Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Markam
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Markam »

An article from 2021 mentioned it clearly it would *not* be carrier capable, but it is still early and things may change.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-con ... r-capable/

There are only a few places that would want to buy a STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter on export, and only the UK carriers of the partner nation (maybe Japan in the future) could have this capability as is. But maybe a carrier version could be made after the fact (like they tried and failed with the Eurofighter for India, or the likely doable Sea Gripen), hard to say without actually coming up with a design to begin with.

With STOBAR/CATOBAR likely to be added to the QE carriers at some point (assuming Project Ark Royal does not get nixed), I think it would be a good idea to buy Sea Gripen (which is 30%ish UK made, and they will let us build it in the UK) to supplement the F-35 as a cost-effective option (cheaper airframe with 1/2 the hourly flight cost) and Electronic Warfare plane like the growler. I would try to back out of the F-35 purchases if possible, as it is going to bankrupt the budget at this rate.

Speaking of cost-effectiveness, assuming the F-35/22 R&D costs were an outlier, and it can be kept reasonable with GCAP, hopefully the unit cost at the very least can be kept well below the F-35 (which recently went up).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 16:45 I think Labour's union connections, and the value of thousands of highly skilled jobs
Didn't stop the tosser Healey from cancelling TSR2.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

mrclark303 wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 22:34 F35B is effectively a modern take on P1154 the Admiralty wanted 60 years ago
Pretty sure the Admiralty wanted the Phantom. I would.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
mrclark303Jensy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 23:25 But I've never found TSR-2 aesthetically pleasing!
Boooooooo
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 3):
Jensyserge750Digger22

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Markam wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 01:48 peaking of cost-effectiveness, assuming the F-35/22 R&D costs were an outlier, and it can be kept reasonable with GCAP, hopefully the unit cost at the very least can be kept well below the F-35 (which recently went up).
Not a hope in hell and by the way, F-35 purchase price is cheaper than its competitors like Typhoon.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2722
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 13:03
Markam wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 01:48 peaking of cost-effectiveness, assuming the F-35/22 R&D costs were an outlier, and it can be kept reasonable with GCAP, hopefully the unit cost at the very least can be kept well below the F-35 (which recently went up).
Not a hope in hell and by the way, F-35 purchase price is cheaper than its competitors like Typhoon.
The F35B costs far more than the F35A due to its lift fan etc, but is still cheaper than Typhoon. Not sure what the TR3 version costs and Block 4 software will cost. Also costs of uk weapon integration. At least their is some safety in numbers to keep prices down.

User avatar
Jensy
Moderator
Posts: 1123
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 12:49
Jensy wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 16:45 I think Labour's union connections, and the value of thousands of highly skilled jobs
Didn't stop the tosser Healey from cancelling TSR2.
True enough, but at the time we were also building a new class of very expensive SSBN.... oh wait.... :D

In all seriousness, along with P.1154 and HS.681 the RAF was more than slightly taking the piss. Not least as TSR-2 was looking more like a V-Force replacement than a Canberra one.
Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 12:52
Jensy wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 23:25 But I've never found TSR-2 aesthetically pleasing!
Boooooooo
It's too tall and skinny! Like a 90s supermodel... Not helped by being a cut and shut job by two companies who largely hated and distrusted each other.

Now, the Hawker P.1129 and the Vickers 589 on the other hand....

Image

Image
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:15 True enough, but at the time we were also building a new class of very expensive SSBN.... oh wait.... :D
How much did the tosser waste by ordering F-111's and then cancelling the order? Wilson's mob was dazzled by supposed Yankee technical superiority. Too dumb to realize it was actually superior Yankee salesmanship.
Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:15 Now, the Hawker P.1129 and the Vickers 589 on the other hand....
Srsly??
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

User avatar
Jensy
Moderator
Posts: 1123
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:26
Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:15 True enough, but at the time we were also building a new class of very expensive SSBN.... oh wait.... :D
How much did the tosser waste by ordering F-111's and then cancelling the order? Wilson's mob was dazzled by supposed Yankee technical superiority. Too dumb to realize it was actually superior Yankee salesmanship.
Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:15 Now, the Hawker P.1129 and the Vickers 589 on the other hand....
Srsly??
The heart wants what the heart wants... Low or variable geometry wings.
:shifty:

Yeah we got sold on (actually quite generous) industrial offsets which of course disappeared as soon as we were too poor to buy F-111. Which wasn't exactly a dream aircraft to own, in terms of maintenance and upgrades.

Not to piss everyone off... I'd have probably favoured a UK spec Mirage IV-B, with a British powerplant and lots more buccaneers.

Meanwhile over in camp SCAF, the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) has a rather fancy new model of a "possible future German fighter"...

Image

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 12:51
mrclark303 wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 22:34 F35B is effectively a modern take on P1154 the Admiralty wanted 60 years ago
Pretty sure the Admiralty wanted the Phantom. I would.
I think you're right Ron, the Phantom was always the first choice of Navy.

The P1154 was a politically forced solution, in reality it was a technological 'reach' to far for the 1960's.

Even as the prototype was being constructed, serious doubts existed in the team regarding controllability in the transition to and from vertical flight and it's supersonic plenum chamber burning BS100 still had many kinks to iron out.

On top of this, they were going to squeeze in a sophisticated brand new tandom cockpit second gen nav attack system into the naval jet!

A brand new ground breaking SVTOL design, with a brand new revolutionary engine and the latest avionics, what could possibly go wrong!

Cancellation was probably (and sadly) the right call...

It's a shame it wasn't allowed to continue as a technology demonstrator programme however, it might well have led to a supersonic Harrier in the 1970's. Many lessons would certainly have been learnt.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Ron5

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:31 Not to piss everyone off... I'd have probably favoured a UK spec Mirage IV-B, with a British powerplant and lots more buccaneers.
In 20/20 hindsight, a transonic or supersonic Buccaneer variant (as outlined in Ray Boot's wonderful autobiography) would have been the best answer. Would have tagged more than a few exports too.

The remaining design capacity could have been working on the next gen fighter.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
Jensy
Moderator
Posts: 1123
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 15:49
Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:31 Not to piss everyone off... I'd have probably favoured a UK spec Mirage IV-B, with a British powerplant and lots more buccaneers.
In 20/20 hindsight, a transonic or supersonic Buccaneer variant (as outlined in Ray Boot's wonderful autobiography) would have been the best answer. Would have tagged more than a few exports too.

The remaining design capacity could have been working on the next gen fighter.
I'm tempted to ask our dear mods for a "Fantasy 1960s British Aviation" thread...

Well, I decided to go ahead with it:
viewtopic.php?p=165795#p165795
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 3):
Ron5Repulsemrclark303
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7451
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Ron5 »

If I could have given that comment 10 thumbs up, I would have :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 3):
JensySD67mrclark303

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 16:04 If I could have given that comment 10 thumbs up, I would have :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Bring it on!

IMHO we needed two aircraft - an evolved supersonic Buccaneer and an evolved supersonic Hunter ie P1121. And then continue spiral developments for about the next 20+ years while tinkering with the advanced stuff like P1154 in the background as a low key research project. If the Navy need a Vixen replacement they can buy a small batch of F8s. TSR2 was a financial sink-hole with no export market
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
Ron5

Markam
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Markam »

This is not really new news, but Japan has formally approved the future export of GCAP this morning, overriding historic restrictions on export, limited to GCAP;

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... -108484603

It was widely reported earlier this month that approval was to be given but this morning put the rubber stamp on the change in policy.

Unrelated to the above but there was a report on GCAP by a Japanese news programme that was uploaded to youtube;


Unfortunately, it is only in Japanese but there were some tidbits about Japanese previous bitter experience with the J-2, plus some speculation on workshare arrangements. They seem to suggest it will be 40/40/20 split between Japan, the UK and Italy, which I am not sure sits too well with the Italians but I understand this is still under negotiation. Plus some talk about the IHI made XF9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHI_Corporation_XF9) engine they were developing for their programme, but it was more likely that a new engine built together with Rolls-Royce would be the engine used, with IHI contributing advanced materials and their expertise. They kept going over which country is the "main" partner of the programme, with the commentators suggesting it was clearly the UK, but by making the first project lead a Japanese person was an attempt to make Japan feel like they were equal partners.

Edit: Small update, apparently the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has released a statement expressing "serious concern" on the move by Japan. Well, China can get bent as far as I am concerned.
These users liked the author Markam for the post (total 3):
jedibeeftrixserge750Ron5


Markam
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 22 Mar 2024, 13:40
Japan

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Markam »

I like how the first reply to that article is another article pointing out delays to the T-7.

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/boe ... hallenges/

Boeing is an absolute mess lately. Be interested to see what the RAF picks to replace the Hawk; Does BAE have any skin in the game with the Saab/Boeing T-7?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

" A fixed-price contract for the program’s development has additionally forced Boeing to absorb approximately $1.3 billion in losses to date. "

Read that and weep, it would never happen here. Not with Boeing, not with BAE (Nimrod), not with GDUK Land Systems.

User avatar
Jensy
Moderator
Posts: 1123
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

Missed this from Gareth Jennings the other day:



Haven't seen this rendering / angle of GCAP before. Definitely a very different design direction than Typhoon or previous (slender) UK fast jets.

Image
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 4):
mrclark303Ron5serge750TheLoneRanger
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

Jensy wrote: 01 May 2024, 00:41 Missed this from Gareth Jennings the other day:



Haven't seen this rendering / angle of GCAP before. Definitely a very different design direction than Typhoon or previous (slender) UK fast jets.

Image
Thanks for posting Jensy, a very interesting angle and it clearly shows the potential for a very large internal bay/ bays.

I would assume the technology demonstrator must by now be structurally complete and being fitted out and tested.

Though GCAP has moved the goalposts since the demonstrator was commissioned, we can assume a broadly 'similar' family relationship between Tempest and the evolving GCAP, like EAP/ Thypoon, as they share an obvious evolutionary design base.

I think we are all assuming by this point an airframe similar in size to the F22, but it might well be somewhat larger...
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post (total 4):
PoiuytrewqjedibeeftrixJensyTheLoneRanger

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:26
Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:15 True enough, but at the time we were also building a new class of very expensive SSBN.... oh wait.... :D
How much did the tosser waste by ordering F-111's and then cancelling the order? Wilson's mob was dazzled by supposed Yankee technical superiority. Too dumb to realize it was actually superior Yankee salesmanship.

It's interesting, from an Australian perspective, the mooted deal was not just for TSR2, but for co-developed Anglo-British nukes hanging off it. The Woomera testing range in South Australia is still run by BAE to this day.

But then Wilson pulled the plug on EoS and so Australian PM Harold Holt had to go cap in hand to LBJ begging to be let under the US nuclear umbrella. The price was "well we've got this little war called Vietnam we'd like you to contribute to...". And of course the F1-11s

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

SD67 wrote: 07 May 2024, 23:23
Ron5 wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:26
Jensy wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 14:15 True enough, but at the time we were also building a new class of very expensive SSBN.... oh wait.... :D
How much did the tosser waste by ordering F-111's and then cancelling the order? Wilson's mob was dazzled by supposed Yankee technical superiority. Too dumb to realize it was actually superior Yankee salesmanship.

It's interesting, from an Australian perspective, the mooted deal was not just for TSR2, but for co-developed Anglo-British nukes hanging off it. The Woomera testing range in South Australia is still run by BAE to this day.

But then Wilson pulled the plug on EoS and so Australian PM Harold Holt had to go cap in hand to LBJ begging to be let under the US nuclear umbrella. The price was "well we've got this little war called Vietnam we'd like you to contribute to...". And of course the F1-11s
It's an interesting one, in the cold light of day Australia probably made the right call.

The F111 was arguably the better aircraft from a number of perspectives, the most important one being bankrolled by Uncle Sam and his bottomless pockets of cash...

This kept the F111 very well supported and it's Australian 'C' cousin was able to leverage the various ongoing structural and avionics upgrade programmes and spares support, including of course, the ability to buy spares and airframes at the end of their US service. This allowed them to operate the fleet for many years, with cuts eventually ending it's tenure.

It could have operated for another 10 years!

Had they bought the TSR2, it's likely RAF procurement would never have gone past 100 airframes, the UK was broke, so it's likely that it wouldn't have been substantially upgraded in RAF service or had anything like the level of support infrastructure needed to keep Australia's 30 aircraft in service into the new millennium.

Australia would likely have retired the fleet in about 1990/95 alongside the RAF fleet.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post (total 2):
Clive FJensy

User avatar
Jensy
Moderator
Posts: 1123
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Jensy »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 May 2024, 11:42 It's an interesting one, in the cold light of day Australia probably made the right call.

The F111 was arguably the better aircraft from a number of perspectives, the most important one being bankrolled by Uncle Sam and his bottomless pockets of cash...

This kept the F111 very well supported and it's Australian 'C' cousin was able to leverage the various ongoing structural and avionics upgrade programmes and spares support, including of course, the ability to buy spares and airframes at the end of their US service. This allowed them to operate the fleet for many years, with cuts eventually ending it's tenure.

It could have operated for another 10 years!

Had they bought the TSR2, it's likely RAF procurement would never have gone past 100 airframes, the UK was broke, so it's likely that it wouldn't have been substantially upgraded in RAF service or had anything like the level of support infrastructure needed to keep Australia's 30 aircraft in service into the new millennium.

Australia would likely have retired the fleet in about 1990/95 alongside the RAF fleet.
This is a topic which interests me greatly but suspect we're verging somewhat away from the main GCAP/Tempest topic.

As such I've replied to your post in the 'Post-war British aviation' thread. viewtopic.php?p=167941#p167941

Let's try and keep this thread focused on the (near) future, with some lessons from the past.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by mrclark303 »

Jensy wrote: 10 May 2024, 16:47
mrclark303 wrote: 08 May 2024, 11:42 It's an interesting one, in the cold light of day Australia probably made the right call.

The F111 was arguably the better aircraft from a number of perspectives, the most important one being bankrolled by Uncle Sam and his bottomless pockets of cash...

This kept the F111 very well supported and it's Australian 'C' cousin was able to leverage the various ongoing structural and avionics upgrade programmes and spares support, including of course, the ability to buy spares and airframes at the end of their US service. This allowed them to operate the fleet for many years, with cuts eventually ending it's tenure.

It could have operated for another 10 years!

Had they bought the TSR2, it's likely RAF procurement would never have gone past 100 airframes, the UK was broke, so it's likely that it wouldn't have been substantially upgraded in RAF service or had anything like the level of support infrastructure needed to keep Australia's 30 aircraft in service into the new millennium.

Australia would likely have retired the fleet in about 1990/95 alongside the RAF fleet.
This is a topic which interests me greatly but suspect we're verging somewhat away from the main GCAP/Tempest topic.

As such I've replied to your post in the 'Post-war British aviation' thread. viewtopic.php?p=167941#p167941

Let's try and keep this thread focused on the (near) future, with some lessons from the past.
Yep, understood, mission creep!

Spitfire9
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 21 Dec 2022, 22:05
Norway

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Post by Spitfire9 »

Iam not au fait with any demonstrator schedule. Is a demonstrator likely to be revealed publicly in the next year or so?

Post Reply