOD let LM (largest) takeover their 6th biggest contractor.

Morning, BAE Systems is a big fish in a small pond, it's got fingers in many pies world wide and any cancellation of Tempest would make its aero structures division vulnerable to takeover.

Certainly absorbing it into LM would be 'highly' desirable by LM itself and the US government in general.

It would help cement US market dominance and influence globally. As previously discussed, they would almost certainly 'guarantee' Wartons future by using it as an F35 assembly hub as part of any pitch. Such an offer would be extremely tempting to a future cash strapped UK government and would go a long way towards removing any objections.

[SW1]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

If we are talking fast jet Squadrons, then the UK barely has enough to defend UK airspace, that's the stark reality of the situation.

I wouldn't call it sizable, I would call it woefully inadequate to be honest.

Is Gripen E a brand new aircraft, well no, it's a progression of an existing design, in much the same way as the Buccaneer morphed from S1 to S2. It carries on the baton from the C/D, taking unfunded design alterations that SAAB had been quietly working on for many years and packaging them together with new avionics and an existing proven engine.

The difference between this and a clean sheet design, with new engines and avionics is chalk and cheese and an order of magnitude expence wise.

I still stand by the fact that at 2% GDP on defence, with an existing huge black hole in defence spending and projects in deficit,coupled with a responsibility for a third of Tempest and a very tight deadline, we can't afford it....

I had high hopes when 3% was promised, but it was snatched away, just as fast, can anyone explain where the money will suddenly magically appear from???

I hope somehow it happens....

Even at the end of the Cold War the No11 group was 7 f3 sqns and 2 phantom sqns and that was facing a soviet force orders of magnitude larger and more competent than today so if that was sufficient then we have enough today. With the air launched nuclear role now gone the strike force that supported it went too.

The gripen e is a new airframe, new engine (new to Sweden and development is required to go from a twin engine construct to single), new radar and avionics and a full flight test campaign. So if you don’t think that’s a new plane that’s ok I do.

Granted we are developing engine and airframe
from scratch but we aren’t doing it alone and the engine and centre fuselage development is the main reason Japan is involved. The budget line is already in place for tempest development.

You can of course take the position there will be no further funding of fastjet capability for the next 15 years and take that investment into other areas but what happens in 20 years time needs to be answered and of course fast jet final
Assembly and flight test, sensor and engine manufacture which will as a result close out in the meantime. It a valid decision but one that needs taken with eyes wide open.

Evening SW1, I 'really' hope Tempest proceeds, cancellation would be a body blow to the UK's ability to carry on as an airframe maker and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

An order for F35A would be a forgone conclusion in its place.

I'm of an age where I've seen this all before and the cynic in me struggles to square the 'huge' current hole of funding, never mind launch a new multi billion pound combat aircraft.

Extra money will have to be found or something substantial cancelled in its place.

However you crunch the numbers, it will likely be Mr Starmer who has to write the cheque...

That’s not saving money that’s just spending a whole lot of money on another plane.

The crown jewel in this enterprise is Rolls Royce. They are one of 3 prime aero engine producers in the world RR, GE and Pratts. That’s the ultra high end engineering that China, Russia, India and the like can’t copy. Are you willing to get out of military aero engine manufacturing business.

[mrclark303]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

If we are talking fast jet Squadrons, then the UK barely has enough to defend UK airspace, that's the stark reality of the situation.

I wouldn't call it sizable, I would call it woefully inadequate to be honest.

Is Gripen E a brand new aircraft, well no, it's a progression of an existing design, in much the same way as the Buccaneer morphed from S1 to S2. It carries on the baton from the C/D, taking unfunded design alterations that SAAB had been quietly working on for many years and packaging them together with new avionics and an existing proven engine.

The difference between this and a clean sheet design, with new engines and avionics is chalk and cheese and an order of magnitude expence wise.

I still stand by the fact that at 2% GDP on defence, with an existing huge black hole in defence spending and projects in deficit,coupled with a responsibility for a third of Tempest and a very tight deadline, we can't afford it....

I had high hopes when 3% was promised, but it was snatched away, just as fast, can anyone explain where the money will suddenly magically appear from???

I hope somehow it happens....

Even at the end of the Cold War the No11 group was 7 f3 sqns and 2 phantom sqns and that was facing a soviet force orders of magnitude larger and more competent than today so if that was sufficient then we have enough today. With the air launched nuclear role now gone the strike force that supported it went too.

The gripen e is a new airframe, new engine (new to Sweden and development is required to go from a twin engine construct to single), new radar and avionics and a full flight test campaign. So if you don’t think that’s a new plane that’s ok I do.

Granted we are developing engine and airframe
from scratch but we aren’t doing it alone and the engine and centre fuselage development is the main reason Japan is involved. The budget line is already in place for tempest development.

You can of course take the position there will be no further funding of fastjet capability for the next 15 years and take that investment into other areas but what happens in 20 years time needs to be answered and of course fast jet final
Assembly and flight test, sensor and engine manufacture which will as a result close out in the meantime. It a valid decision but one that needs taken with eyes wide open.

Evening SW1, I 'really' hope Tempest proceeds, cancellation would be a body blow to the UK's ability to carry on as an airframe maker and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

An order for F35A would be a forgone conclusion in its place.

I'm of an age where I've seen this all before and the cynic in me struggles to square the 'huge' current hole of funding, never mind launch a new multi billion pound combat aircraft.

Extra money will have to be found or something substantial cancelled in its place.

However you crunch the numbers, it will likely be Mr Starmer who has to write the cheque...

That’s not saving money that’s just spending a whole lot of money on another plane.

The crown jewel in this enterprise is Rolls Royce. They are one of 3 prime aero engine producers in the world RR, GE and Pratts. That’s the ultra high end engineering that China, Russia, India and the like can’t copy. Are you willing to get out of military aero engine manufacturing business.

It depends on what you regard as saving money, obviously at face value, simply replacing Typhoon with F35A would be vastly cheaper than Tempest.

It all depends if it can be financed in lock step with a very tight deadline. The French and Germans are looking towards 2040 plus and intend to drip feed funding, we are talking wheels up at Warton by 2035, that's a tight development schedule that requires serious and sustainable funding from all three partners ... Pretty much right now!

Am I personally willing to let Tempest go, hell no, I hope someone starts writing cheques!

[SW1]

Sweden spends 1.3 percent of its GDP ($12b dollars per annum) on defence developed and manufactured a highly capable and credible fast jet aircraft. So as we spend at least 4 times that amount on defence in the U.K. we should be able to do the same.

They do, but Gripen was their key defence programme for the 1980's and even with cold war funding and considerable assistance from BAe, it was a massive and expensive undertaking.

Gripen E is a successful way of squeezing another 20 years out of the aircraft with some clever
re-engineering.

The UK has many diverse defence programmes, a good number of them extremely expensive and running over budget.

In my opinion, the current black hole in the defence budget can't sustain Tempest, without a substantial lift, or a defence review that makes significant cuts elsewhere to free up funding. When we consider just about every part of defense is now below critical mass, I genuinely can't see what could possibly be cut!

30 years of cuts have disproportionately effected the RAF, they have gone from 30 plus combat aircraft squadrons to 7!!

I seriously doubt the RAF could deploy and sustain any more than two squadrons today, any more than 24 aircraft for a few months and you would stress the force to breaking point. I take the point that today's multirole Thypoon and F35 are infinity more capable than the ranks of Phantoms, Tornados, Harriers etc they replace, but allowing the RAF to drop below 12 combat aircraft squadrons was a dangerous and utterly reckless move.

Gripen E is basically a new aircraft. The UK also has a significantly larger budget, and tempest will be the principle air warfare program going fwd.

It depends what you consider a combat Sqn I would include the reaper soon to be protector sqns in your count so on paper that would make 10 combat Sqn available. That’s a sizeable number for a country our size. We are not conducting large scale independent air operations, so beyond the primary task of providing air defence to UK and its territories we have the ability to contribute to a coalition operation. The problem is in the number of people and spares holdings to sustain that not the number of a/c.

If the manned program of record for tempest is in the order of 100-150 a/c then it is a viable program for the UK.

If we are talking fast jet Squadrons, then the UK barely has enough to defend UK airspace, that's the stark reality of the situation.

I wouldn't call it sizable, I would call it woefully inadequate to be honest.

Is Gripen E a brand new aircraft, well no, it's a progression of an existing design, in much the same way as the Buccaneer morphed from S1 to S2. It carries on the baton from the C/D, taking unfunded design alterations that SAAB had been quietly working on for many years and packaging them together with new avionics and an existing proven engine.

The difference between this and a clean sheet design, with new engines and avionics is chalk and cheese and an order of magnitude expence wise.

I still stand by the fact that at 2% GDP on defence, with an existing huge black hole in defence spending and projects in deficit,coupled with a responsibility for a third of Tempest and a very tight deadline, we can't afford it....

I had high hopes when 3% was promised, but it was snatched away, just as fast, can anyone explain where the money will suddenly magically appear from???

I hope somehow it happens....

Even at the end of the Cold War the No11 group was 7 f3 sqns and 2 phantom sqns and that was facing a soviet force orders of magnitude larger and more competent than today so if that was sufficient then we have enough today. With the air launched nuclear role now gone the strike force that supported it went too.

The gripen e is a new airframe, new engine (new to Sweden and development is required to go from a twin engine construct to single), new radar and avionics and a full flight test campaign. So if you don’t think that’s a new plane that’s ok I do.

Granted we are developing engine and airframe
from scratch but we aren’t doing it alone and the engine and centre fuselage development is the main reason Japan is involved. The budget line is already in place for tempest development.

You can of course take the position there will be no further funding of fastjet capability for the next 15 years and take that investment into other areas but what happens in 20 years time needs to be answered and of course fast jet final
Assembly and flight test, sensor and engine manufacture which will as a result close out in the meantime. It a valid decision but one that needs taken with eyes wide open.

Evening SW1, I 'really' hope Tempest proceeds, cancellation would be a body blow to the UK's ability to carry on as an airframe maker and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

An order for F35A would be a forgone conclusion in its place.

I'm of an age where I've seen this all before and the cynic in me struggles to square the 'huge' current hole of funding, never mind launch a new multi billion pound combat aircraft.

Extra money will have to be found or something substantial cancelled in its place.

However you crunch the numbers, it will likely be Mr Starmer who has to write the cheque...

That’s not saving money that’s just spending a whole lot of money on another plane.

The crown jewel in this enterprise is Rolls Royce. They are one of 3 prime aero engine producers in the world RR, GE and Pratts. That’s the ultra high end engineering that China, Russia, India and the like can’t copy. Are you willing to get out of military aero engine manufacturing business.

It depends on what you regard as saving money, obviously at face value, simply replacing Typhoon with F35A would be vastly cheaper than Tempest.

It all depends if it can be financed in lock step with a very tight deadline. The French and Germans are looking towards 2040 plus and intend to drip feed funding, we are talking wheels up at Warton by 2035, that's a tight development schedule that requires serious and sustainable funding from all three partners ... Pretty much right now!

Am I personally willing to let Tempest go, hell no, I hope someone starts writing cheques!

10 years would be a very normal development time scale for a new aircraft program. So times are about par for the course.

There is significant development work ongoing right now and has been for the past 12 months..

[tomuk]

and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

You've suggested this before but why would LM be interested? And would the DOD let LM (largest) takeover their 6th biggest contractor.

Morning, BAE Systems is a big fish in a small pond, it's got fingers in many pies world wide and any cancellation of Tempest would make its aero structures division vulnerable to takeover.

Certainly absorbing it into LM would be 'highly' desirable by LM itself and the US government in general.

It would help cement US market dominance and influence globally. As previously discussed, they would almost certainly 'guarantee' Wartons future by using it as an F35 assembly hub as part of any pitch. Such an offer would be extremely tempting to a future cash strapped UK government and would go a long way towards removing any objections.

The US already have market dominance and influence and specifically for F35 they already have alternative sources and production lines. Matters closer to home with competitiveness in the home market would be of more interest to them then what goes on at Samelsbury or Warton.

[mrclark303]

and would probably be the catalyst for LM to pitch a hostile take over of BAE Systems.

You've suggested this before but why would LM be interested? And would the DOD let LM (largest) takeover their 6th biggest contractor.

Morning, BAE Systems is a big fish in a small pond, it's got fingers in many pies world wide and any cancellation of Tempest would make its aero structures division vulnerable to takeover.

Certainly absorbing it into LM would be 'highly' desirable by LM itself and the US government in general.

It would help cement US market dominance and influence globally. As previously discussed, they would almost certainly 'guarantee' Wartons future by using it as an F35 assembly hub as part of any pitch. Such an offer would be extremely tempting to a future cash strapped UK government and would go a long way towards removing any objections.

The US already have market dominance and influence and specifically for F35 they already have alternative sources and production lines. Matters closer to home with competitiveness in the home market would be of more interest to them then what goes on at Samelsbury or Warton.

I would disagree, the UK still punches above it's weight with world influence and if BAE Systems could be brought under LM's umbrella, it would be a huge feather in their cap, plus it would kill off an entire strand of UK led foreign competition for a generation.