BAe Tempest and other pre-GCAP studies

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.
 
It will be interesting to see if they do actually make anything of the cost saving/productivity increase techniques that they are talking about, or if it is just so much marketing hot air.

As was pointed out before, this isn't the first time that a new programme has been given life with promises of cost-saving business miracles attached.
 
given life with promises of cost-saving business miracles attached
Click to expand...

Quite.

The issue here is not the F-35 that has resulted*, but the design and cost thinking that made it seem possible that 'this time it will be different'.

Team Tempest need to avoid that. The new air frame/engine/lasers model at Farnborough does not fill me with hope of this, but some of the thinking around it does.

I am looking forward to hearing more about LANCA.

* So no anti-F-35 thread hijacking please!
 

Attachments

  • slide_6.jpg
    slide_6.jpg
    76.9 KB · Views: 571
  • JSF.jpg
    JSF.jpg
    8.3 KB · Views: 667
https://www.instagram.com/p/BnRwReoHmWF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=19u8s9tg8jsap
 
Which says that Tempest will be at the forefront of things for some time to come (rather than being a "flash in the pan" as some commentators have suggested).
 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131216w0001.htm

Armed Forces: Aircraft
Questions
Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total cost of the Typhoon project up to the end of 2012.[HL3805]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): The total expenditure on the Typhoon project to 31 March 2012, as published in the Major Projects Report (MPR) 2012, was ￡19.050 billion. This includes Typhoon Assessment, Demonstration, Manufacture and Support phase expenditure.

Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Typhoon airframes the United Kingdom had in its inventory on 31 December 2012.[HL3806]


Lord Astor of Hever: As at 31 December 2012 the Ministry of Defence had taken delivery of 108 Typhoon aircraft.
 
flateric said:
I wonder how much Eurofighter R&D figure was?
Click to expand...

Management of the Typhoon Project at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf says

" Development costs are currently estimated at £6.7 billion (107 per cent higher than the £3.2 billion originally approved) and production costs estimated at £13.5 billion (which is within the original approval level of £13.5 billion made in 1996). "

The report was published in March 2011.
 
Many thanks indeed. And proposed FCAS R&D figure I've seen is £10 bln. (where's my inflation calculator?)
 
These are UK-only Typhoon costs. Each nations' spending may be proportionate to their work-share, although on Tornado it proved impossible to work them out and the UK paid much more in some areas, e.g. on the engine.

Typhoon also suffered major increases due to delay and re-scoping of the project, which need to be stripped out before comparing to any notional FCAS.

Different accounting practices between countries, exchange rates etc. make real costs almost impossible to work out. At least the JSF uses a much clearer US system.
 
Typhoon development costs were estimated at Euros 18 billion ($20.3 billion). Source: The Industrial and Economic Benefits of Eurofighter Typhoon: Final Report, Prof. Keith Hartley, Centre for Defence Economics, University of York, 2006.

Given most of the costs were 2004 figures in the report, the relevant currency conversion GBP to Euros was 1.47, the total cost was roughly £12.2bn, so the UK paid 55.8% of the R&D cost (£6.7bn).
 
Anyone around Kleine Brogel AFB for a small walkaround?

https://twitter.com/ModelingDutchmn/status/1038008878687027201?s=19
 
As nobody took over during my holidays, I tried to incorporate some of the clues given by Jackonicko:

- The canopy is narrower

- The landing gear of the Tornado was used as pattern (drawing from http://greenairdesigns.com/ejcgallery/displayimage.php?album=57&pid=1744,
the front wheel actually is a bit bigger, thanks for the clue !
With regards to the landing gear, it is noticeable, I think, that for the Tornado, both, main and
nose landing gear retracts forward, whereas here, it could only retract backwards, juding the position
of the wheel well doors (actually more pointed). And the main gear legs ? Somehow sideways ? The wheel
well doors really are too small, but comparison with (really good !) photos brought no other result.

- Using the top view here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg333939.html#msg333939,
the inlets are a bit wider now, the tail fins remained in size and position, because of the same drawing and
the video of the "Roll out" (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335141.html#msg335141
which gave a very good side view.

- Tried to change the underside of the inlets, unsure about the result.

- The tail cone is a bit slimmer and more pointed now, you're right.

- About those six panels, I wasn't sure at first, too, but got an excellent picture ( thanks Flateric !), see below.
But ... that's a mock-up, and details like the landing gear, wheel well doors and others, to my opinion show quite
clearly, that this shouldn't be taken too literally. So, no need to discuss panel lines, I think ! ;)

- Let's see, maybe we actually get a walk-around ! Attached is the svg-file, too, so there's no need to start from scratch.
 

Attachments

  • Tempest_print.gif
    Tempest_print.gif
    286.2 KB · Views: 332
  • Tempest_Pre.svg
    134.2 KB · Views: 206
  • panels.jpg
    panels.jpg
    93.3 KB · Views: 285
Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335560.html#msg335560
 
Belgian tour
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180907_224829.jpg
    IMG_20180907_224829.jpg
    137.8 KB · Views: 981
  • IMG_20180907_224813.jpg
    IMG_20180907_224813.jpg
    371.7 KB · Views: 1,031
flateric said:
Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid, I need help here . :-[
My main error was, that the edges in the vertical plane shouldn't be shown just parallel to the
flight path. A clue, please, if I'm approaching the solution. Or soemone taking a photo directly
from below of that thing !
 

Attachments

  • inlet.jpg
    inlet.jpg
    182.1 KB · Views: 934
https://twitter.com/Stoonbrace/status/1038381715390124033
 

Attachments

  • DmkSp9MX0AEhQHB.jpg
    DmkSp9MX0AEhQHB.jpg
    583.6 KB · Views: 883
Hood said:
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
Click to expand...

The R&D and production costs for the UK bit of the Eurofighter program, including 160 airframes, the "Typhoon Future Capability Programme" (AKA "austere capability" ATG program) and project Centurion was 18189 million pounds according to the National Audit Office "Major Projects Report 2015" (since then the NAO has not publicly released the project summary sheets that described in detail the costs related to individual programs).
The £22.9 billion were estimates for the R&D and production of 232 airframes and the 37 billion pounds number was released in the NAO 2011 "Management of the Typhoon Project" document and included every penny spent with the Phoon fleet "by the time the aircraft leaves service".

Cheers
 
Jemiba said:
flateric said:
Jens - look at the bottom view at the inlet area...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid, I need help here . :-[
My main error was, that the edges in the vertical plane shouldn't be shown just parallel to the
flight path. A clue, please, if I'm approaching the solution. Or soemone taking a photo directly
from below of that thing !
Click to expand...

My guess is that it's because there is a change in the fuselage section bottom half at the intakes level. There is some added volume that makes like a bump. it's not visible from a profile view cause the intake outer lips mask it, but can be seen on the pictures posted by Flateric here :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30547.msg335560.html#msg335560

Here is my try at these pesky intakes, modified on your drawing.
 

Attachments

  • Tempest_print-mod100918.png
    Tempest_print-mod100918.png
    258.8 KB · Views: 759
  • Tempest_Pre-mod100918.svg
    81.5 KB · Views: 152
some more images from Kleine-Brogel, Belgium, 8-9 September found online
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1536708754335.jpg
    FB_IMG_1536708754335.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 172
  • FB_IMG_1536708312879.jpg
    FB_IMG_1536708312879.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 125
galgot said:
Here is my try at these pesky intakes, modified on your drawing.
Click to expand...

Many thanks ! Yes, that looks much more plausible. I've started a point-by-point attempt, but some points
just have to be guessed. And though I still didn't come to a conclusion, what I have so far, is much nearer to
your drawing, than to mine ... well, must admit, that on Sunday evening I threw in the towel. Maybe, I'll start
another attempt with cardboard, scissors and tape. :-\
 

Attachments

  • inlet.png
    inlet.png
    67.2 KB · Views: 141
Is there at least one photo ( not CGI) with top view so I could see wings? So far I am semi convinced:)
 
Only complete top views I know are CGIs (already posted here), moreover at an angle, but manageable enough to make a estimated scale-plan i think.
Plus the small infographics from BAe presentation, hoping they show an accurate plan view.
Pictures of the mockup showing the top of the wings are all stretch cause taken inside at wide angle, difficult to get an accurate shape from these
Unless someone use a drone to make picts from above the mockup when its outside, difficult to have a good overall plan view of the mockup.
 

Attachments

  • index.jpg
    index.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 123
  • index-1.jpg
    index-1.jpg
    212.8 KB · Views: 151
  • index-3.jpg
    index-3.jpg
    6.5 KB · Views: 134
  • index-2.jpg
    index-2.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 117
1). I highly doubt that renderings closely match mockup (and even each other)
2). Top view from infographics is obviously a crap.

Interesting how low interest (judging from amount of public photos) Tempest mockup has attracted at BAFD'18 (unfortunately)...
 
would like to believe Tempest has that much internal payload. also has vertical surfaces :(
 
another appearance of Tempest mockup went almost unnoticed by community at Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow, IWM Duxford, 22-23 Septemper, 2018
 

Attachments

  • 42257230_2302582229973307_7670453124095541248_o.jpg
    42257230_2302582229973307_7670453124095541248_o.jpg
    673.7 KB · Views: 171
  • 42231046_1824767170976788_488441882972520448_n.jpg
    42231046_1824767170976788_488441882972520448_n.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 154
...
 

Attachments

  • 44734589672_5b871b5a08_o.jpg
    44734589672_5b871b5a08_o.jpg
    487.3 KB · Views: 752
  • 29848072387_8ec83acbdc_o.jpg
    29848072387_8ec83acbdc_o.jpg
    455.8 KB · Views: 739
mrmalaya said:
No propeller, so no interest I assume ;D
Click to expand...

It was parked outside but heavy rain most of the weekend so many people stayed inside the museum. I saw quite a few soggy pictures of it, but nothing new coming out.

@litzj

Yes, at Farnborough the MOD signed a contract for £2bn study with BAES, RR, Leonardo MW and MBDA.
 
definitely a video screenshot but where's original video?
 

Attachments

  • c38b6bce90b6493e8341787e43e51b99.jpeg
    c38b6bce90b6493e8341787e43e51b99.jpeg
    76.6 KB · Views: 616
https://twitter.com/AirForceDays/status/1038866785267802112
 

Attachments

  • DmrLySZXgAEqNQk.jpg
    DmrLySZXgAEqNQk.jpg
    305.2 KB · Views: 627
http://aviationweek.com/defense/dragonfire-laser-could-inform-next-british-fighter-weapon?elqTrackId=559f96f354d94e2cb04a665b596a4e04&elq=7ab5903004934b05af047c9b5df67450&elqaid=16720&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=14285&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=16720&utm_medium=email&elq2=7ab5903004934b05af047c9b5df67450

During 2019, British industry will demonstrate a directed-energy laser weapon for potential use on land and sea.

But the team behind the UK’s Dragonfire industry consortium developing the weapon is also beginning to consider how such a weapon could be mounted onto a future combat aircraft.

Dragonfire will demonstrate a fiber laser with a 50 kW output in 2019 tests.

Laser will put a focused beam the size of an English penny 5 km away.

The UK’s vision for a future combat aircraft—like that shown in mockup form at the Farnborough Air Show in July (AW&ST July 23-Aug. 19, p. 38) —envisions the integration of such a weapon, not only for self-defense, but also in target identification and visual range combat.
Click to expand...
 
https://mainichi.jp/articles/20181004/k00/00m/010/192000c.amp?

https://r.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO36698460Z11C18A0EA3000

Short version: Japan has no further interest in Tempest due to US sensetivities. F-22 restart or 'all Japan dream team'. Former is cheaper.
 
Erm... That's not what I read?

The Ministry of Defense has strengthened its policy to develop a successor to the Air Self Defense Force's F2 fighter aircraft. Government officials revealed. Three U.S. and U.S. companies had suggested the introduction of capacity enhancement type of existing models, but judged that they do not meet the requirements of Japan side in view of cost and performance. We will include development policy in the next medium-term defense buildup plan to be formulated at the end of the year, with the aim of joint development with foreign countries, we will also advance Japan's own technology development with engines and others. [Akiyama Shinichi]


　The air force currently owns 92 F2, but it has exceeded its useful life since the 2030s. Because development of fighter aircraft takes more than ten years, the Ministry of Defense has been considering three proposals: (1) international joint development (2) domestic development (3) purchasing capacity enhancement of existing machines. We thought that defines the implementation strategy of the successor to the prospect of the end of the year now.

　In FY2006 - FY 2006, we asked domestic and overseas companies, the U.S. and U.S. governments to provide information on new development of fighter aircraft and renovation of existing machines three times in total. Until this July, Lockheed Martin Company, F 22, Boeing Company F 15, British BAE Corp. had made refurbishment improvements based on existing machines of Eurofighter Typhoon. However, the renovation of the F22 with state-of-the-art stealth performance is costly and it says "There was no clear explanation about the prospect of the US government's export ban measures to be lifted" (executive in the Ministry of Defense). For the other two plans, the performance of the aircraft will not reach the level required by the Japanese side, and the Ministry of Defense will not wait to adopt the capacity enhancement type of existing machines.

　However, it is difficult to newly develop a fighter aircraft that costs a budget of several trillion yen. In defense industrial groups and the LDP who want to maintain the domestic production and maintenance infrastructure, there is a strong voice to propose domestic development, but in that case the total development costs will be borne by Japan. Japanese companies lacking development experience of fighter aircraft are living anxiety in terms of technology.

　The Ministry of Defense conducted a technical research on next-generation fighter aircraft such as engines and electronic systems over about 190 billion yen in FY09 - 2006, but at the stage where the developed domestically produced engine is still confirming basic performance, flight experiment It is not standing by me.

　For this reason, the government is seeking to share development costs with international co-development with Britain and the German Federation and France, which are considering developing fighter aircraft. However, there is a risk that it will be difficult for co-development to adjust the timing, required performance, share of development field, etc. Meanwhile, the allies' United States has just begun full-scale operation of state-of-the-art F35 stealth fighter aircraft, and the development plan for the next model is not materialized. At the end of the year, the Ministry of Defense has decided to set up a new framework of new development, postponing the final decision on joint development or domestic development, and there are plans to advance technology development and negotiations with foreign countries.
Click to expand...
 
Got it from Twitter. Phone does not translate pages.

Also a pain to link this site to Twitter. Here is my attempt!


https://twitter.com/x/status/1054851088766115846
View: https://twitter.com/FacelessManTwit/status/1054851088766115846?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


EDIT: Having got back on a laptop I agree with Red Admiral's can kicking comment, although the Nikkei article is mostly behind a pay wall and that is the one cited on Twitter as mentioning Tempest.

Although Google Translate can make things a little confusing, its translation of "Japanese companies lacking development experience of fighter aircraft are living anxiety in terms of technology" is about the most honest thing that anyone can say about all these fighter projects!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's been much leaking from various people in Japan with varying agendas so the latest position changes week by week. But the underlying truth is that no decision has been made. If anything this latest just seems to be kicking in the can down the road another year.

One of the recent stories was that F-22 still under export controls, with no assurances they'd change - hence not an option. But there's some serious geopolitics in this decision.
 
Yes, it reads to me that the only option that's off the table is any warmed-over 4th gen fighter. And that seems a reasonable assumption given the 2030s timeframe.
Japan are understandably hesitant about a multi-national development programme, that is something fairly alien to them. Most of their military aircraft programmes have been solo efforts or licence-produced US types.
It feels to me that the US option is still the most favoured but obviously it depends on political factors relating to exporting technologies, which to me seems nonsensical given the wide participation in the F-35 programme.
Tempest is still a possibility but perhaps Japan is right to be sceptical. We still don't really know what the end result of Tempest will be, an interceptor first and foremost or a swing-role type. I think Japan is probably not interested in the air-ground capabilities that might be on offer.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom