UK Defence Forum

Posted: **20 Feb 2023, 17:40**

SW1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:34
mrclark303 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:03
SW1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 15:23 Design and manufacture of the demonstrator using U.K. tier 1s and other has been underway for some time. Under a variety of project names.
Good point chaps, I suppose it depends on what you mean by demonstrator.

Is an aircraft, based on the large Farnborough Tempest mockup actually under construction at Warton??

I had no idea, very interesting indeed...

I would regard real progress as the fruits of Anglo Japanese / Italian/ Swedish ?? industry taking to the air at Warton in prototype form.
An aircraft is under construction.

Interesting. I wonder if it is a pure demonstrator along the lines of the Mitsubishi X-2 or is more like a prototype of the sometime BAE Systems Tempest. I imagine Japan joined the project too late for the Warton machine to incorporate any elements of Japan's design.

Posted: **20 Feb 2023, 18:43**

SW1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:34
mrclark303 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:03
SW1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 15:23 Design and manufacture of the demonstrator using U.K. tier 1s and other has been underway for some time. Under a variety of project names.
Good point chaps, I suppose it depends on what you mean by demonstrator.

Is an aircraft, based on the large Farnborough Tempest mockup actually under construction at Warton??

I had no idea, very interesting indeed...

I would regard real progress as the fruits of Anglo Japanese / Italian/ Swedish ?? industry taking to the air at Warton in prototype form.
An aircraft is under construction.

I await information with great interest.....

Posted: **20 Feb 2023, 19:17**

mrclark303 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 18:43
SW1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:34
mrclark303 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 16:03
SW1 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 15:23 Design and manufacture of the demonstrator using U.K. tier 1s and other has been underway for some time. Under a variety of project names.
Good point chaps, I suppose it depends on what you mean by demonstrator.

Is an aircraft, based on the large Farnborough Tempest mockup actually under construction at Warton??

I had no idea, very interesting indeed...

I would regard real progress as the fruits of Anglo Japanese / Italian/ Swedish ?? industry taking to the air at Warton in prototype form.
An aircraft is under construction.
I await information with great interest.....

Prob be a while yet I would think before info is divulged

Posted: **01 Mar 2023, 17:32**

Wait what...

Posted: **01 Mar 2023, 17:46**

motiv wrote: ↑01 Mar 2023, 17:32 Wait what...

A large Saudi delegation was at Warton just after the Japanese...

Posted: **01 Mar 2023, 18:54**

Ok it is scary and it has so much variables.

Lets see how this plays.

This can end amazingly well or terrible bad. It was already complex with first Japanese interaction, but the Saudis?

Lets see...

If the FCAS had on its side German financial if we can make it work with the Saudis we are literally overshadowing them on their strongest point, scary and lol at the same time.

Posted: **01 Mar 2023, 19:01**

If some token Saudi involvement in GCAP

(a) brought development funding
(b) brought substantial orders
(c) opened the door to sales to other Arabian states

SA participation could be beneficial to the programme.

However, I recall Saudi Arabia's track record regarding setting up an assembly line for Typhoon, so I am not optimistic that any Saudi involvement in GCAP would ever come to anything.

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 03:29**

Wow. That is news.

Funding won’t be an issue
Orders - Typhoon and F15C replacement?
The Typhoon production line was probably too much too soon but I understand they’ve been doing a bit on the component side. And Saudi-isation of support has been going on for a while

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 07:51**

Wonder if this makes an additional order of Typhoons more or less likely?

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 08:42**

Seems to be some confusion here :-

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/sau ... agreement/

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 12:54**

The UK needs more Navy F-35's a damn sight more than extra Typhoons. The fact they are also cheaper and superior is just icing on the cake.

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 15:21**

Ron5 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 12:54 The UK needs more Navy F-35's a damn sight more than extra Typhoons. The fact they are also cheaper and superior is just icing on the cake.

How many F-35's can the navy use for the carriers?

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 16:05**

Ron5 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 12:54 The UK needs more Navy F-35's a damn sight more than extra Typhoons. The fact they are also cheaper and superior is just icing on the cake.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the often touted additional order (48?) of Typhoons for Saudi Arabia. I agree on the F35B's, I'm still down with 24 by '24...

Posted: **02 Mar 2023, 21:19**

SD67 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 03:29 Wow. That is news.

Funding won’t be an issue
Orders - Typhoon and F15C replacement?
The Typhoon production line was probably too much too soon but I understand they’ve been doing a bit on the component side. And Saudi-isation of support has been going on for a while

They've been assembling their own Hawks for a number of years. Though I suspect you'll find the guys on the line don't speak much Arabic.

Tempest would be a massive step up but if delivered as kits, probably not beyond a few giant sacks of Riyals worth of investment.

Ron5 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 12:54 The UK needs more Navy F-35's a damn sight more than extra Typhoons. The fact they are also cheaper and superior is just icing on the cake.

On F-35, we seem to be limited mainly by the MoD's objection to a second MOB. Marham is pretty capacious but more than four squadrons would be pushing it (even if a decent number are away on King Charlie's cruise line).

Personally, I've still got a hankering for some A models but not at the cost of Tempest or carrier strike. Also would quite like some clarity on exactly what direct industrial benefits the UK is seeing from the programme.

Posted: **03 Mar 2023, 13:53**

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 15:21
Ron5 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 12:54 The UK needs more Navy F-35's a damn sight more than extra Typhoons. The fact they are also cheaper and superior is just icing on the cake.
How many F-35's can the navy use for the carriers?

36 each, surging to 40. Plus OCU etc.

Posted: **03 Mar 2023, 17:53**

Ron5 wrote: ↑03 Mar 2023, 13:53
Spitfire9 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 15:21
Ron5 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2023, 12:54 The UK needs more Navy F-35's a damn sight more than extra Typhoons. The fact they are also cheaper and superior is just icing on the cake.
How many F-35's can the navy use for the carriers?
36 each, surging to 40. Plus OCU etc.

I would be happy with 24 each, surging to 36 each. When I say surging, I mean if war has been declared or is considered imminient.

Orherwise with 6 active squadrons plus OCU etc, I am assuming 2 squadrons, in rotation, will need time for intensive training and catching up to date with routine maintenance.

That would ideally allow both carriers to carry 2 squadrons if they are both on short term near deployments e.g. one in North Atlantic or Norwegian Sea and one in Med.Ideally would need 3 squadrons if on long fat deployment e.g. to Indo Pacific.

But that is far, far down the road given the current production rates......

And that is if we are talking ideally, with extra F35B's actually ordered, which hopefully will still happen but might yet not. Others may regard the above as Fantasy but we were talking about what the RN would ideally want in the future.

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 12:21**

About defining the performance requirements of the 6G aircraft, would it not be useful to consult potential 'non-team' customers to take into account what they require? In particular, should they express needs for requirements that surpass 'home team' requirements, the time to consider raising aspects of performance with a view to making the aircraft more marketable would be when the design is still fluid. If both GCAP and FCAS projects go ahead, GCAP should have a better chance with sales prospects where their performance requirements have been taken into account.

In particular I see India as a possible buyer because I can see its 5G AMCA project never reaching its Mk2 stage due to lack of a suitable engine being available. The plan is for the IAF to receive 40 underpowered AMCA Mk1 (98kN engines instead of the 110kN the design requires), to be followed by 80 AMCA Mk2 powered by 110kN engines. India cannot build fast jet engines. I suspect that India will not fund the design of a 110kN engine by a foreign OEM and will be looking for a foreign 5G or 6G supplier in a few years.

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 14:06**

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 12:21 About defining the performance requirements of the 6G aircraft, would it not be useful to consult potential 'non-team' customers to take into account what they require? In particular, should they express needs for requirements that surpass 'home team' requirements, the time to consider raising aspects of performance with a view to making the aircraft more marketable would be when the design is still fluid. If both GCAP and FCAS projects go ahead, GCAP should have a better chance with sales prospects where their performance requirements have been taken into account.

In particular I see India as a possible buyer because I can see its 5G AMCA project never reaching its Mk2 stage due to lack of a suitable engine being available. The plan is for the IAF to receive 40 underpowered AMCA Mk1 (98kN engines instead of the 110kN the design requires), to be followed by 80 AMCA Mk2 powered by 110kN engines. India cannot build fast jet engines. I suspect that India will not fund the design of a 110kN engine by a foreign OEM and will be looking for a foreign 5G or 6G supplier in a few years.

That’s all fine and well as long as said requirement is either alined / doesn’t conflict with what home team want or on the very cheap side to add, at the end of the day home team as the partners who are paying for design and build should always come first that includes over all cost when looking at out side requirements.

I’m still not sure if India will be sold to as it is still up in the air whether they would leak the tech or not, with them standing on the fence with Russia and funding them by buying a sh**t ton of gas and oil.

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 15:06**

If you were cynical youd say India’s requirements are basically 10-20 million in a Swiss bank account plus a huge amount of patience

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 15:19**

Absolutely the last thing you want to do it is start adding exquisite requirements on the platform, it’s what drives increased thru life costs, especially weapons integration costs.

Make the weapons do the hard bits and keep the platform “simple”

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 16:00**

SW1 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 15:19 Absolutely the last thing you want to do it is start adding exquisite requirements on the platform, it’s what drives increased thru life costs, especially weapons integration costs.

Make the weapons do the hard bits and keep the platform “simple”

I was thinking more on the lines of

partner a wants combat radius of 1200 km
partner b wants combat radius of 1100 km
partner c wants combat radius of 1000 km

possible client a wants combat radius of 1300 km
possible client b wants combat radius of 1250 km
possible client c wants combat radius of 1200 km

then err on the side of designing for combat radius >1100 km.

Jake1992 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 14:06 I’m still not sure if India will be sold to as it is still up in the air whether they would leak the tech or not, with them standing on the fence with Russia and funding them by buying a sh**t ton of gas and oil.

India is non-aligned and the Indian nationalists (as per Indian government) whose views I read don't seem to care 2 hoots about what happens in Ukraine (although they would like to see US taken down a peg). Nor do they seem to care any hoots about what Europe thinks about them trading with Russia. I don't see that that makes India a security risk where western weapons are concerned.

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 16:55**

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 16:00
SW1 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 15:19 Absolutely the last thing you want to do it is start adding exquisite requirements on the platform, it’s what drives increased thru life costs, especially weapons integration costs.

Make the weapons do the hard bits and keep the platform “simple”
I was thinking more on the lines of

partner a wants combat radius of 1200 km
partner b wants combat radius of 1100 km
partner c wants combat radius of 1000 km

possible client a wants combat radius of 1300 km
possible client b wants combat radius of 1250 km
possible client c wants combat radius of 1200 km

then err on the side of designing for combat radius >1100 km.

Jake1992 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 14:06 I’m still not sure if India will be sold to as it is still up in the air whether they would leak the tech or not, with them standing on the fence with Russia and funding them by buying a sh**t ton of gas and oil.
India is non-aligned and the Indian nationalists (as per Indian government) whose views I read don't seem to care 2 hoots about what happens in Ukraine (although they would like to see US taken down a peg). Nor do they seem to care any hoots about what Europe thinks about them trading with Russia. I don't see that that makes India a security risk where western weapons are concerned.

The security risk from the wests stand point is with them sharing the tech of what would be our new main line fighter with the likes of Russia to suit there own needs, like you said India doesn’t give 2 hoots about us so once they’ve got the aircraft why would they care about screwing us over after.

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 17:15**

Jake1992 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 16:55
The security risk from the wests stand point is with them sharing the tech of what would be our new main line fighter with the likes of Russia to suit there own needs, like you said India doesn’t give 2 hoots about us so once they’ve got the aircraft why would they care about screwing us over after.

If they screw us over a 6G aircraft, they lose our co-operation. Our tech is way ahead of theirs. Why risk losing our co-operation when they have pretensions of building their own military aviation industry (with outside help)?

If the GCAP partners choose not to supply India, so be it. They can buy from the FCAS partners, if need be. I think they would supply.

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 17:22**

Think we would all be doing ourselves a favour if we just let them go with FCAS tbh ,suit them better as already have dealings with french fighters ,keep GCAP away from India

Posted: **05 Mar 2023, 17:26**

SW1 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 15:19 Absolutely the last thing you want to do it is start adding exquisite requirements on the platform, it’s what drives increased thru life costs, especially weapons integration costs.

Make the weapons do the hard bits and keep the platform “simple”

What?? So build a bunch more Hawker Hunters and put Meteor on them?

Dumbest comment of the week.

UK Defence Forum

Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)

Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)