BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

mrmalaya said:

That certainly adds some context.

The mock-up we have been shown is perhaps the design which is most eye-catching and yet balances impact with lower risk (I can't imagine what the manned Taranis would have done to the "internet").

The 3rd design with the big wing, puts me in mind of this big wing F35 study:

Click to expand...

Nice find mrmalaya, It makes me wonder why Lockheed never went with a big delta wing for the F-35 in the first place, it would have helped with the range issue.

FighterJock said:

Nice find mrmalaya, It makes me wonder why Lockheed never went with a big delta wing for the F-35 in the first place, it would have helped with the range issue.

Click to expand...

Big wing equals lots of mass, which is bad for STOVL.

Interesting range of shapes in that AFM picture.

mrmalaya said:

the manned Taranis

Click to expand...

This was described by Michael Christie (BAE Systems Strategy Director for Air) as a single-engined lightweight fighter optimised to operate in the air policing role in lower-threat environments.

mrmalaya said:

Team Tempest

Click to expand...

Team Tempest is the name of the RAF RCO led consortium responsible for the FCAS-TI series of technology demonstrations.

The conceptual model shown at Fairford and Farnborough does not have a name.

There is, as yet, no Tempest.

Jackonicko said:

The conceptual model shown at Fairford and Farnborough does not have a name.
There is, as yet, no Tempest.

Click to expand...

Then this is BS? (well, I understand that Team Tempest =/= concept name, but whatever)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWATZoGyLq0&feature=youtu.be&t=228

UPD
yes, you are right - nowhere at the BAE, RR or MoD site I see Tempest as a fighter name

It's certainly a big hint as to what people think the new fighter should be called, when it's eventually defined and designed, but the concept shown at Fairford and Farnborough is a VERY long way from being the RAF's next fighter. That aircraft could still look VERY different - as discussed on the Tempest thread.

Jackonicko- thanks for the added detail. So did they conclude the Taranis type design would be best suited for air policing and does that mean it would be capable of flying fast enough to intercept other aircraft (with or without a pilot on board)?

Certainly a project that left plenty of questions in its wake.

In fairness to myself there, I was questioning what to call the project within minutes of the launch and have since stopped calling the aircraft Tempest.

Not that there is anything better to call it, and there are still plenty of industry types calling it Tempest -if only as a form of shorthand.

I understand why Jackonicko needs to be more accurate in the reporting though.

Team Tempest (BAE Systems, Leonardo, MBDA and Rolls-Royce) was formed around the time of the MoD industry day on 13th March 2018. Flightglobal reported this was work on concepts for a low-cost unmanned combat air system demonstrator alongside the Anglo-French UCAV efforts.
The Aerosociety article posted in the LANCA thread splits out Team Tempest's involvement as broader FCAS concepts and the Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) RFI issued around the same time for LANCA is a ‘Loyal Wingman’ low-cost UCAV as a separate but "potential part of the future combat air system.”
Then in July the Tempest is unveiled at Farnborough as a potential collaborative sixth-gen fighter platform, with Team Tempest seemingly behind it.

From my analysis it seems like the initial Flightglobal article was hinting at LANCA but whether Team Tempest is actively involved in LANCA is open to question, given the involvement of RCO and restriction to UK companies with involvement from university research partners etc., which seems to indicate a programme similar in scope and scale to MAGMA.
The quotes in the Aerosociety article by Air Vice Marshall Simon Rochelle clearly states Team Tempest involvement is to look at FCAS concepts. Plus there is still the Anglo-French programme of which little has been said, but presumably is still rumbling along, perhaps at slow pace.

Therefore I think we can discount that Team Tempest is leading LANCA at this stage, though they may well enter a proposal bid. Instead they are looking at the bigger hardware. FCAS is going to be a manned platform, a sixth-generation aircraft. Whatever thoughts might have led to Taranis have probably been swept aside by the European clamour for new fighters to replace Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen. The potential market and collaborations are simply too great to miss. Strike UCAVs have little or no export market (political implications too) so its natural a fighter platform is seen as a cash generator. This is where the bulk of the governments R&D spending will go.

Where does that leave LANCA? A low-cost demonstrator to add to the others in a dusty hangar? I doubt the MoD can contribute to a fighter programme and develop a homegrown UCAV at the same time but it makes a good case to retain a home industry by developing something cheaper at home to give FCAS a full national component. LANCA makes no sense if the MoD wants to wait until 2040 when FCAS is ready. My hunch is that LANCA might reach fruition sooner, perhaps a loyal wingman for F-35? France and Germany probably face the same problem. Making the fighter optionally manned offers a solution but its hardly the low-cost expendable strike platform that LANCA is aiming towards. Taranis and Neuron are similar high-end options that might be feasible within the shorter term (potentially ready before the fighter platform is) but the appetite seems to have shifted, perhaps the defence staffs are interested but the aerospace industry seems to be pushing fighters to any government that will listen (Airbus especially with Enders telling politicians not to interfere - shut up and open the cheque book).

I think the similarity to Taranis in planform was largely coincidental. It seemed to incorporate a single vertical tail and would, I'm sure, have an afterburning engine, so I suspect it would be both fast and agile. Its small size would, however, mean limited endurance, and possibly limited combat persistance.

Hood,

Like so many people, you're making the mistake of assuming that FCAS is a single platform. It isn't. Everyone who has got up and talked about it recognises that it will be a system of systems.

FCAS is not, in other words:

"going to be a manned platform, a sixth-generation aircraft."

Click to expand...

FCAS will be much more than a manned platform. I don't think the Sixth generation tag is remotely useful, incidentally.

It's going to be a system of systems - just one element of which will be a manned platform. That means that it is absolutely 100% the plan to:

"contribute to a fighter programme and develop a homegrown UCAV at the same time."

Click to expand...

There is no way that FCAS will not include other platforms - including a 'loyal wingman' kind of vehicle, smaller swarming UAVs, etc. I'd be astonished if LANCA (as a core component of the Future Combat Air System) isn't being managed by Team Tempest (and the RCO in particular) even if the contract for building it eventually goes outside the core companies who CURRENTLY comprise the Tempest team.

Quite the range of concepts. A bit like the pre-ATF studies that ranged from 12,000 lb to ~100,000 lb. Presumably a consideration of balancing mass and platform capability, with a super-LO concept for good measure.

The little one on the left looks like a neo-Gnat for air policing and light attack - think of an O/A-X that's actually useful for something else.

Jackonicko said:

It's certainly a big hint as to what people think the new fighter should be called, when it's eventually defined and designed

Click to expand...

But...well

Jackonicko,
You misread me. Of course FCAS will be a system with several component parts, that is plainly obvious. But the core platform will be a manned fighter/strike aircraft, that is the node of the airborne system and that is where the industry focus is. Air Vice Marshal Rochelle was quoted as saying of FCAS says: “It’s a platform within a systems of systems which is important in the future... There’s always a system within a system. The question for us is: how far do we go further forward in the conceptual ideas and what is the next natural evolution of those concepts?”. Whatever the Tempest mockup eventually emerges at will be with platform around which FCAS will sit.

As Gavin Williamson said "Team Tempest's activities will span work across 50-60 national demonstrations, covering aspects such as low-observability, advanced sensors, propulsion and future cockpit design, contained within an existing FCAS technology initiative." That's a lot of R&D work and they can't do everything, so it makes sense to bring in smaller partners for particular demonstrator models. I agree it makes sense for Team Tempest to have an oversight of all the technical aspects.

FCAS started in 2011 to identify and research unmanned technologies. In 2014 under the Lancaster House talks it became an Anglo-French programme, the government allocating £120M of its £200M unmanned research budget for the joint study phase designed to build on experience with Taranis and Neuron (£80M also went to further work on both). In March 2016 £1.54 billion was committed to a full scale demonstrator programme due to start at the end of 2017, with a first flight planned for 2025 and an operational system during the 2030s. But the full scale demonstrator never happened for whatever reason and Dassault by early 2018 were looking at Airbus' fighter programme instead.

It seems to me to be no coincidence that as France and Germany began studying a manned Eurofighter/Rafale replacement for the 2040s and BAE Systems began to look at its diminishing production line at Warton, that suddenly FCAS stopped being a purely unmanned technology demonstrator but has grown to encompass a manned Eurofighter replacement as well, including technologies required for future cockpits etc. FCAS has now also absorbed Rolls-Royce's future engine work which their chief engineer for future defence programmes Conrad Banks in Februrary 2018 stated was for futuristic programmes in general rather than FCAS-specific work.
In March 2018 Team Tempest was formed to look into FCAS concept, some 7 years after FCAS began, indicating whatever original concepts there were have been reviewed and revised. In July Flightglobal revealed BAE Systems had received a single-source award with 12 month contract for unspecified FCAS work, we can only conjecture what that might be.

FCAS still seems quite undefined, or at least everyone is holding their cards to their chest. Its clear that as it has evolved FCAS has had various national and multinational threads. If the UK does join one of the European programmes on offer its highly likely that the scope of FCAS will change again.

Funny how Tempest's planform reminds me of an old AVPRO concept. Give or take a few small differences.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1492.0.html

Good memory!

I still can't find the image I was thinking Tempest reminded me of, when this all kicked off. It was definitely a big fast US concept rather than something from AVPRO or BAE.

May I draw your attention to:

https://www.facebook.com/aerospaceanalysis/posts/981650792041079

flateric said:

Good starting point for sizing

Click to expand...

Thats around BAE Chalet area at RAF Fairford for RIAT 2018 weekend before Farnborough not Cosford. Recognise Fairford's control tower in the background and the building next to it. Ive been attending the show for the last 21 years..

cheers

RavenOne, bunch of thanks for clarification.

I think the confusion arose because Cosford personnel erected it, moved it and possibly guarded it at Fairford

Jackonicko said:

I think the confusion arose because Cosford personnel erected it, moved it and possibly guarded it at Fairford

Click to expand...

Huh ? They’re RAF Personnel how can you tell what unit or basing ? They be RAFP - Provost or RAF Regiment so can be from any unit in the UK. They be augmented with help from MoD police
Cheers

RavenOne said:

how can you tell what unit or basing ?

Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1zXOXAZKe0&t=16s

RavenOne said:

Jackonicko said:

I think the confusion arose because Cosford personnel erected it, moved it and possibly guarded it at Fairford

Click to expand...

Huh ? They’re RAF Personnel how can you tell what unit or basing ? They be RAFP - Provost or RAF Regiment so can be from any unit in the UK. They be augmented with help from MoD police
Cheers

Click to expand...

I think that they wore passes/name badges that had Cosford on them, and some of them said they were from Cosford.

Thus the more literate could tell where they were from....

Any ideas of Tempest inlet aerodynamics? It seems to be a mix of DSI and something else as there's some angled horizontal slat under the intake

To me, from above it appears that the swept-forward section meets the chine and this is mirrored at the bottom, but the nose fuselage area under the chine is concave is cross-section, meaning that the inlet is wider immediately under and at the bottom. The lower inlet lip gains its width by having a W-shaped plan when you look at them as a pair. I think that this view shows it - notice the shadow under the chine. The ramp or bump within the inlet seems similar to that in the F-35 and the area shielded by the red panel is actually considerable smaller that the inlet area and is at an angle that further reduces its apparent size (your third image shows how it is at an angle).

Article from the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/5d3bff26-ac55-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c

There is a pay wall, but by going via the FT's tweet about it @FinancialTimes I could get access.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/what-is-the-purpose-of-tempest/

The HoC paper referenced in UKDJ article:

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8391

Harrier said:

Article from the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/5d3bff26-ac55-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c

There is a pay wall, but by going via the FT's tweet about it @FinancialTimes I could get access.

Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/FT/status/1036449303148027904
And here's a link to the actual tweet, if you don't like sifting through 100 tweets to find the right one.

Thanks totoro. I lost the tweet and could not find it again (there are several others), not helped by the Financial Times having two Twitter accounts!

The HoC paper makes the point that Tempest is not the aircraft name. Perhaps mods can change the thread name to reflect this:"...fighter technology programme"?

Williamson several times call it Tempest in his speech, Williamson and Bebb call it Tempest in numerous interviews, Team Taranis was in charge of Taranis, more - if it was not original intention to call a final FCAS system manned component a Tempest, now that name is stick to it forever in mass media and public opinion.

https://youtu.be/JrhCHwuDARc

There are at least one general election before the 2025 final investment decision, with another two until the fighter enters service in 2035.
The average Chancellor of the Exchequer last about 8-10 years in post and Secretary of State for Defence serves about 3 years, so by 2025 its likely both posts will be filled by new people. So between now and 2035 that's two chancellors and five Secretaries of State and possibly two changes of government before the IOC date and probably at least three defence reviews. The political dimensions to success are slim unless the project can be tied into a multinational effort.

Add to this, FCAS has been running since 2011 and there's been nothing to show for it, except now the UCAV aspect has moved from being the prime aspect to an integral, but secondary, part. Has the Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative (FCAS TI) replaced the original FCAS or still part of the wider concept?
These briefing reports still seem to show industry is the driving force rather than the MOD.

Its worrying that the government doesn't seem to know what the status of the Anglo-French FCAS programme is. Although both nations wanted to develop an UCAV strike platform, both have now decided to put their efforts towards manned fighters. So there is still ground for cooperation on the same basis and scope to change the demonstrator programme to a manned platform. The harsh reality is that Brexit whether we like it or not has rather overshadowed the Lancaster House agreements made by the Cameron-Hollande governments.

FCAS acronym AFAIR first has appeared in ETAP documents back in 2001. Then FCAS would be EU SoS in post-2020 world.
But already in 2009 Dassault's Trappier described FCAS/SCAF as national program to replace Rafale after 2030 - and I doubt that he was talking of UK-FR FCAS then.
Now everyone has its own FCAS...from UK to Sweden.

Yes I have to say that the name Tempest was clearly chosen to be evocative of a fighter, and whether or not it refers solely to an aircraft, the programme we have at the moment is called Tempest.

Actually the programme is FCAS-TI. The team running it is called Team Tempest. As yet there is no aircraft, only an aspiration for one.

The Combat Air Strategy is pretty clear what is going on. Team Tempest is a trial of a new way of doing things that is hoped to give the UK a lead in whatever collaborative aircraft/system results. If it does not work other ways will be tried:

26. Changing behaviours in industry and
Government is vital to achieving these
objectives. These include new, collaborative
ways of working which will align incentives,
minimise transactional costs and ensure all
sides are held to account for performance.
The delivery of the Future Combat Air System
Technology Initiative is being managed
through a pilot project called ‘Team Tempest’.
This innovative Government-Industry
partnership is being used as a catalyst and
test bed for these changes.

27. The performance of Team Tempest and
wider industry is key to demonstrating that
Government and industry can achieve the
necessary capability and behavioural change.
Our assessment of this performance will be
fundamental to programme decisions in 2020.
Success will prove that the UK is in a strong
position to lead in delivering affordable next
generation capability. Alternative options and
greater flexibility in our national requirements
will have to be considered if performance does
not meet expectations.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725600/CombatAirStrategy_Lowres.pdf

I stand corrected.

At some point we have to admit that this programme is about developing an aircraft and associated systems. I understand that the official title for something is FCAS related, but Tempest is being used as shorthand for the effort.

Whilst Tempest is not and may never be lurking in a hanger, the whole thing is about putting a name to an effort that distinguishes it from everybody else's FCAS.

The title of the thread is still relevant.

I wonder how much Eurofighter R&D figure was?

Terrific artwork by both Jemiba & PaulM. Thank you.

That's a good question Flateric. Having four funding partners seems to have widened the accounts and I've never seen a reliable single estimate for the whole programme. I suppose the work on ACA and EAP should be included as well.

The best figures, patchy at best, I could find on R&D and production costs is; the UK has spent £22.9 billion already and perhaps as much as £37 billion by completion. Germany had spent €21.3 billion by 2004 (around €120 million unit cost, lately reduced to €90 mil), the Spanish have paid €11.7 billion (roughly resulting in €160 million per airframe).
So the £2 billion for FCAS-TI and the £1.54 billion committed to the full scale Anglo-French demonstrator programme seems fairly small scale by comparison.