Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

[Spitfire9]

We have to keep everything crossed, Tempest isn't bloody sacrificed like TSR2 was in 1965. Interesting parallels between the two programmes, including the financial situation, an American alternative, a change of government etc

But TSR2 had a defined design, prototypes built (one being flight tested) and several more frames in production when it was scrapped. The programme had advanced far further than GCAP will have advanced in 2025.

[SD67]

There are also a big difference to TSR2 - solid international partnership with countries that bring tech to the table.

Fingers crossed

[inch]

There are also a big difference to TSR2 - solid international partnership with countries that bring tech to the table.

Fingers crossed

In the FT this morning....


"Japan’s defence ministry said in a statement to the FT that the door was open for the involvement of another country in GCAP, but on condition there would be no delay in the development schedule. It also said Japan would make efforts to strengthen defence ties with Saudi Arabia, which is the country’s biggest oil supplier."

So who said no chance Japan wouldn't let Saudi Arabia in?

Looks like no obstacle to me...

[SD67]

Looks like better than no obstacle - Japan being perfectly reasonable wanting sensible safeguards


This could end up win win win

[S M H]

Looks like better than no obstacle - Japan being perfectly reasonable wanting sensible safeguards


This could end up win win win

It certainly would, it has the potential to cement the programme in really firm properly financed foundations.

A really solid launch platform for 2025.

[inch]

I wonder which other countries might be SERIOUSLY interested in obtaining the fighter in future if it goes a 4 way split and gets going and financed?

[Spitfire9]

I wonder which other countries might be SERIOUSLY interested in obtaining the fighter in future if it goes a 4 way split and gets going and financed?

Would the inclusion of Saudi Arabia make it easier to sell to Gulf states? With US declining to supply F-35 (IIRC) their only source of western post-4G aircraft will be TAI Kaan (if Turkiye can replace the US engine currently used), FCAS and Tempest. Would Saudi involvement tip the balance in favour of Tempest over FCAS?

[mrclark303]

I wonder which other countries might be SERIOUSLY interested in obtaining the fighter in future if it goes a 4 way split and gets going and financed?

Would the inclusion of Saudi Arabia make it easier to sell to Gulf states? With US declining to supply F-35 (IIRC) their only source of western post-4G aircraft will be TAI Kaan (if Turkiye can replace the US engine currently used), FCAS and Tempest. Would Saudi involvement tip the balance in favour of Tempest over FCAS?

I think it probably will. Kuwait and the UAE would be prime candidates.

GCAP is promising to be an order of magnitude more capable than FCAS. It will probably be knocking on for double the size ( at least 50% bigger), with a considerably longer range and warload.

FCAS will be limited by it's carrier limitations, German penny pinching and German refusal to sell to certain countries.

I think France will end up pulling their hair out with German intransigence.

You can guarantee the French have watched while German interference ruined the possibility of selling another significant batch of Typhoon to Saudi Arabia.

[Spitfire9]

You can guarantee the French have watched while German interference ruined the possibility of selling another significant batch of Typhoon to Saudi Arabia.

Germany refused to supply Saudi Arabia with Typhoon because it was killing a large number of civilians in Yemen by bombing them, didn't it? I don't think that Saudis murdering and chopping up a journalist for being critical of the Saudi regime was much of an incentive for Germany to release the brakes on supplying arms to the regime. All fault for non-supply of 48 Typhoon seems to be assigned to Germany on this forum, none to Saudi Arabia That is not reasonable.

[SD67]

You can guarantee the French have watched while German interference ruined the possibility of selling another significant batch of Typhoon to Saudi Arabia.

Germany refused to supply Saudi Arabia with Typhoon because it was killing a large number of civilians in Yemen by bombing them, didn't it? I don't think that Saudis murdering and chopping up a journalist for being critical of the Saudi regime was much of an incentive for Germany to release the brakes on supplying arms to the regime. All fault for non-supply of 48 Typhoon seems to be assigned to Germany on this forum, none to Saudi Arabia That is not reasonable.

It depends when you take your moral stand. The Saudis have been persecuting people for many, many, years.

It never stopped us selling Lightning's, Stikemasters, Tornados and Thypoons for the last 50 years has it ..

Have we suddenly decided that their behaviour is unacceptable?

It's as simple as that really

[Spitfire9]

Germany refused to supply Saudi Arabia with Typhoon because it was killing a large number of civilians in Yemen by bombing them, didn't it? I don't think that Saudis murdering and chopping up a journalist for being critical of the Saudi regime was much of an incentive for Germany to release the brakes on supplying arms to the regime. All fault for non-supply of 48 Typhoon seems to be assigned to Germany on this forum, none to Saudi Arabia That is not reasonable.

It depends when you take your moral stand. The Saudis have been persecuting people for many, many, years.

It never stopped us selling Lightning's, Stikemasters, Tornados and Thypoons for the last 50 years has it ..

Have we suddenly decided that their behaviour is unacceptable?

It's as simple as that really

Yes, the Saudis have persecuted people for years. But they weren't killing a large number of civilians using their air force, as they did in Yemen (they have stopped now, I think). Their actions in Yemen arguably constituted war crimes. Russia is accused of war crimes for killing civilians in Ukraine. I condemn both countries for their actions. I don't agree that countries killing civilians with the arms supplied to them should be supplied with more arms.

[mrclark303]

Germany refused to supply Saudi Arabia with Typhoon because it was killing a large number of civilians in Yemen by bombing them, didn't it? I don't think that Saudis murdering and chopping up a journalist for being critical of the Saudi regime was much of an incentive for Germany to release the brakes on supplying arms to the regime. All fault for non-supply of 48 Typhoon seems to be assigned to Germany on this forum, none to Saudi Arabia That is not reasonable.

It depends when you take your moral stand. The Saudis have been persecuting people for many, many, years.

It never stopped us selling Lightning's, Stikemasters, Tornados and Thypoons for the last 50 years has it ..

Have we suddenly decided that their behaviour is unacceptable?

It's as simple as that really

Yes, the Saudis have persecuted people for years. But they weren't killing a large number of civilians using their air force, as they did in Yemen (they have stopped now, I think). Their actions in Yemen arguably constituted war crimes. Russia is accused of war crimes for killing civilians in Ukraine. I condemn both countries for their actions. I don't agree that countries killing civilians with the arms supplied to them should be supplied with more arms.

We backed Stalin to the hilt and looking the other way in WW2, when we knew very well that he was murdering people by the hundreds of thousands (turns out he probably killed more people than Hitler), because my enemies enemy is my friend.

The Saudis rocket attacked and bombed the Yemen with their Lightnings way back in the early 1970's, we didn't have an issue then.

What of the US/ UK's invasion of Iraq, certainly many civilians died by result of that terrible disastrous mistake?

What of the UK's military operations in Aden in the 1960's for that matter, probably don't look too close there, our treatment of the tribal people was 'somewhat harsh', should we say...

You have to take a wider context, is Saudi Arabia a thoroughly disagreeable nation? Yes, absolutely

Is Saudi Arabia on the new front line of the cold war, with Iran (Russia and China also pulling the strings) for power in the Gulf, Yes.

Do we try and sell defence equipment to India, yes we do, does the Indian governments human rights leave a lot to be desired, oh yes it does, does it stop us, nope....

It's called international politics and it's a dirty unpalatable profession unfortunately...

Should we be taking the moral high ground, can we afford to, it's an expensive place to live and our enemies and competitors have no such moral agony.....

[SD67]

I'd go further

For decades we've been on the side of the Sunni Establishment (KSA / Gulf States / Jordan / Turkey). It's not just weapons it's trade, investment, education, houses in London, we're invested. So when KSA fights a proxy war against Iran in Yemen, we back KSA, period. That's the side we've chosen in this weird kind of Islamic Cold War that's been rumbling on for the last 40 years.

[Spitfire9]

We backed Stalin to the hilt and looking the other way in WW2, when we knew very well that he was murdering people by the hundreds of thousands (turns out he probably killed more people than Hitler), because my enemies enemy is my friend.

The Saudis rocket attacked and bombed the Yemen with their Lightnings way back in the early 1970's, we didn't have an issue then.

What of the US/ UK's invasion of Iraq, certainly many civilians died by result of that terrible disastrous mistake?

What of the UK's military operations in Aden in the 1960's for that matter, probably don't look too close there, our treatment of the tribal people was 'somewhat harsh', should we say...

You have to take a wider context, is Saudi Arabia a thoroughly disagreeable nation? Yes, absolutely

Is Saudi Arabia on the new front line of the cold war, with Iran (Russia and China also pulling the strings) for power in the Gulf, Yes.

Do we try and sell defence equipment to India, yes we do, does the Indian governments human rights leave a lot to be desired, oh yes it does, does it stop us, nope....

It's called international politics and it's a dirty unpalatable profession unfortunately...

Should we be taking the moral high ground, can we afford to, it's an expensive place to live and our enemies and competitors have no such moral agony.....

If all that matters is selling arms to make money, let's sell them to any country that wants them, shall we? Argentina could do with some new fighters. North Korea's equipment could well do with an upgrade. Unfortunately we missed a fighter deal with Iran. Afghanistan is possibly in need of some kit. I'm sure Russia has a big need for arms at the moment.

[inch]

We backed Stalin to the hilt and looking the other way in WW2, when we knew very well that he was murdering people by the hundreds of thousands (turns out he probably killed more people than Hitler), because my enemies enemy is my friend.

The Saudis rocket attacked and bombed the Yemen with their Lightnings way back in the early 1970's, we didn't have an issue then.

What of the US/ UK's invasion of Iraq, certainly many civilians died by result of that terrible disastrous mistake?

What of the UK's military operations in Aden in the 1960's for that matter, probably don't look too close there, our treatment of the tribal people was 'somewhat harsh', should we say...

You have to take a wider context, is Saudi Arabia a thoroughly disagreeable nation? Yes, absolutely

Is Saudi Arabia on the new front line of the cold war, with Iran (Russia and China also pulling the strings) for power in the Gulf, Yes.

Do we try and sell defence equipment to India, yes we do, does the Indian governments human rights leave a lot to be desired, oh yes it does, does it stop us, nope....

It's called international politics and it's a dirty unpalatable profession unfortunately...

Should we be taking the moral high ground, can we afford to, it's an expensive place to live and our enemies and competitors have no such moral agony.....

If all that matters is selling arms to make money, let's sell them to any country that wants them, shall we? Argentina could do with some new fighters. North Korea's equipment could well do with an upgrade. Unfortunately we missed a fighter deal with Iran. Afghanistan is possibly in need of some kit. I'm sure Russia has a big need for arms at the moment.

You're just being nieve Spitfire, I've pointed out we always have sold arms to Saudi Arabia and it's raised billions for the economy.

They have always had a rather dark past and will continue too ..

The fact you rather amusingly mention Russia, North Korea and Iran show you're on ropes without a proper argument...

Woke dosen't work you know, just costs jobs....

[Spitfire9]

You're just being nieve Spitfire, I've pointed out we always have sold arms to Saudi Arabia and it's raised billions for the economy.

They have always had a rather dark past and will continue too ..

The fact you rather amusingly mention Russia, North Korea and Iran show you're on ropes without a proper argument...

Woke dosen't work you know, just costs jobs....

Abandoning one's integrity in order to get deals does not always pay. BAE Systems is accused of defrauding India when it sold an extra batch of Hawks to India 20 years ago. That may well have recently cost RR the chance of designing a new fast jet engine for India - correction 'co-developing' an engine as India would prefer it to be termed. That would have earned RR an absolute minimum of $5 billion. Typhoon may be excluded from competing for the Indian MRFA programme for 114 airframes for the same reason. How much would that contract be worth? A long shot, perhaps, but Dassault could not agree terms with India when it won the previous competition, so Eurofighter would be/would have been in with a chance this time round.

The UK government supplied Type 42 destroyers to Argentina. That proved not to be so clever, did it? UK was also negotiating to sell aircraft to Argentina when the murderous jumta was in power. What stopped the negotiations was Argentina invading the Falkland Islands 4 days before the next meeting was due.

Selling with no regard to ethics does not necessarily pay better than refusing to sell for ethical reasons. On that tack, recovering the Falklands cost the UK a pretty penny. Why did we spend all that money with no regard to making a profit?

[zavve]

You're just being nieve Spitfire, I've pointed out we always have sold arms to Saudi Arabia and it's raised billions for the economy.

They have always had a rather dark past and will continue too ..

The fact you rather amusingly mention Russia, North Korea and Iran show you're on ropes without a proper argument...

Woke dosen't work you know, just costs jobs....

Abandoning one's integrity in order to get deals does not always pay. BAE Systems is accused of defrauding India when it sold an extra batch of Hawks to India 20 years ago. That may well have recently cost RR the chance of designing a new fast jet engine for India - correction 'co-developing' an engine as India would prefer it to be termed. That would have earned RR an absolute minimum of $5 billion. Typhoon may be excluded from competing for the Indian MRFA programme for 114 airframes for the same reason. How much would that contract be worth? A long shot, perhaps, but Dassault could not agree terms with India when it won the previous competition, so Eurofighter would be/would have been in with a chance this time round.

The UK government supplied Type 42 destroyers to Argentina. That proved not to be so clever, did it? UK was also negotiating to sell aircraft to Argentina when the murderous jumta was in power. What stopped the negotiations was Argentina invading the Falkland Islands 4 days before the next meeting was due.

Selling with no regard to ethics does not necessarily pay better than refusing to sell for ethical reasons. On that tack, recovering the Falklands cost the UK a pretty penny. Why did we spend all that money with no regard to making a profit?

Morning Spitfire, your argument is drifting into other areas now.....

There is no integrity involved in international arms dealing, it's that simple.

There is 'can we get away with it or not argument'. Something we (and all other countries) have always done and always will. An ugly unpalatable fact.

You are arguing for a holistically moral defence exports policy. That's not the world we live in unfortunately and at the best of times, moral values and defense exports are very uneasy bedfellows.

You bring up Agentina, yes we sold them 2 Type 42's and we considered selling them surplus Vulcan bombers.

Was the export responsible for the Falklands war?

No, Jim Callahan removed the SSN patrol from the South Atlantic in the 1970's, that was the triggering
green light, nothing to do with the Type 42's.

Quite frankly, India calling anyone on underhanded defence deals is absolutely hilarious (I wonder how they kept a straight face), they are possibly one of the most morally corrupt countries in the world to do business with. Official bribery is absolutely rife. To be fair it is in most countries away from the English speaking world, simple fact.

I've done business in India on a number of occasions, it's enough to make you pull your hair out quite frankly.

Lovely warm people as individuals, but their bureaucratic systems are the thing of nightmares.

Look at France absolutely victorious at selling 125 Rafael to India. The wheels progressively came off that deal, it became an absolute nightmare for the French team as they sank into the mire of Indian bureaucracy and it slowly went from licence production of 125, to a simple 36 aircraft direct buy.

So, do I believe we should sell to Saudi Arabia, yes I do. The wider consideration is keeping Russia and China through their proxy Iran, in check.

Do I think we should sell Tempest to India, no, it's far to sensitive.

The Indian government will sell the technology to the highest bidder and have a moral compass that spins so fast it would take off like a helicopter!

[Ian Hall]

https://www.ft.com/content/aca4f3f0-f9b ... bb13da6513

Article Text

In hangar number five at BAE Systems’ sprawling factory in north-west England, test pilots are putting the world’s most advanced fighter jet through its paces. The pilots have already flown more than 170 hours over 125 outings but the jet itself has not yet been built; the flights have taken place inside a bespoke simulator in the cavernous space.

The virtual testing will help to inform live trials of a supersonic prototype aircraft scheduled to fly in 2027. It will be Britain’s first combat test aircraft since the Eurofighter Typhoon almost 40 years ago. It is also a critical first step if the UK and its partners Italy and Japan are to achieve their promise to have new generation aircraft flying by 2035 as part of the trilateral Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).

Unveiled last December, GCAP is one of the most ambitious military programmes ever attempted. It merges Japan’s F-X programme with the UK and Italy’s Tempest project, with the aim of delivering a supersonic jet in roughly half the time — and therefore at significantly less cost — of previous generation aircraft such as the Typhoon.

Previously in charge of the Eurofighter consortium, Herman Claesen, managing director of Future Combat Air Systems at BAE Systems, said a radically new approach was needed compared with the Typhoon programme, which took about 20 years to develop.

“There is not enough money, there is not enough time,” he said adding: “We’ve got to break this curve [of long lead times and soaring costs].”

Fighter jets are the most technologically complex and notoriously expensive aircraft. America’s latest-generation F-35 initiative is the most expensive military project in history, costing the Pentagon an estimated near $1.7tn to buy, operate and sustain over its lifetime.

While the cost of each aircraft depends on a range of factors including the model, some estimates cited for the F-35 jet are more than $170mn. The unit cost of the latest version of the Eurofighter Typhoon — which is one generation older than the F-35 — is in the order of $110mn-$120mn, according to analysts.


The war in Ukraine has underlined the importance of defence industrial sovereignty but the partners in GCAP know that a new, more technically advanced, fighter programme must be more affordable.

Norman Augustine, a former chief executive of US defence group Lockheed Martin, famously predicted in the 1980s that given the exponential cost of new military aircraft, by 2054 the entire defence budget would be able to afford just one single jet.

GCAP is not just an aircraft but will include manned and unmanned drones, as well as laser weaponry.

The UK government has so far committed just over £2bn towards the original Tempest programme alone, with industry partners investing about £800mn. Japan’s defence ministry is seeking to set aside ¥72.6bn ($494mn) for the GCAP programme for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.

The money will fund the so-called “concept and assessment phase” until the end of 2025. The aim then is to launch the development phase between the three nations. 

To meet the ambitious timetable, the leading industrial partners on the programme — BAE, Italy’s Leonardo and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries — are investing heavily in digital design and innovative prototyping and engineering methods. Robots used in car plants have been modified to operate at the tolerances required for military aircraft and will work alongside people.


BAE has stressed the progress it has already made, including successful ejector seat trials using a rocket-propelled sled travelling at speeds of more than 500mph © Martin Baker
BAE, for example, has started to use 3D printing to make moulds that will be used to manufacture carbon fibre components. These “mould tools” are usually made from steel and take about 26 weeks to make. Using 3D printing, the company can print them in under 12 hours and have a fully complete tool ready in under three weeks. 

Using digital modelling will help engineers to collaborate on the design, to understand problems earlier and to speed up the regulatory certification process by reducing the need for expensive physical prototyping. 

“We think the digital collaborative working environment we are setting up between Japan and Italy will be one of the most complex and biggest globally,” said Claesen on a tour of the BAE’s Warton site.

The company stresses the progress it has made. Rolls-Royce, one of the three companies working on the engine, has been testing advanced technology for the plane in Bristol, while successful ejector seat trials using a rocket-propelled sled travelling at speeds of more than 500mph have also taken place. 

While work is continuing at pace on setting up the “digital enterprise”, the partners must still decide what kind of industrial structure to use to deliver the programme, given the number of parties involved.

Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said for the programme to work “you need industry, government and defence ministries all to buy in that the key authority rests with . . . management”.


At BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire, test pilots from BAE, Rolls-Royce and the Royal Air Force have already flown more than 170 hours of the demonstrator aircraft in a new bespoke simulator © BAE Systems
According to executives at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, part of the challenge is that each of the companies wants to take the lead in the most interesting parts of the development, including the cockpit, electronics, the weapons control system and the carbon fibre wings. 

“There are so many areas that everyone wants to do,” said Masayuki Eguchi, head of defence at MHI. “Ultimately, the work share will be decided depending on factors such as how much time will be required to develop the technology and how much it would cost,” he said adding that the partners have yet to work out whether the workload would be shared one-third each or whether it would be a different split. 

Having worked mainly with US defence companies in the past, MHI is also learning how to communicate most effectively with their UK and Italian counterparts. 

“With three countries involved, there are differences in language, culture and the way of thinking. While all three companies have experience building fighter jets, it does take time to understand each other,” said Hiroshi Umino, MHI’s deputy general manager of the GCAP programme office, adding that they often draw illustrations or write mathematical formulas to make sure they have understood each other.

One of the biggest challenges will be cyber security, given the large amount of digital development. Defence experts said one source of tension could be differences in cyber security between partner nations.

Japan is allocating a portion of its increased military spending to boost cyber defences but its vulnerability to cyber attacks has come under scrutiny. The country’s National Center for Incident Readiness and Strategy for Cybersecurity revealed last month that its email system was hacked. In July, the port of Nagoya was temporarily closed by what was believed to be a Russian ransomware attack, while the Washington Post reported the discovery of a massive attack on Japan’s defence networks by Chinese military hackers carried out in late 2020.

BAE’s Claesen said security was a “key feature of GCAP” and that the different governments were “laying out the security requirements . . . often led by the UK”. Japan, he added, was “taking this incredibly seriously”. 

“We believe our cyber security measures are comparable to other top-level overseas defence companies,” said Eguchi. “There is no doubt that the cyber threat will increase in line with the expansion of digitalisation but the digital tools will be adopted if the merits such as the reduction in development costs and time are judged to exceed the demerits from a certain degree of risk for data leak.”

[Jensy]

https://www.ft.com/content/aca4f3f0-f9b ... bb13da6513

Article Text

In hangar number five at BAE Systems’ sprawling factory in north-west England, test pilots are putting the world’s most advanced fighter jet through its paces. The pilots have already flown more than 170 hours over 125 outings but the jet itself has not yet been built; the flights have taken place inside a bespoke simulator in the cavernous space.

The virtual testing will help to inform live trials of a supersonic prototype aircraft scheduled to fly in 2027. It will be Britain’s first combat test aircraft since the Eurofighter Typhoon almost 40 years ago. It is also a critical first step if the UK and its partners Italy and Japan are to achieve their promise to have new generation aircraft flying by 2035 as part of the trilateral Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).

Unveiled last December, GCAP is one of the most ambitious military programmes ever attempted. It merges Japan’s F-X programme with the UK and Italy’s Tempest project, with the aim of delivering a supersonic jet in roughly half the time — and therefore at significantly less cost — of previous generation aircraft such as the Typhoon.

Previously in charge of the Eurofighter consortium, Herman Claesen, managing director of Future Combat Air Systems at BAE Systems, said a radically new approach was needed compared with the Typhoon programme, which took about 20 years to develop.

“There is not enough money, there is not enough time,” he said adding: “We’ve got to break this curve [of long lead times and soaring costs].”

Fighter jets are the most technologically complex and notoriously expensive aircraft. America’s latest-generation F-35 initiative is the most expensive military project in history, costing the Pentagon an estimated near $1.7tn to buy, operate and sustain over its lifetime.

While the cost of each aircraft depends on a range of factors including the model, some estimates cited for the F-35 jet are more than $170mn. The unit cost of the latest version of the Eurofighter Typhoon — which is one generation older than the F-35 — is in the order of $110mn-$120mn, according to analysts.


The war in Ukraine has underlined the importance of defence industrial sovereignty but the partners in GCAP know that a new, more technically advanced, fighter programme must be more affordable.

Norman Augustine, a former chief executive of US defence group Lockheed Martin, famously predicted in the 1980s that given the exponential cost of new military aircraft, by 2054 the entire defence budget would be able to afford just one single jet.

GCAP is not just an aircraft but will include manned and unmanned drones, as well as laser weaponry.

The UK government has so far committed just over £2bn towards the original Tempest programme alone, with industry partners investing about £800mn. Japan’s defence ministry is seeking to set aside ¥72.6bn ($494mn) for the GCAP programme for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.

The money will fund the so-called “concept and assessment phase” until the end of 2025. The aim then is to launch the development phase between the three nations. 

To meet the ambitious timetable, the leading industrial partners on the programme — BAE, Italy’s Leonardo and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries — are investing heavily in digital design and innovative prototyping and engineering methods. Robots used in car plants have been modified to operate at the tolerances required for military aircraft and will work alongside people.


BAE has stressed the progress it has already made, including successful ejector seat trials using a rocket-propelled sled travelling at speeds of more than 500mph © Martin Baker
BAE, for example, has started to use 3D printing to make moulds that will be used to manufacture carbon fibre components. These “mould tools” are usually made from steel and take about 26 weeks to make. Using 3D printing, the company can print them in under 12 hours and have a fully complete tool ready in under three weeks. 

Using digital modelling will help engineers to collaborate on the design, to understand problems earlier and to speed up the regulatory certification process by reducing the need for expensive physical prototyping. 

“We think the digital collaborative working environment we are setting up between Japan and Italy will be one of the most complex and biggest globally,” said Claesen on a tour of the BAE’s Warton site.

The company stresses the progress it has made. Rolls-Royce, one of the three companies working on the engine, has been testing advanced technology for the plane in Bristol, while successful ejector seat trials using a rocket-propelled sled travelling at speeds of more than 500mph have also taken place. 

While work is continuing at pace on setting up the “digital enterprise”, the partners must still decide what kind of industrial structure to use to deliver the programme, given the number of parties involved.

Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said for the programme to work “you need industry, government and defence ministries all to buy in that the key authority rests with . . . management”.


At BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire, test pilots from BAE, Rolls-Royce and the Royal Air Force have already flown more than 170 hours of the demonstrator aircraft in a new bespoke simulator © BAE Systems
According to executives at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, part of the challenge is that each of the companies wants to take the lead in the most interesting parts of the development, including the cockpit, electronics, the weapons control system and the carbon fibre wings. 

“There are so many areas that everyone wants to do,” said Masayuki Eguchi, head of defence at MHI. “Ultimately, the work share will be decided depending on factors such as how much time will be required to develop the technology and how much it would cost,” he said adding that the partners have yet to work out whether the workload would be shared one-third each or whether it would be a different split. 

Having worked mainly with US defence companies in the past, MHI is also learning how to communicate most effectively with their UK and Italian counterparts. 

“With three countries involved, there are differences in language, culture and the way of thinking. While all three companies have experience building fighter jets, it does take time to understand each other,” said Hiroshi Umino, MHI’s deputy general manager of the GCAP programme office, adding that they often draw illustrations or write mathematical formulas to make sure they have understood each other.

One of the biggest challenges will be cyber security, given the large amount of digital development. Defence experts said one source of tension could be differences in cyber security between partner nations.

Japan is allocating a portion of its increased military spending to boost cyber defences but its vulnerability to cyber attacks has come under scrutiny. The country’s National Center for Incident Readiness and Strategy for Cybersecurity revealed last month that its email system was hacked. In July, the port of Nagoya was temporarily closed by what was believed to be a Russian ransomware attack, while the Washington Post reported the discovery of a massive attack on Japan’s defence networks by Chinese military hackers carried out in late 2020.

BAE’s Claesen said security was a “key feature of GCAP” and that the different governments were “laying out the security requirements . . . often led by the UK”. Japan, he added, was “taking this incredibly seriously”. 

“We believe our cyber security measures are comparable to other top-level overseas defence companies,” said Eguchi. “There is no doubt that the cyber threat will increase in line with the expansion of digitalisation but the digital tools will be adopted if the merits such as the reduction in development costs and time are judged to exceed the demerits from a certain degree of risk for data leak.”

I read the article with interest on the way to the office this morning.

It's all starting to look very positive, let's just hope all players turn up with the necessary funding at the start line for the 10 year relay race!

[Ian Hall]

[inch]

Sounds like it will be one heck of a flying machine and sensor package, hopefully it will be an export success also with others enjoying the benefits

[Jensy]

From the chaps at UKDJ:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-japa ... et-dsei23/

The Collaboration Agreement is set to boost ongoing discussions, determining long-term working arrangements. It will also help refine the concept and capability prerequisites for the forthcoming combat aircraft

[Poiuytrewq]

The Collaboration Agreement is set to boost ongoing discussions, determining long-term working arrangements. It will also help refine the concept and capability prerequisites for the forthcoming combat aircraft

It all sounds brilliant but I just don’t understand the funding model yet.

The costs to enter production are going to be colossal.

[SD67]

I suspect there will be a few "pots" involved in the funding. The Italians are good at this - getting their aid budget to pay for some of their amphibs.

[shark bait]

How many times are they going to re-announce this?