Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

JakobS wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 09:47
jedibeeftrix wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 23:34 seems like a bit of a F up on the part of the swedish govt.

saab seemed like it could have carved out a useful niche in fcas subsystems like ecw, that it failed here must surely reflect on swedish govt commitment to the programme in terms of money, orders, and common requirements.

might they crash back into the franco-german programme? politically, it might be very useful to peel sweden away from the anglo-centric JEF/Nordic bloc.
THB I think it has more to do with the industrial benefits. Remember that Sweden and Saab is used to doing it all when it comes to fighter jets.

I remember that Saabs CEO said a few years ago that they would never participate in France and Germanys project because they would only be allowed to design "the right wing pylon".

I don't think they would accept to only handle subsystems etc.
Depends what you mean by "doing it all". They buy in the engine, or license produce it. The Gripen radar as I understand it is based on Blue Vixen.

As I understand it "Tempest" is broader than "GCAP". Tempest being the UK program for overall combat air including loyal wingman etc, maybe SAAB stays in "Tempest" as a tech partner
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 07:52
tomuk wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 22:45
SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 14:33
tomuk wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:33
SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 11:52 I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk
Where would you get the radar from?
Edinburgh!
That's my point. The Italian owned (30% Italian Government) Leonardo in Edinburgh.
Your point is incorrect, leonardo in the uk was involved with the tempest program prior to Italy joining it. US owned companies in the UK are involved with tempest are they now to be considered partners too.
No my point isn't incorrect. Of course there are various foreign owned suppliers involved in Tempest my point is that if the controlling\owning country such as Italy is involved in the program than that is another level of commitment.

An analogy would be customer and factory teams in F1. If Italy were to leave and join the Franco\German effort would we not see a change in focus of Leonardo's resources towards that sovereign system rather than the one being supplied to a mere customer?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 16:16
SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 07:52
tomuk wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 22:45
SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 14:33
tomuk wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:33
SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 11:52 I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk
Where would you get the radar from?
Edinburgh!
That's my point. The Italian owned (30% Italian Government) Leonardo in Edinburgh.
Your point is incorrect, leonardo in the uk was involved with the tempest program prior to Italy joining it. US owned companies in the UK are involved with tempest are they now to be considered partners too.
No my point isn't incorrect. Of course there are various foreign owned suppliers involved in Tempest my point is that if the controlling\owning country such as Italy is involved in the program than that is another level of commitment.

An analogy would be customer and factory teams in F1. If Italy were to leave and join the Franco\German effort would we not see a change in focus of Leonardo's resources towards that sovereign system rather than the one being supplied to a mere customer?
No because leonardo U.K. is fire walled much like bae inc is in the US. Their involvement is completely separate to italys national
Intentions.

Bitter experience on several programs tells me anything given to the Italians will significantly increase program execution risk that would not be true of Saab.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 16:43
tomuk wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 16:16
SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 07:52
tomuk wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 22:45
SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 14:33
tomuk wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:33
SW1 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 11:52 I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk
Where would you get the radar from?
Edinburgh!
That's my point. The Italian owned (30% Italian Government) Leonardo in Edinburgh.
Your point is incorrect, leonardo in the uk was involved with the tempest program prior to Italy joining it. US owned companies in the UK are involved with tempest are they now to be considered partners too.
No my point isn't incorrect. Of course there are various foreign owned suppliers involved in Tempest my point is that if the controlling\owning country such as Italy is involved in the program than that is another level of commitment.

An analogy would be customer and factory teams in F1. If Italy were to leave and join the Franco\German effort would we not see a change in focus of Leonardo's resources towards that sovereign system rather than the one being supplied to a mere customer?
No because leonardo U.K. is fire walled much like bae inc is in the US. Their involvement is completely separate to italys national
Intentions.

Bitter experience on several programs tells me anything given to the Italians will significantly increase program execution risk that would not be true of Saab.
Yes there are protections but nothing as strict as the American ones plus at the end of the day although they may stop Leonardo Italy knowing the technical detail of what's happening it doesn't stop them changing there investment decisions and spending the money elsewhere.

Spitfire9
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 21 Dec 2022, 22:05
Norway

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Spitfire9 »

SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 16:43 Bitter experience on several programs tells me anything given to the Italians will significantly increase program execution risk that would not be true of Saab.
Yes, I have the impression that SAAB is straightforward to deal with. Out of curiosity, what difficulties did you find in dealing with the Italians?

PS I have had difficulties dealing with the English: once had a little job at RSRE, purportedly to help them to sort out some programming problems. Without security clearance I could not be shown the troublesome code, which made it a bit difficult to work out what was wrong with the programs or how to fix them! Never mind - the taxpayer always pays even if he gets nothing for his money.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SW1 »

Spitfire9 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 19:49
SW1 wrote: 05 Jan 2023, 16:43 Bitter experience on several programs tells me anything given to the Italians will significantly increase program execution risk that would not be true of Saab.
Yes, I have the impression that SAAB is straightforward to deal with. Out of curiosity, what difficulties did you find in dealing with the Italians?

PS I have had difficulties dealing with the English: once had a little job at RSRE, purportedly to help them to sort out some programming problems. Without security clearance I could not be shown the troublesome code, which made it a bit difficult to work out what was wrong with the programs or how to fix them! Never mind - the taxpayer always pays even if he gets nothing for his money.
Poor engineering rigger, removal of MRB approvals requiring engineering takeover by OEM for several years. Poor manufacturing adherence generating significant scrap and concessions requiring dual sourcing of materials to meet schedules.

In general requires senior engineering resource to be allocated to hand hold, resource that is in short supply.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

Phil Sayers wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 19:14 It is pretty distasteful that the Indian government have clearly instructed the Indian police not to investigate the recent deaths of the two Russian businessmen on their joint trip to India.

That said, this is more than a little suspicious itself and it seems entirely plausible that the UK govt had similar conversations with our own police:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/he ... itish-soil
It's interesting Phil, I would offer the hypothesis that such deaths might be handed over to MI5 to investigate and prosecute from within their own governmental remit, it would explain Police apparent silence and apparent inactivity, as National Security comes firmly into play.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

mrclark303 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:59
Little J wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 12:55 They are being foolish, the Tempest maybe to big for their needs but being involved in the program would help pay to put the subsystems developed into their own airframe (Gripen or something newer).
Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.

Sweden, Italy, GB and Japan would all bring key enabling skills to Tempest, it's a shame it appears Sweden are now backtracking.

Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55
I suspect that the UK will order alot lot more than 150 units - the world is "re-arming" again and countries are rebuilding their forces as - in part to what has happened in Ukraine and in part for the "showdown" with China ( which is why Tempest requirements will follow more Japans requirements for China than the UK given the UK's desire to get into an "anti-China" alliance .. ).

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

JakobS wrote: 02 Jan 2023, 22:29 Looks like Sweden is a bit pissed. Guessing they are out.
Saab's setback - misses out on the giant project with Great Britain

Saab is outmaneuvered from the joint development of a new future combat aircraft that the Swedish government agreed with Great Britain in 2019. It would have secured the next generation of Swedish combat aircraft. Instead, with its FX aircraft, Japan has taken over the main role Affärsvärlden can tell.

"We have felt marginalized in the negotiations and therefore decided to hibernate the cooperation without directly ending it", was the message when Saab's CEO Michael Johansson had a special meeting with the defense media at the head office in Stockholm in August this year.

According to the defense site Janes, which attended the meeting, the Saab chief explained that the original benefits of the agreement had not materialized and that Saab and Sweden now took a back seat to consider their own future options while the other parties chiseled out the future direction of the development program.

SAAB invested 566 millions

It was in July 2019 that the Swedish and British governments presented a "Memorandum of Understanding" to jointly create a collaboration for Future Combat Air Systems, FCAS. That is, to jointly develop the next generation of combat aircraft.

In addition to Saab and British BAE Systems, FCAS also included Italian Leonardo, European missile company MBDA and engine manufacturer Rolls Royce.

Saab considered participation in FCAS to be of such strategic importance for the future that a year later, in 2020, it decided to open a center in Great Britain at their own expense of just over SEK 566 million. In the same year, the three countries Sweden, Italy and Great Britain signed an agreement to jointly develop the British fighter plane Tempest.

"Saab made the decision to create a new FCAS center so that we can be closer to our industry partners and authorities in the FCAS collaboration. This center emphasizes the importance of both FCAS and the UK to Saab's future," explained Michael Johansson when the new center was unveiled.

The plans have been shattered

Two years later, the bright future plans have been crushed. In the meeting with the defense media on August 26 this year, the Saab boss explained, according to the defense site Jane's report, "that we have ended up on the sidelines in FCAS and our participation has not been as intense as we thought it would be. We have not left the program but it has become a hibernation period for Sweden where we have seen how Great Britain, Italy and potentially also Japan designed the program. I don't know how this will end," said the Saab boss at the meeting.

On December 9 this year, TT announced in a notice that "Japan, Great Britain and Italy will develop new fighter aircraft". Not a word is mentioned about Saab.

When Affärsvärlden asks Saab what happened to Saab and the collaboration in FCAS, it is referred to "government and relevant authorities". After further questions to Saab about what happened to the originally grandiose collaboration, Saab's press manager Mattias Rådström returns with the following comment:

"Sweden and Saab have been involved in the FCAS initiative since 2018, first with the UK and then with both the UK and Italy. This year, Sweden has focused on reviewing the consequences of the changed global situation. Saab's focus is to support the Swedish authorities in reviewing the Swedish FCAS context".

Will upgrade Gripen

The business world has also unsuccessfully sought the Ministry of Defense for a comment on why the Swedish cooperation in FCAS failed.

Saab is now outside a major international collaboration for the development of the next generation fighter aircraft. The fact that Saab can no longer count on FCAS in its development work seems to have resulted in new development money from the Swedish state. This summer 250 million SEK was received from the Defense Materiel Works for "studies for future fighter aircraft development". Since then, Saab has also received an order to upgrade the Gripen C/D worth 3.4 billion SEK.
https://www.affarsvarlden.se/artikel/sa ... britannien
I suspect it comes down the lack of the Swedish goverments support/involvement in Tempest, rather than Saab's "desire". Sweden was hoping to get Saab involved industrially to develop technology and do portions of the manufacturing for economic growth - but not buy units of Tempest - but instead use that industrial capability and new knowledge to build its own 5G stealth single fighter with full industrial control of that for itself. Japan offered a peer for funding the programme and who one purchase a large number of units - so the trade off both financially and industrially made it more of a "partner" than what Sweden/Saab were trying to do.

So - yes - Saab is salty - i would be too - but it is a logical consequence of the redistribution of the work as new partners join.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Spitfire9 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 15:38
mrclark303 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:59 Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.
I think that the KAI KF-21 is in the order of 25 tonnes, as is the not-yet-launched HAL AMCA. What would SAAB design to avoid competing with these? How small can a fighter be and still carry a meaningful weapons load internally?
mrclark303 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:59 Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55
I follow Indian military aviation. It is possible that their own 5G AMCA project will end up being cancelled through India's inability to organise (and reluctance to finance) development of a suitable engine. It may be very advantageous for the GCAP group to keep talking to India about possible involvement in the program either as a co-developer or as a customer. india will need to start replacing 250+ Su-30 fighters from mid/late 2030's(?) so might be in the market for 100-150 frames if AMCA is cancelled/abandoned.
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 ..

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 11:21
mrclark303 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:59
Little J wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 12:55 They are being foolish, the Tempest maybe to big for their needs but being involved in the program would help pay to put the subsystems developed into their own airframe (Gripen or something newer).
Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.

Sweden, Italy, GB and Japan would all bring key enabling skills to Tempest, it's a shame it appears Sweden are now backtracking.

Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55
I suspect that the UK will order alot lot more than 150 units - the world is "re-arming" again and countries are rebuilding their forces as - in part to what has happened in Ukraine and in part for the "showdown" with China ( which is why Tempest requirements will follow more Japans requirements for China than the UK given the UK's desire to get into an "anti-China" alliance .. ).
I certainly hope so, I would regard 150 as an absolute minimum order from a key partner.

Unfortunately, with the commitment to 3% GDP on defence, apparently evaporating, it's hard to see how they can commit to Tempest with the time constraints in play.

Something will have to give in the next defence review to afford Tempest at this rate....

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Spitfire9 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 15:26
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..
India is not a partner of the west. Definitely not a partner of US. US applied sanctions when India tested a nuclear device about 20 years ago. All the R&D and dev work done on their LCA fly-by-wire system in US was embargoed, meaning India had to start more or less from scratch again by on its own.

India is under constant attack (several times a week) by armed militants crossing from Pakistan. US favoured Pakistan over India while conducting its Afghanistan operations, to India's cost. You can surely understand that India does not see US as a country it would want to be rely on. It has proved to be unreliable in the past. In recent times it has given support to a country seen as a 'terrorist state' by India.

To me India should have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not because it invaded an 'ally' of the west. Because it invaded a sovereign country.
Hi -

I agree with your broad sentiment re: trusting India(not a good idea) - but a number of items need clarfication around "terrorism" and "who" was turning a blind eye and "when".

1 - The USA is the master of self-interest in all global relations and how it can benefit the USA, we all know this.

2 - This self interest applies to how it "views" and "uses" both Pakistan and India.

3 - The Americans leaned towards Pakistan, and ignored Pakistan's struggles with India ( eg Kashmir ) as the Americans were only interested in the war against the Soviets ( ie so USA ignored Pakistans nuclear programme, and ignored the transfer of some of the "mujahideen" to Kashmir alongside Afghanistan ).

4 - The USA leaned towards Pakistan, during the "war on terror" as they needed Pakistan to be onside. That was the USA interest.

5 - The USA *** ignored Indian sponsored terrorism emanating from Afghanistan to Pakistan during the war on terror **** , that cost the lives of 0's of thousands of Pakistan's because it was in the USA interest to ignore "that terrorism" from a future potential ally(India) that could be used against China.

No country has been as effective as using Terrorism as a military and political tool than India has been .. no country... not even Pakistan

[bold] India set up DOZENS of FAKE "embassies", "diplomatic missions" along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border with the support of the "once then Kabul goverment" and the USA turned a blind eye to them, knowing precisely what the Indians were up to.

It used official diplomatic cover to setup these buildings, and then its RAW intelligence agencies used those building as bases to setup terrorist traning camps surrounding these Indian diplomatic buildings. It trained terrorists, who then went to Pakistan to kill ten's of thousands of Pakistan's civilians.

6 - It took the fall of the previous Afghan goverment, and the exit of the "diplomats re:RAW Terrors Trainers" from these fake buildings for terrorism to Pakistan to down massively. Thousands of Pakistan's would die every year and now it is in units of ten's. It was like a light switch that went off.

All of India's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan was torn down and that bought an end to India's reign of terorist terror.

The USA and NATO never took to task India for these terrorist training centres and was the root cause of the breakdown and fallout between USA / Pakistan and the end of the war on terror. Pakistan was annoyed with the USA / NATO for not stopping Indian Terrorist training camps but still asking Pakistan to focus on those brand of terrorists that it was USA interests.

7 - Pakistan was/is pissed at the Americans for turning their blind eye to this Indian terrorism under the USA and NATO "watch", so Pakistan was therefore NOT SAD to see them go. Since they left, things are much more peaceful in Pakistan. Not totally peaceful, but so so much better.

8 - The Indians created the TTP terrorist group. Period.

TTP owes its history and creation, its patronage to India and RAW ...


9 - 70,000 Pakistan 's were killed in the war on terror (read a chunk of that was due to "Indian sponsored terrorism").

10 - There are still problems with TTP as the Taliban do not have full territorial control yet and there have been issues recently, but the unit of scale is from thousands to 10's and maybe will rise to hundreds now(recent issues ).

11- Since the "war on terror" is at an end, and the USA left Afghanistan, the USA is now on building anti-China alliance of which India is a member, so the USA has been shitting on Pakistan more... that is the reality of "self interest". Lets not kid ourselves here.

12 - India has fenced off the entire Indian Occuplied Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-India border. Not much gets across that is not meant to. However India still likes to talk about Pakistani militants somehow cross over this border because such talk is about Optics and weaponisation of terrorism for political gains ...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... r-at-night

I can write an entire book on this topic but i wont, but i just wanted to correct the perception that "only Pakistan" has used terrorism and not India. India has used it and used it much much better than Pakistan and it managed to successfully co-opt the USA in that....

(this is not the right thread to talk about this - apologies to the mod's, and my rant is far far more than your comment - but i had to step in here on what you said and make it clear, that things are never that clear without context ).

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:16
Spitfire9 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 15:26
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..
India is not a partner of the west. Definitely not a partner of US. US applied sanctions when India tested a nuclear device about 20 years ago. All the R&D and dev work done on their LCA fly-by-wire system in US was embargoed, meaning India had to start more or less from scratch again by on its own.

India is under constant attack (several times a week) by armed militants crossing from Pakistan. US favoured Pakistan over India while conducting its Afghanistan operations, to India's cost. You can surely understand that India does not see US as a country it would want to be rely on. It has proved to be unreliable in the past. In recent times it has given support to a country seen as a 'terrorist state' by India.

To me India should have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not because it invaded an 'ally' of the west. Because it invaded a sovereign country.
Hi -

I agree with your broad sentiment re: trusting India(not a good idea) - but a number of items need clarfication around "terrorism" and "who" was turning a blind eye and "when".

1 - The USA is the master of self-interest in all global relations and how it can benefit the USA, we all know this.

2 - This self interest applies to how it "views" and "uses" both Pakistan and India.

3 - The Americans leaned towards Pakistan, and ignored Pakistan's struggles with India ( eg Kashmir ) as the Americans were only interested in the war against the Soviets ( ie so USA ignored Pakistans nuclear programme, and ignored the transfer of some of the "mujahideen" to Kashmir alongside Afghanistan ).

4 - The USA leaned towards Pakistan, during the "war on terror" as they needed Pakistan to be onside. That was the USA interest.

5 - The USA *** ignored Indian sponsored terrorism emanating from Afghanistan to Pakistan during the war on terror **** , that cost the lives of 0's of thousands of Pakistan's because it was in the USA interest to ignore "that terrorism" from a future potential ally(India) that could be used against China.

No country has been as effective as using Terrorism as a military and political tool than India has been .. no country... not even Pakistan

[bold] India set up DOZENS of FAKE "embassies", "diplomatic missions" along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border with the support of the "once then Kabul goverment" and the USA turned a blind eye to them, knowing precisely what the Indians were up to.

It used official diplomatic cover to setup these buildings, and then its RAW intelligence agencies used those building as bases to setup terrorist traning camps surrounding these Indian diplomatic buildings. It trained terrorists, who then went to Pakistan to kill ten's of thousands of Pakistan's civilians.

6 - It took the fall of the previous Afghan goverment, and the exit of the "diplomats re:RAW Terrors Trainers" from these fake buildings for terrorism to Pakistan to down massively. Thousands of Pakistan's would die every year and now it is in units of ten's. It was like a light switch that went off.

All of India's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan was torn down and that bought an end to India's reign of terorist terror.

The USA and NATO never took to task India for these terrorist training centres and was the root cause of the breakdown and fallout between USA / Pakistan and the end of the war on terror. Pakistan was annoyed with the USA / NATO for not stopping Indian Terrorist training camps but still asking Pakistan to focus on those brand of terrorists that it was USA interests.

7 - Pakistan was/is pissed at the Americans for turning their blind eye to this Indian terrorism under the USA and NATO "watch", so Pakistan was therefore NOT SAD to see them go. Since they left, things are much more peaceful in Pakistan. Not totally peaceful, but so so much better.

8 - The Indians created the TTP terrorist group. Period.

TTP owes its history and creation, its patronage to India and RAW ...


9 - 70,000 Pakistan 's were killed in the war on terror (read a chunk of that was due to "Indian sponsored terrorism").

10 - There are still problems with TTP as the Taliban do not have full territorial control yet and there have been issues recently, but the unit of scale is from thousands to 10's and maybe will rise to hundreds now(recent issues ).

11- Since the "war on terror" is at an end, and the USA left Afghanistan, the USA is now on building anti-China alliance of which India is a member, so the USA has been shitting on Pakistan more... that is the reality of "self interest". Lets not kid ourselves here.

12 - India has fenced off the entire Indian Occuplied Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-India border. Not much gets across that is not meant to. However India still likes to talk about Pakistani militants somehow cross over this border because such talk is about Optics and weaponisation of terrorism for political gains ...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... r-at-night

I can write an entire book on this topic but i wont, but i just wanted to correct the perception that "only Pakistan" has used terrorism and not India. India has used it and used it much much better than Pakistan and it managed to successfully co-opt the USA in that....

(this is not the right thread to talk about this - apologies to the mod's, and my rant is far far more than your comment - but i had to step in here on what you said and make it clear, that things are never that clear without context ).
None of this has anything to do with Tempest since the USA isn’t a partner is never going to be. The sole reason for concern around India being a partner in the program or even a purcheser is around their previous relation with Russia both in the joint programs they partook in and in their purchase of Russia equipmrnt along with how India has reacted towards Russia invasion of Ukrain.

All the above makes people question whether India would leak Tempest tech to Russia at some point to suit themselves and in turn screw over the like of ourselves. It has nothing to doing with India’s “terrorest” training camps aimed at Pakistani, your rant seems to be just that a rant over a fude your have with India and nothing to do with Temepest.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Jake1992 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 13:29
TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:16
Spitfire9 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 15:26
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..
India is not a partner of the west. Definitely not a partner of US. US applied sanctions when India tested a nuclear device about 20 years ago. All the R&D and dev work done on their LCA fly-by-wire system in US was embargoed, meaning India had to start more or less from scratch again by on its own.

India is under constant attack (several times a week) by armed militants crossing from Pakistan. US favoured Pakistan over India while conducting its Afghanistan operations, to India's cost. You can surely understand that India does not see US as a country it would want to be rely on. It has proved to be unreliable in the past. In recent times it has given support to a country seen as a 'terrorist state' by India.

To me India should have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not because it invaded an 'ally' of the west. Because it invaded a sovereign country.
Hi -

I agree with your broad sentiment re: trusting India(not a good idea) - but a number of items need clarfication around "terrorism" and "who" was turning a blind eye and "when".

1 - The USA is the master of self-interest in all global relations and how it can benefit the USA, we all know this.

2 - This self interest applies to how it "views" and "uses" both Pakistan and India.

3 - The Americans leaned towards Pakistan, and ignored Pakistan's struggles with India ( eg Kashmir ) as the Americans were only interested in the war against the Soviets ( ie so USA ignored Pakistans nuclear programme, and ignored the transfer of some of the "mujahideen" to Kashmir alongside Afghanistan ).

4 - The USA leaned towards Pakistan, during the "war on terror" as they needed Pakistan to be onside. That was the USA interest.

5 - The USA *** ignored Indian sponsored terrorism emanating from Afghanistan to Pakistan during the war on terror **** , that cost the lives of 0's of thousands of Pakistan's because it was in the USA interest to ignore "that terrorism" from a future potential ally(India) that could be used against China.

No country has been as effective as using Terrorism as a military and political tool than India has been .. no country... not even Pakistan

[bold] India set up DOZENS of FAKE "embassies", "diplomatic missions" along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border with the support of the "once then Kabul goverment" and the USA turned a blind eye to them, knowing precisely what the Indians were up to.

It used official diplomatic cover to setup these buildings, and then its RAW intelligence agencies used those building as bases to setup terrorist traning camps surrounding these Indian diplomatic buildings. It trained terrorists, who then went to Pakistan to kill ten's of thousands of Pakistan's civilians.

6 - It took the fall of the previous Afghan goverment, and the exit of the "diplomats re:RAW Terrors Trainers" from these fake buildings for terrorism to Pakistan to down massively. Thousands of Pakistan's would die every year and now it is in units of ten's. It was like a light switch that went off.

All of India's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan was torn down and that bought an end to India's reign of terorist terror.

The USA and NATO never took to task India for these terrorist training centres and was the root cause of the breakdown and fallout between USA / Pakistan and the end of the war on terror. Pakistan was annoyed with the USA / NATO for not stopping Indian Terrorist training camps but still asking Pakistan to focus on those brand of terrorists that it was USA interests.

7 - Pakistan was/is pissed at the Americans for turning their blind eye to this Indian terrorism under the USA and NATO "watch", so Pakistan was therefore NOT SAD to see them go. Since they left, things are much more peaceful in Pakistan. Not totally peaceful, but so so much better.

8 - The Indians created the TTP terrorist group. Period.

TTP owes its history and creation, its patronage to India and RAW ...


9 - 70,000 Pakistan 's were killed in the war on terror (read a chunk of that was due to "Indian sponsored terrorism").

10 - There are still problems with TTP as the Taliban do not have full territorial control yet and there have been issues recently, but the unit of scale is from thousands to 10's and maybe will rise to hundreds now(recent issues ).

11- Since the "war on terror" is at an end, and the USA left Afghanistan, the USA is now on building anti-China alliance of which India is a member, so the USA has been shitting on Pakistan more... that is the reality of "self interest". Lets not kid ourselves here.

12 - India has fenced off the entire Indian Occuplied Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-India border. Not much gets across that is not meant to. However India still likes to talk about Pakistani militants somehow cross over this border because such talk is about Optics and weaponisation of terrorism for political gains ...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... r-at-night

I can write an entire book on this topic but i wont, but i just wanted to correct the perception that "only Pakistan" has used terrorism and not India. India has used it and used it much much better than Pakistan and it managed to successfully co-opt the USA in that....

(this is not the right thread to talk about this - apologies to the mod's, and my rant is far far more than your comment - but i had to step in here on what you said and make it clear, that things are never that clear without context ).
None of this has anything to do with Tempest since the USA isn’t a partner is never going to be. The sole reason for concern around India being a partner in the program or even a purcheser is around their previous relation with Russia both in the joint programs they partook in and in their purchase of Russia equipmrnt along with how India has reacted towards Russia invasion of Ukrain.

All the above makes people question whether India would leak Tempest tech to Russia at some point to suit themselves and in turn screw over the like of ourselves. It has nothing to doing with India’s “terrorest” training camps aimed at Pakistani, your rant seems to be just that a rant over a fude your have with India and nothing to do with Temepest.
Agree - and Agree. Also, at no point did i suggest that USA would be a partner in Tempest ( though how ITAR free Tempest will be - is still up for grabs ).

I did qualify my response at the bottom - and yes - it was a rant at a specific point only which was qualified.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jake1992 »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 14:15
Jake1992 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 13:29
TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:16
Spitfire9 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 15:26
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..
India is not a partner of the west. Definitely not a partner of US. US applied sanctions when India tested a nuclear device about 20 years ago. All the R&D and dev work done on their LCA fly-by-wire system in US was embargoed, meaning India had to start more or less from scratch again by on its own.

India is under constant attack (several times a week) by armed militants crossing from Pakistan. US favoured Pakistan over India while conducting its Afghanistan operations, to India's cost. You can surely understand that India does not see US as a country it would want to be rely on. It has proved to be unreliable in the past. In recent times it has given support to a country seen as a 'terrorist state' by India.

To me India should have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not because it invaded an 'ally' of the west. Because it invaded a sovereign country.
Hi -

I agree with your broad sentiment re: trusting India(not a good idea) - but a number of items need clarfication around "terrorism" and "who" was turning a blind eye and "when".

1 - The USA is the master of self-interest in all global relations and how it can benefit the USA, we all know this.

2 - This self interest applies to how it "views" and "uses" both Pakistan and India.

3 - The Americans leaned towards Pakistan, and ignored Pakistan's struggles with India ( eg Kashmir ) as the Americans were only interested in the war against the Soviets ( ie so USA ignored Pakistans nuclear programme, and ignored the transfer of some of the "mujahideen" to Kashmir alongside Afghanistan ).

4 - The USA leaned towards Pakistan, during the "war on terror" as they needed Pakistan to be onside. That was the USA interest.

5 - The USA *** ignored Indian sponsored terrorism emanating from Afghanistan to Pakistan during the war on terror **** , that cost the lives of 0's of thousands of Pakistan's because it was in the USA interest to ignore "that terrorism" from a future potential ally(India) that could be used against China.

No country has been as effective as using Terrorism as a military and political tool than India has been .. no country... not even Pakistan

[bold] India set up DOZENS of FAKE "embassies", "diplomatic missions" along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border with the support of the "once then Kabul goverment" and the USA turned a blind eye to them, knowing precisely what the Indians were up to.

It used official diplomatic cover to setup these buildings, and then its RAW intelligence agencies used those building as bases to setup terrorist traning camps surrounding these Indian diplomatic buildings. It trained terrorists, who then went to Pakistan to kill ten's of thousands of Pakistan's civilians.

6 - It took the fall of the previous Afghan goverment, and the exit of the "diplomats re:RAW Terrors Trainers" from these fake buildings for terrorism to Pakistan to down massively. Thousands of Pakistan's would die every year and now it is in units of ten's. It was like a light switch that went off.

All of India's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan was torn down and that bought an end to India's reign of terorist terror.

The USA and NATO never took to task India for these terrorist training centres and was the root cause of the breakdown and fallout between USA / Pakistan and the end of the war on terror. Pakistan was annoyed with the USA / NATO for not stopping Indian Terrorist training camps but still asking Pakistan to focus on those brand of terrorists that it was USA interests.

7 - Pakistan was/is pissed at the Americans for turning their blind eye to this Indian terrorism under the USA and NATO "watch", so Pakistan was therefore NOT SAD to see them go. Since they left, things are much more peaceful in Pakistan. Not totally peaceful, but so so much better.

8 - The Indians created the TTP terrorist group. Period.

TTP owes its history and creation, its patronage to India and RAW ...


9 - 70,000 Pakistan 's were killed in the war on terror (read a chunk of that was due to "Indian sponsored terrorism").

10 - There are still problems with TTP as the Taliban do not have full territorial control yet and there have been issues recently, but the unit of scale is from thousands to 10's and maybe will rise to hundreds now(recent issues ).

11- Since the "war on terror" is at an end, and the USA left Afghanistan, the USA is now on building anti-China alliance of which India is a member, so the USA has been shitting on Pakistan more... that is the reality of "self interest". Lets not kid ourselves here.

12 - India has fenced off the entire Indian Occuplied Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-India border. Not much gets across that is not meant to. However India still likes to talk about Pakistani militants somehow cross over this border because such talk is about Optics and weaponisation of terrorism for political gains ...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... r-at-night

I can write an entire book on this topic but i wont, but i just wanted to correct the perception that "only Pakistan" has used terrorism and not India. India has used it and used it much much better than Pakistan and it managed to successfully co-opt the USA in that....

(this is not the right thread to talk about this - apologies to the mod's, and my rant is far far more than your comment - but i had to step in here on what you said and make it clear, that things are never that clear without context ).
None of this has anything to do with Tempest since the USA isn’t a partner is never going to be. The sole reason for concern around India being a partner in the program or even a purcheser is around their previous relation with Russia both in the joint programs they partook in and in their purchase of Russia equipmrnt along with how India has reacted towards Russia invasion of Ukrain.

All the above makes people question whether India would leak Tempest tech to Russia at some point to suit themselves and in turn screw over the like of ourselves. It has nothing to doing with India’s “terrorest” training camps aimed at Pakistani, your rant seems to be just that a rant over a fude your have with India and nothing to do with Temepest.
Agree - and Agree. Also, at no point did i suggest that USA would be a partner in Tempest ( though how ITAR free Tempest will be - is still up for grabs ).

I did qualify my response at the bottom - and yes - it was a rant at a specific point only which was qualified.
My point in my reply was more a case of while we all tend to go off on tangents when in convensation around topics your comment seemed to have nothing to do with the topic it’s self and very little at all to do with the tangent that came up around India being a partner or a buyer.

It’s not a shot at you or your comment at all but more that it’s perhaps be better placed on the India thread and the Tempest one.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Jake1992 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 14:20
TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 14:15
Jake1992 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 13:29
TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 12:16
Spitfire9 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 15:26
mrclark303 wrote: 04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..
India is not a partner of the west. Definitely not a partner of US. US applied sanctions when India tested a nuclear device about 20 years ago. All the R&D and dev work done on their LCA fly-by-wire system in US was embargoed, meaning India had to start more or less from scratch again by on its own.

India is under constant attack (several times a week) by armed militants crossing from Pakistan. US favoured Pakistan over India while conducting its Afghanistan operations, to India's cost. You can surely understand that India does not see US as a country it would want to be rely on. It has proved to be unreliable in the past. In recent times it has given support to a country seen as a 'terrorist state' by India.

To me India should have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not because it invaded an 'ally' of the west. Because it invaded a sovereign country.
Hi -

I agree with your broad sentiment re: trusting India(not a good idea) - but a number of items need clarfication around "terrorism" and "who" was turning a blind eye and "when".

1 - The USA is the master of self-interest in all global relations and how it can benefit the USA, we all know this.

2 - This self interest applies to how it "views" and "uses" both Pakistan and India.

3 - The Americans leaned towards Pakistan, and ignored Pakistan's struggles with India ( eg Kashmir ) as the Americans were only interested in the war against the Soviets ( ie so USA ignored Pakistans nuclear programme, and ignored the transfer of some of the "mujahideen" to Kashmir alongside Afghanistan ).

4 - The USA leaned towards Pakistan, during the "war on terror" as they needed Pakistan to be onside. That was the USA interest.

5 - The USA *** ignored Indian sponsored terrorism emanating from Afghanistan to Pakistan during the war on terror **** , that cost the lives of 0's of thousands of Pakistan's because it was in the USA interest to ignore "that terrorism" from a future potential ally(India) that could be used against China.

No country has been as effective as using Terrorism as a military and political tool than India has been .. no country... not even Pakistan

[bold] India set up DOZENS of FAKE "embassies", "diplomatic missions" along the Pakistan / Afghanistan border with the support of the "once then Kabul goverment" and the USA turned a blind eye to them, knowing precisely what the Indians were up to.

It used official diplomatic cover to setup these buildings, and then its RAW intelligence agencies used those building as bases to setup terrorist traning camps surrounding these Indian diplomatic buildings. It trained terrorists, who then went to Pakistan to kill ten's of thousands of Pakistan's civilians.

6 - It took the fall of the previous Afghan goverment, and the exit of the "diplomats re:RAW Terrors Trainers" from these fake buildings for terrorism to Pakistan to down massively. Thousands of Pakistan's would die every year and now it is in units of ten's. It was like a light switch that went off.

All of India's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan was torn down and that bought an end to India's reign of terorist terror.

The USA and NATO never took to task India for these terrorist training centres and was the root cause of the breakdown and fallout between USA / Pakistan and the end of the war on terror. Pakistan was annoyed with the USA / NATO for not stopping Indian Terrorist training camps but still asking Pakistan to focus on those brand of terrorists that it was USA interests.

7 - Pakistan was/is pissed at the Americans for turning their blind eye to this Indian terrorism under the USA and NATO "watch", so Pakistan was therefore NOT SAD to see them go. Since they left, things are much more peaceful in Pakistan. Not totally peaceful, but so so much better.

8 - The Indians created the TTP terrorist group. Period.

TTP owes its history and creation, its patronage to India and RAW ...


9 - 70,000 Pakistan 's were killed in the war on terror (read a chunk of that was due to "Indian sponsored terrorism").

10 - There are still problems with TTP as the Taliban do not have full territorial control yet and there have been issues recently, but the unit of scale is from thousands to 10's and maybe will rise to hundreds now(recent issues ).

11- Since the "war on terror" is at an end, and the USA left Afghanistan, the USA is now on building anti-China alliance of which India is a member, so the USA has been shitting on Pakistan more... that is the reality of "self interest". Lets not kid ourselves here.

12 - India has fenced off the entire Indian Occuplied Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-India border. Not much gets across that is not meant to. However India still likes to talk about Pakistani militants somehow cross over this border because such talk is about Optics and weaponisation of terrorism for political gains ...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... r-at-night

I can write an entire book on this topic but i wont, but i just wanted to correct the perception that "only Pakistan" has used terrorism and not India. India has used it and used it much much better than Pakistan and it managed to successfully co-opt the USA in that....

(this is not the right thread to talk about this - apologies to the mod's, and my rant is far far more than your comment - but i had to step in here on what you said and make it clear, that things are never that clear without context ).
None of this has anything to do with Tempest since the USA isn’t a partner is never going to be. The sole reason for concern around India being a partner in the program or even a purcheser is around their previous relation with Russia both in the joint programs they partook in and in their purchase of Russia equipmrnt along with how India has reacted towards Russia invasion of Ukrain.

All the above makes people question whether India would leak Tempest tech to Russia at some point to suit themselves and in turn screw over the like of ourselves. It has nothing to doing with India’s “terrorest” training camps aimed at Pakistani, your rant seems to be just that a rant over a fude your have with India and nothing to do with Temepest.
Agree - and Agree. Also, at no point did i suggest that USA would be a partner in Tempest ( though how ITAR free Tempest will be - is still up for grabs ).

I did qualify my response at the bottom - and yes - it was a rant at a specific point only which was qualified.
My point in my reply was more a case of while we all tend to go off on tangents when in convensation around topics your comment seemed to have nothing to do with the topic it’s self and very little at all to do with the tangent that came up around India being a partner or a buyer.

It’s not a shot at you or your comment at all but more that it’s perhaps be better placed on the India thread and the Tempest one.
Fairplay - mods are welcome to delete(since they are so many quoted to - and fro's - think they have to remove my rant ).

Spitfire9
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 21 Dec 2022, 22:05
Norway

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Spitfire9 »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 11:30
Spitfire9 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 15:38
mrclark303 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:59 Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.
I think that the KAI KF-21 is in the order of 25 tonnes, as is the not-yet-launched HAL AMCA. What would SAAB design to avoid competing with these? How small can a fighter be and still carry a meaningful weapons load internally?
mrclark303 wrote: 03 Jan 2023, 13:59 Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55
I follow Indian military aviation. It is possible that their own 5G AMCA project will end up being cancelled through India's inability to organise (and reluctance to finance) development of a suitable engine. It may be very advantageous for the GCAP group to keep talking to India about possible involvement in the program either as a co-developer or as a customer. india will need to start replacing 250+ Su-30 fighters from mid/late 2030's(?) so might be in the market for 100-150 frames if AMCA is cancelled/abandoned.
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 ..
I was thinking that a 'modicum' of design input from India (sufficiently small as to avoid any disasters) to get India onboard as a partner that might absorb a substantial number of frames would be worthwhile in helping economies of scale in production.

True, the only indigenous fast jet design to have reached production (Tejas) is several decades behind schedule. Lots of reasons for that, not the least being the 'relaxed' manner in which the project has been administered and executed. Being part of an international consortium might impose discipline that has been lacking with the Tejas project (UK and Japan would demand that decisions needing 3 months to be made do not take India 3 years to make).

India may be determined to pursue its 5G project but no suitable engine exists for AMCA Mk2 (110kn-125kn). The state owned HAL will build the AMCA Mk1 prototypes with 98kn GE F414 engines. So far no private company has shown interest in building the production aircraft along the lines the Indian government wants: through a partly government-owned/partly private-owned company. So I think AMCA could come to nothing.

Lots of Indian projects do fail. For example, the MRCA programme dating back to 2001 to build a foreign fighter in India. Rafale selected in 2012. Project abandoned 2015. 36 French-built Rafale ordered 2016. Project to build a foreign fighter in India is currently being relaunched. Back to square one after a couple of decades!

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

A general point, and this is way OTT, I think we use the word "India" too broadly when what we're really talking about is Indian government procurement. The world class Indian IT firms I've dealt with tear their hair out over Indian government inefficiency and blatant corruption. They all have horror stories. It's one of the reasons Indian infrastructure is lagging way behind the needs of business. In terms of core involvement in Tempest development I'd give India a wide pass, give them a license to build it in 10 years time, and steer clear of HAL

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by dmereifield »

150 Tempest for UK. Sounds like fantasy stuff to me. HMG hasn't made any substantive policy changes with regards to defence to indicate that they are taking it (and Russia and China) seriously. If indeed 150 ever did materialise, it'd be at such a slow annual rate that I'll be far too dead to eat my hat
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
Ron5

Spitfire9
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 21 Dec 2022, 22:05
Norway

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Spitfire9 »

I have read that the development budget for

Korean KF-21 is around USD 8 billion
Indian 5G AMCA is around USD 2 billion (no idea if credible)

What dev cost are we looking at for GCAP/Tempest (from go ahead 2025ish)

- if developed efficiently by 1 developer (baseline lowest theoretical cost)
- if developed by 3 developers (UK, Japan, Italy)

What production cost for 400 firmly ordered

- if 1 assembly line used
- if 2 assembly lines used
- if 3 assembly lines used

The reason I ask is because I would prefer this not to be launched if the end product would be so costly it would be subject to death spiral cost increases if any party cut back. The funds to develop many other systems would have been misapplied on this one.

Apologies if I am asking dumb questions. Otherwise any intelligent guesses would be gratefully received.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

dmereifield wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 18:11 150 Tempest for UK. Sounds like fantasy stuff to me. HMG hasn't made any substantive policy changes with regards to defence to indicate that they are taking it (and Russia and China) seriously. If indeed 150 ever did materialise, it'd be at such a slow annual rate that I'll be far too dead to eat my hat
We will find out soon enough, quite frankly, if we can't afford 150, then just stop right now and negotiate an F35A follow on order.

Tempest will require a 'serious' financial investment within the next two years, followed by sustained billions every few years out until 2040.

I would assume the current administration will talk the talk, stall and drop it all in Labours lap and let Starmer figure it out...

I can't see that with current defence spending commitments and no more money, how Tempest can possibly be afforded?

Spitfire9
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 21 Dec 2022, 22:05
Norway

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Spitfire9 »

mrclark303 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 19:05 Tempest will require a 'serious' financial investment within the next two years, followed by sustained billions every few years out until 2040.

I would assume the current administration will talk the talk, stall and drop it all in Labours lap and let Starmer figure it out...
Next UK election is end 2024, isn't it? Is there enough time to complete this initial phase and get the political clearance from all partners to launch the programme before end 2024? I don't see the present government in England being re-elected. Apart from their performance during their term, I think they will be seeking re-election with the economy sluggish, at best, in 2024.
These users liked the author Spitfire9 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

Spitfire9 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 19:40
mrclark303 wrote: 07 Jan 2023, 19:05 Tempest will require a 'serious' financial investment within the next two years, followed by sustained billions every few years out until 2040.

I would assume the current administration will talk the talk, stall and drop it all in Labours lap and let Starmer figure it out...
Next UK election is end 2024, isn't it? Is there enough time to complete this initial phase and get the political clearance from all partners to launch the programme before end 2024? I don't see the present government in England being re-elected. Apart from their performance during their term, I think they will be seeking re-election with the economy sluggish, at best, in 2024.
I think the current administration are all for Tempest, but at the same time, have gone silent on the 3% GDP defence budget commitment.

It's basically not their problem, Labour will probably form the next government and they can try and figure it out.

Without 'serious' and sustainable defence investment above 2.5% at least, there simply won't be the money for Tempest development.

If I was Japan, I would be applying significant pressure on the UK to fully commit.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by 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.

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

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by inch »

I'd laugh if after all the tempest/ SCAF debate contest ,we can't even afford to buy /build tempest for lack of government funds and how cap in hand to the french to buy their plane ,mind you as said before labour would jump at chance to go all eu again,so could definitely see it happening

Post Reply